For all the Josh Jackson supporters....

[PickNRoll]

Because you'd rather draft a kid with the mental makeup of Paul Pierce than Gilbert Arenas or Nick Young.  Go watch 10-15 interviews from both kids.

[Tr1boy]

Presumably you answer the scoring questions in other areas.

Simple as that. It's not hard to figure out how a good basketball player helps your team. Jackson is very athletic, he's a versatile defender, he has a very high basketball iq, and if he develops a jumper(unlikely) he's a star.

Versatile wings is a good place to have multiple guys. Jaylen projects as a better scorer and shooter, Jackson should be better at everything else.

I wouldn't mind Tatum either. Preferred fultz but dont think this trade is nearly as apocalyptic as many are making it out to be.

I admit, I really wanted Fultz, but since that is behind us now I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the love for Jackson. 

When we REALLY need a bucket, as proven in the playoffs, how does he help?  Smart, Rozier, Brown, Crowder and even Bradley have the same intangibles and traits but none could be consistently depended on to stop a scoring drought.  He seems to project as a taller Smart, who really is a nonstarter, role player.

Jackson is unlikely to be the James harden that we though Fultz could be.If you want to be really sad that we didn't draft Fultz then keep fixating on that. Until then, this isn't a serious discussion.

Jackson is much more explosive than Smart so he should be a better scorer and then there's the off chance he develops a jumper.

We obviously need more scorers which is a part of the reason a lot of people think we could be eying Jayson tatum which would be a nice pickup and he couls definitely become a go to scorer. You could also address scoring with free agency with Gordon's hayward or maybe next year moving our picks for a star scorer. Also, it's way too early to rule brown out as becoming a go to option. He was very raw out of Cal and has already developed a lot.

What?!?

I already stated "It's behind us now".  I'm not trying to make this about Fultz, just wanted to quickly state why I felt he should have been the pick.

Not a serious discussion?

The whole purpose for this post is to hear the Pro-Jackson argument.  One u clearly can't state obviously. 

I'm still waiting for u to answer the main question...Why do u want Jackson?

Why do we want Jackson? Because he projects as a borderline elite defender who is versatile. He has terrific athleticism and a great bball on both sides of the ball and is a terrific passer. That's why we want Josh Jackson. Because he projects as a versatile 2 way player who can cover 4 positions?

Jackson doesnt answer the go to ISO scorer question. He doesn't. that doesn't mean he can't help the team or be a good addition or even become a better player than markelle Fultz.

Plenty of people have answered this question throughout the board over the last 2 days and if you still can't understand it then you are clearly fixated on Markellw Filtz and the fact that we could have had a guy who projects as a great scorer. There are other parts to the game of basketball and picking for need is dumb.

See you did it.  You answered the question.  You want Jackson because he's a taller, more athletic Marcus Smart.

Thanks

Until you see Jackson play in green , I doubt yout can be swayed

Stay tuned

[Beat LA]

Why do u want him?

In all seriousness, if our biggest flaw is scoring and offensive production with and without IT on the floor, how does he help?

If u look at his shot chart, it's not encouraging.

http://nbadraft.theringer.com/?list=kevin

All I've been hearing about is.....

Defense, high motor, hustler, dirt dog, "winning mentality" (whatever that means), intangibles, etc.

None of these traits helps us score when we desperately need a bucket.  His "great" defense only means the Cavs and GSW destroy us by 15-20 pts instead of 20-30. 

Just wondering why we need another 6'8" Marcus Smart when we already have a 6'7" one already (Jaylen)?

What if Fultz turns out to be Jamal Crawford and Jackson Draymond Green? Who would you rather have?

You keep yearning for scoring help... Wanting to fill a need...like drafting based on positional need...

But the answer is , this team needs help everywhere still. Celts lost to the Cavs also because the defense was not good enough

What if Fultz turns out to be Brandon Roy and Josh Jackson Ron Artest, who would you rather have?

While I would never want the artist formerly known as Ron Artest, are we talking about the same Brandon Roy who really was only able to play for 3-4 seasons, because that's hardly ideal, either, imo .

[Sketch5]

Well if you're trying to fill a need in scoring, according to these charts we should be taking Ball or Monk over Fultz.

Fultz has a better mid range game, but Jackson gets all the way more and shoots it better. Fultz shoots it better from 3 from straight on and to the left, but is in the red(Jackson has nothing in the red, close, but nothing in the red) on the right side. Jackson is pretty consistent all around the 3 point line, and him being knocked as a bad 3pt shooter, thats promising. It's also harder to guard a guy who can shoot if from every spot consistently. If Fultz can't fix that right side 3pt shot, teams will push him to it.

