For all the Josh Jackson supporters....

[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.

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.

No, it's not a "likely scenario" and has absolutely nothing to do with who we draft. I believe the Celtics FO is interested in Hayward and that Hayward is interested in the Celtics. However, the odds of stealing a free agent away from the incumbent team (when that team is good and the player is reportedly happy there) is never particularly good. If we're being generous, the Celtics have a 40% chance of landing Hayward. That is certainly not "likely."

[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.

No, it's not a "likely scenario" and has absolutely nothing to do with who we draft. I believe the Celtics FO is interested in Hayward and that Hayward is interested in the Celtics. However, the odds of stealing a free agent away from the incumbent team (when that team is good and the player is reportedly happy there) is never particularly good. If we're being generous, the Celtics have a 40% chance of landing Hayward. That is certainly not "likely."

Nitpick much? Celts are considered the front-runner, or at least even odds against Utah. And yes, a max free agent signing absolutely affects who you draft. We just (supposedly) passed on Fultz partly because of our current roster.

If you want to insist it's 40% instead of 60% (or whatever) and therefore "likely" is a crazy word to use, knock yourself out I guess. Perhaps I should edit it to say "a likely scenario"?

[Tr1boy]

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..

Jackson also went to the FT line 40-50 more trips than Tatum

[tarheelsxxiii]

I don't see it in Jackson.  I think he'd definitely be the wrong pick.  Clearly I was wrong in my analysis of Jaylen, so hopefully that's the case again.

How could you walk away with a terrible shooter after landing the #1 pick in a loaded draft?  In a league that currently caters to shooters, that seems insane.

He lacks the length of a solid 3/4 prospect.  If he's a 3, he has to develop his shot.  It looks bad enough to seriously doubt that'll happen.  From what I've seen of him, decent ball-handling and good passing abilities aside, he's been primarily a transition scorer reliant upon athleticism. 

If he's going to play the 4, he needs to add about 20 lbs.  That's not an exaggeration.  He's too wiry to play the 4 for at least 2 years, even in spot minutes.  A big part of the reason he looked so good at KU is because he played a lot of small-ball 4.     

Lastly, he's a dumb ass.  We all make mistakes, especially in our youth.  But threatening to "beat a [girl's] ass" is not an acceptable one to make.  For an organization that values character...no thanks.

[wiley]

I want Jackson because he has the uber confidence that only players with elite IQ have.

I want him because he is a 6'8" version of Marcus Smart with better IQ, better passing, athleticism and explosiveness, and much better scoring ability overall.  (not as good a defender as Marcus yet and not as good at the free throw line).

I want Josh because, while he won't be able to stop Durant he's a step in that direction, and could be a part of an equation that makes Durant's life more difficult in the finals in 2 or 3 years.

I want Jackson because I trust Brad and Danny to figure out the offense by the time we are ready to contend.  Iso scoring is great but it can have a downside for team play, and there are other ways to score, and later we'll find the needed ISO talent elsewhere.

Addendum: 
I am a huge Smart fan, but adding Josh may give Danny the flexibility to trade Smart one day, even though seeing them dog other teams on the court together would be a blast.  But if trading Smart have to keep Bradley.  Losing Smart and Bradley both would kill our chance to take down Golden State in 2-3 years.   We beat Golden State at home with a large dose of Bradley and Smart (did Smart miss the first time we beat them at home?).  If either Jackson or Smart makes a big improvement in their jumper, you can keep both of them. If neither does, then Smart could be traded before getting paid a big contract. 

[mr. dee]

Potential star-guards are surplus. Potential star wings are premium. And its not like Jackson doesn't have any elite NBA level tools. The comparison with MKG, Winslow and Stanley Johnson are absurb because neither of those guys have the combination of physical tools, IQ, fierce competitiveness and versatile skillset.

[CELTICSofBOSTON]

His offense seems very rudimentary.

I prefer bucket getters.

[Beat LA]

Potential star-guards are surplus. Potential star wings are premium. And its not like Jackson doesn't have any elite NBA level tools. The comparison with MKG, Winslow and Stanley Johnson are absurb because neither of those guys have the combination of physical tools, IQ, fierce competitiveness and versatile skillset.

But centers are forever .

[Beat LA]

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

or on another team .

[crimson_stallion]

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.

A few issues here:

This Boston Celtics team is one that is absolutely filled with "good basketball players".  Guys like Jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Marcus Smart, Kelly Olynyk - these guys are all good basketball players. I'd even go so far as to put Al Horford in that category - though on the upper end of it. 

The problem is this...

Good basketball players are players who give you solid production on most nights, and good production on the occasional night.

This is exactly the reason why Boston struggled against teams like Chicago and Washington, and got destroyed by Cleveland.  On nights where guys like Bradley, Crowder, Smart and Olynyk played well, we almost always won those games.   On nights when those guys couldn't buy a basket, we got blown out. 

We relied far too much on Isaiah Thomas' heroics to drag us to victories, and as great a player and warrior as he is, he can't do it all for us every night, not without help.  When those "good" players are making their shots, then teams need to respect that and defend those guys, which opens up space for Thomas to do his thing.  But when those "good" players aren't making their shots, then opponents sag right off and throw all their attention at Thomas - and no player can face that every night and win.

The difference between a "good" player and a "star" player, is that star players can score more or less at will, and you never really have to worry about them beating themselves - you need to beat them. They aren't going to go 4 games straight without making shots, you need to force them to miss by making life difficult.  That requires a lot of defensive attention, which opens things up for other guys.

