know this is a frequent debate here on CB. A lot of Celtics fans expect us to miss out on Fultz - reasonably so considering our abysmal luck in the lottery. Having to Choose between Tatum and Jackson is a distinct possibility, and could possibly end up being one of the toughest decisions of Danny's tenure as Bostons GM.
Most who have taken the pro-Tatum stance point out that the Celtics have enough gritty, hard nosed, fiery players, and so that Jackson is redundant on this team. I don't necessarily agree with that opinion as I don't believe there's ever too many of those types of players you could add to your team. However, I do tend to agree with those pro-tatum'ers who say that the Celtics need a player with more offensive potential, given that our only real offesnive fire power is coming from out 5"9 PG right now.
Let's look at the case for Tatum over Jackson...
-Is much better at creating off the dribble
-ability to create separation from defenders is far better than Jacksons
-a whole year younger
-wider frame gives him more potential to play the NBA stretch 4
-Better mid range game
-more fluid looking jumpshot
-Jackson shows an inability to control his temper which leads to T's and can exhibit poor body language at times. Off the court issues.
Now let's look at the case for Jackson over Tatum..
-more tenacious defender/competitor
-pure basketball instincts show, as he is a better ball handler/playmaker for his team mates
-isn't as reliant on iso's as Tatum. More useful in a team ball dynamic.
-more of an explosive leaped than Tatum
-likes to guard the best player on the floor, something Tatum shys away from
-his team was better
At this stage it's fair to say they are equal 3 point shooters/rebounders..
Who ya got?