It's surprising how few shots Ball shot from mid range, I mean I heard he didn't take many, but man! This could also be the case that he finds teammates when he gets in these areas. Thing is, he shoots really well, so there could be promise of his mid range game in the pick and roll. And he took WAY more threes  than Fultz, took less from right under the hoop than both Fultz and Jackson. Ball shot Almost 76% to Fultz 54% and Jacksons 62, almost 63%.

Don't be surprised if DA keeps the pick and he's there, they take Ball. He looks like a Stevens kind of kid.

[Ilikesports17]

Presumably you answer the scoring questions in other areas.

Simple as that. It's not hard to figure out how a good basketball player helps your team. Jackson is very athletic, he's a versatile defender, he has a very high basketball iq, and if he develops a jumper(unlikely) he's a star.

Versatile wings is a good place to have multiple guys. Jaylen projects as a better scorer and shooter, Jackson should be better at everything else.

I wouldn't mind Tatum either. Preferred fultz but dont think this trade is nearly as apocalyptic as many are making it out to be.

I admit, I really wanted Fultz, but since that is behind us now I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the love for Jackson. 

When we REALLY need a bucket, as proven in the playoffs, how does he help?  Smart, Rozier, Brown, Crowder and even Bradley have the same intangibles and traits but none could be consistently depended on to stop a scoring drought.  He seems to project as a taller Smart, who really is a nonstarter, role player.

Jackson is unlikely to be the James harden that we though Fultz could be.If you want to be really sad that we didn't draft Fultz then keep fixating on that. Until then, this isn't a serious discussion.

Jackson is much more explosive than Smart so he should be a better scorer and then there's the off chance he develops a jumper.

We obviously need more scorers which is a part of the reason a lot of people think we could be eying Jayson tatum which would be a nice pickup and he couls definitely become a go to scorer. You could also address scoring with free agency with Gordon's hayward or maybe next year moving our picks for a star scorer. Also, it's way too early to rule brown out as becoming a go to option. He was very raw out of Cal and has already developed a lot.

What?!?

I already stated "It's behind us now".  I'm not trying to make this about Fultz, just wanted to quickly state why I felt he should have been the pick.

Not a serious discussion?

The whole purpose for this post is to hear the Pro-Jackson argument.  One u clearly can't state obviously. 

I'm still waiting for u to answer the main question...Why do u want Jackson?

Why do we want Jackson? Because he projects as a borderline elite defender who is versatile. He has terrific athleticism and a great bball on both sides of the ball and is a terrific passer. That's why we want Josh Jackson. Because he projects as a versatile 2 way player who can cover 4 positions?

Jackson doesnt answer the go to ISO scorer question. He doesn't. that doesn't mean he can't help the team or be a good addition or even become a better player than markelle Fultz.

Plenty of people have answered this question throughout the board over the last 2 days and if you still can't understand it then you are clearly fixated on Markellw Filtz and the fact that we could have had a guy who projects as a great scorer. There are other parts to the game of basketball and picking for need is dumb.

See you did it.  You answered the question.  You want Jackson because he's a taller, more athletic Marcus Smart.

Thanks

I'm not sure Jackson is quote the natural defender marcus is, but isn't a 6'8" explosive Marcus Smart pretty Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ing good?

[Celtics18]

Based on what I've seen, Josh Jackson has big time offensive potential.  He is explosive off the bounce.  He's got nice body control and the ability to get to the cup and finish.  His passing and vision are top notch.

I don't think he's a finished product, and I believe that if he'd had the ball in his hands more at Kansas, he would have looked even more impressive offensively. 

I also love his cutting off the ball game, and his ability to hit the offensive glass. 

He's got fantastic footwork and anticipation defensively.  To me he's been the best prospect in this draft class.  I've felt that way since long before this weekend's shake up.

I don't think he's a sure thing, but I'd roll the dice on him over any of these other guys.

[Ilikesports17]

I just want to touch on the Jackson isn't a good shooter issue.

Do you know how many players currently on the Celtics had a better college career 3-point shooting percentage than Josh Jackson had?  Only one (Demetrius Jackson). IT was lower for his career and every single season.  As was Crowder.  And Smart.  And Rozier.  And Bradley.  And Brown.  And Horford.  Olynyk had one season when he shot better, but it was on only 27 attempts (he attempted fewer threes in three seasons than Jackson did last year), and finished with a much lower career percentage.

Not all of the players listed above are terrific shooters (Mr. Smart and Mr. Rozier most notably.)  But many are.  And they were all worse in college from 3 than Jackson.  I have no idea where he'll end up as a shooter in the NBA, but it's far from written in stone that he'll be a liability.  Everyone focuses on Smart's lack of shooting development in the pros, but IT, AB, Crowder, Brown, Olynyk, and Horford have all become much better shooters at the NBA level, and they were all starting from a lower baseline than Jackson (and higher than Smart.)