So as nice as "good" players are, you eventually get to that point where adding more and more "good" players doesn't help.

Al Horford is a nice player, but he's not an alpha dog. He's not a guy who is going to take the defense head on and dominate them all night long and force them to double/triple team him.  He's the type who will make the occasional open shots, but more often then not he's going to try to help the team by making plays with his passing.  He's not a constant threat to score - teams can lax off him a bit.

Boston doesn't need more Josh Jacksons.  Boston needs more Fultzs and Tatums.  When the offense isn't flowing, the support guys aren't making shots, Boston needs one or two guys who you can just give the ball to and say "go to work brother". Guys who can break down the defense when nothing else is working and WILL the ball into the basket.

Thomas is the only guy on our team right now who can do that, and if we want to get a step further then we came this year, as a team, we need to get at least one more guy who can take on that role.  The Cavs have Lebron and Kyrie, who can both create shots, and even that wasn't enough to beat Golden State.  This is what we are facing for the next 2-4 years.  This is the enemy we are trying to overcome. 

We need more then Jae Crowders, Marcus Smarts and Josh Jacksons to take that next step.

[CelticsElite]

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.

A few issues here:

This Boston Celtics team is one that is absolutely filled with "good basketball players".  Guys like Jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Marcus Smart, Kelly Olynyk - these guys are all good basketball players. I'd even go so far as to put Al Horford in that category - though on the upper end of it. 

The problem is this...

Good basketball players are players who give you solid production on most nights, and good production on the occasional night.

This is exactly the reason why Boston struggled against teams like Chicago and Washington, and got destroyed by Cleveland.  On nights where guys like Bradley, Crowder, Smart and Olynyk played well, we almost always won those games.   On nights when those guys couldn't buy a basket, we got blown out. 

We relied far too much on Isaiah Thomas' heroics to drag us to victories, and as great a player and warrior as he is, he can't do it all for us every night, not without help.  When those "good" players are making their shots, then teams need to respect that and defend those guys, which opens up space for Thomas to do his thing.  But when those "good" players aren't making their shots, then opponents sag right off and throw all their attention at Thomas - and no player can face that every night and win.

The difference between a "good" player and a "star" player, is that star players can score more or less at will, and you never really have to worry about them beating themselves - you need to beat them. They aren't going to go 4 games straight without making shots, you need to force them to miss by making life difficult.  That requires a lot of defensive attention, which opens things up for other guys.

So as nice as "good" players are, you eventually get to that point where adding more and more "good" players doesn't help.

Al Horford is a nice player, but he's not an alpha dog. He's not a guy who is going to take the defense head on and dominate them all night long and force them to double/triple team him.  He's the type who will make the occasional open shots, but more often then not he's going to try to help the team by making plays with his passing.  He's not a constant threat to score - teams can lax off him a bit.

Boston doesn't need more Josh Jacksons.  Boston needs more Fultzs and Tatums.  When the offense isn't flowing, the support guys aren't making shots, Boston needs one or two guys who you can just give the ball to and say "go to work brother". Guys who can break down the defense when nothing else is working and WILL the ball into the basket.

Thomas is the only guy on our team right now who can do that, and if we want to get a step further then we came this year, as a team, we need to get at least one more guy who can take on that role.  The Cavs have Lebron and Kyrie, who can both create shots, and even that wasn't enough to beat Golden State.  This is what we are facing for the next 2-4 years.  This is the enemy we are trying to overcome. 

We need more then Jae Crowders, Marcus Smarts and Josh Jacksons to take that next step.

perfectly worded. Ill be disappointed if we get Jackson over tatum. Tatum has pierce written all over him

[YoungOne87]

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.

I wouldnt compare the shooting  numbers of fultz and jackson, because in the film I saw, Jackson had way more space on most of his three point shoots because defenders sag of him like they did on rondo a few years back...

[cltc5]

You stat people need to take your head outta your butts.  The guy brings in on both sides and has tons of potential.  Many analyst say he has the best potential to be the star of the draft.  If his shooting was that bad he wouldn't be considered a top 3 in a draft that has much better shooters.  This is the problem with closed minded people.  You see one way and that's it.  It was alll fultz because numbers and that's what everyone told u.  Try looking at more than stats and opinions and you'll see how good some players can be.  Half the baord did t want brown last year now people are talking jimmy butler level.  Just stop!  Stop judging a player by the numbers and look at the type of player they are as a whole.

[playdream]

OK i have watched the videos and it's CLEARLY Tatum over JJ(which, i can also take it) for me

JJ you hope he can be a Butler guy, he shoot jumpers mostly with his wrist and that could be a problem in NBA(range/space), can guard 1-2s,the upside is there but more uncertainty

Tatum fits better in CBS's pace/space system for he is a good shooter and can also create/score, he really does has PP potential

And for that i can understand why Danny passed on Fulz
1.The bigger the better(impactful), guard is easy to get with our assets and don't need to be an all-rounder if your star wings/bigs can do the passing/creation, for example this draft(and others) has plenty of athletic or scoring guards outside of top5

2.Combine that with Fulz's red flag:Knee problem/Winning(hustling)attitude/college Record and bad workouts(shows clearly he is not a LBJ/KD/Duncan level prospect, means you can afford on passing)

I see the full logic for danny to pass on him, it's just a shame he can't get more out of it but anything is a plus(and 2018 pick in big mans draft is what we all want)

So i am happy now and waiting for the draft
and...wow danny really is good at his busness

[dreamgreen]

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?

Well since Smart sucks I'd have to say NO that isn't Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ing good! For the record Smart can't defend fast players, they blow right by him.