Hard to read to much into that 3 pt %. Jackson only took 90 3s so the number is really susceptible to a hot streak. His horrible pre college 3% (on just 42 attempts he shot like 28%) combined with his awful ft% and his disgusting form suggest he is a bad shooter.

[gouki88]

Presumably you answer the scoring questions in other areas.

Simple as that. It's not hard to figure out how a good basketball player helps your team. Jackson is very athletic, he's a versatile defender, he has a very high basketball iq, and if he develops a jumper(unlikely) he's a star.

Versatile wings is a good place to have multiple guys. Jaylen projects as a better scorer and shooter, Jackson should be better at everything else.

I wouldn't mind Tatum either. Preferred fultz but dont think this trade is nearly as apocalyptic as many are making it out to be.

I admit, I really wanted Fultz, but since that is behind us now I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the love for Jackson. 

When we REALLY need a bucket, as proven in the playoffs, how does he help?  Smart, Rozier, Brown, Crowder and even Bradley have the same intangibles and traits but none could be consistently depended on to stop a scoring drought.  He seems to project as a taller Smart, who really is a nonstarter, role player.

Jackson is unlikely to be the James harden that we though Fultz could be.If you want to be really sad that we didn't draft Fultz then keep fixating on that. Until then, this isn't a serious discussion.

Jackson is much more explosive than Smart so he should be a better scorer and then there's the off chance he develops a jumper.

We obviously need more scorers which is a part of the reason a lot of people think we could be eying Jayson tatum which would be a nice pickup and he couls definitely become a go to scorer. You could also address scoring with free agency with Gordon's hayward or maybe next year moving our picks for a star scorer. Also, it's way too early to rule brown out as becoming a go to option. He was very raw out of Cal and has already developed a lot.

What?!?

I already stated "It's behind us now".  I'm not trying to make this about Fultz, just wanted to quickly state why I felt he should have been the pick.

Not a serious discussion?

The whole purpose for this post is to hear the Pro-Jackson argument.  One u clearly can't state obviously. 

I'm still waiting for u to answer the main question...Why do u want Jackson?

Why do we want Jackson? Because he projects as a borderline elite defender who is versatile. He has terrific athleticism and a great bball on both sides of the ball and is a terrific passer. That's why we want Josh Jackson. Because he projects as a versatile 2 way player who can cover 4 positions?

Jackson doesnt answer the go to ISO scorer question. He doesn't. that doesn't mean he can't help the team or be a good addition or even become a better player than markelle Fultz.

Plenty of people have answered this question throughout the board over the last 2 days and if you still can't understand it then you are clearly fixated on Markellw Filtz and the fact that we could have had a guy who projects as a great scorer. There are other parts to the game of basketball and picking for need is dumb.

See you did it.  You answered the question.  You want Jackson because he's a taller, more athletic Marcus Smart.

Thanks

I'm not sure Jackson is quote the natural defender marcus is, but isn't a 6'8" explosive Marcus Smart pretty ****ing good?

He's definitely not as good defensively as Smart (as it stands now). But that guy is pretty good, but he's more of a fringe championship piece than a foundation.

[PickNRoll]

Fultz is a 6'4" finesse scorer.  He's not taking the league by storm as a 19 year old.  He's not Magic Johnson.  He doesn't seem to care about winning at all.  That's why Danny and Brad 86'd him.

[GreenCoffeeBean]

I mean, everyone is always saying they wish Marcus Smart was a few inches taller...

[byennie]

To those that are worried about Jackson's shooting, consider that we are likely adding Hayward and also giving a bigger role to Brown. That's adding a new 2nd option, and a guy that can create his own shots. Just because Jackson would fit the slasher/energy type doesn't mean our offensive options are getting worse in a Jackson + Hayward offseason.

[max215]

To those that are worried about Jackson's shooting, consider that we are likely adding Hayward and also giving a bigger role to Brown. That's adding a new 2nd option, and a guy that can create his own shots. Just because Jackson would fit the slasher/energy type doesn't mean our offensive options are getting worse in a Jackson + Hayward offseason.

I don't know when/how this became a certainty, but it's not.

[flybono]

Jackson is a poor from the line which puts him below the level of Tatum. .

Tatum is the pick if LA takes JJ or Ball..

[byennie]

To those that are worried about Jackson's shooting, consider that we are likely adding Hayward and also giving a bigger role to Brown. That's adding a new 2nd option, and a guy that can create his own shots. Just because Jackson would fit the slasher/energy type doesn't mean our offensive options are getting worse in a Jackson + Hayward offseason.

I don't know when/how this became a certainty, but it's not.

Cool. That's why I didn't say it was a certainty. It is however, a likely scenario and increasingly so if we're drafting a guy who doesn't space the floor.

[Chris22]

I'll tell you one great thing about Josh Jackson....3 years from now Bron will be a very old 35 and JJ will be 23.  You might like him an awful lot then

Love it.