Tatum is the Smokescreen. It's Jackson.

[max215]

I'm not sure what the logic here is, but I disagree; I think Tatum is the guy and the Jackson stuff is a smokescreen. With Sacramento/Phoenix allegedly obsessed with him, I believe Danny's dream is to trade back still land Tatum. As for the comparison of Jackson to Butler at the same age, that's ridiculous. Butler underwent extreme outlier development. This is like saying that Tyler Ulis is ahead of where Isaiah Thomas was at that age; it's not typical for a second-round 5'9 point guard to develop into a superstar at 28.

 It's a fact that be Jackson was better than Butler at age 20. That's what scouts do for a living.

 He is a much higher rated prospect that is further along in his development than Butler was.

  It remains to be seen who will end up being the better player the only point I'm making is Jackson was better at 20 years old.

You're missing the point. Obviously, Jackson is better than Butler at age 20. Butler developed at an extraordinarily unusual rate at an extraordinarily late age. I'll give you another parallel. Let's think of a current mid-twenties guard who appears to have hit his ceiling as a borderline All-Star. How about CJ McCollum? How likely do you think it is that CJ McCollum wins two MVPs and two titles within the next three years? Probably not very likely. That's because mid-twenties guards who appear to have hit their ceilings don't typically follow Stephen Curry's growth curve. Using extreme outliers as comparisons is pointless.

[KG Living Legend]

I'm not sure what the logic here is, but I disagree; I think Tatum is the guy and the Jackson stuff is a smokescreen. With Sacramento/Phoenix allegedly obsessed with him, I believe Danny's dream is to trade back still land Tatum. As for the comparison of Jackson to Butler at the same age, that's ridiculous. Butler underwent extreme outlier development. This is like saying that Tyler Ulis is ahead of where Isaiah Thomas was at that age; it's not typical for a second-round 5'9 point guard to develop into a superstar at 28.

 It's a fact that be Jackson was better than Butler at age 20. That's what scouts do for a living.

 He is a much higher rated prospect that is further along in his development than Butler was.

  It remains to be seen who will end up being the better player the only point I'm making is Jackson was better at 20 years old.

You're missing the point. Obviously, Jackson is better than Butler at age 20. Butler developed at an extraordinarily unusual rate at an extraordinarily late age. I'll give you another parallel. Let's think of a current mid-twenties guard who appears to have hit his ceiling as a borderline All-Star. How about CJ McCollum? How likely do you think it is that CJ McCollum wins two MVPs and two titles within the next three years? Probably not very likely. That's because mid-twenties guards who appear to have hit their ceilings don't typically follow Stephen Curry's growth curve. Using extreme outliers as comparisons is pointless.

 Max. What are you talking about? It's very simple.

 Jackson is a better prospect than Jimmy Butler, he's a better prospect than Jaylen Brown was. He's even a better prospect than Kawaii Leonard was.

 It just means he is further along in the development stage than those other guys were, that's it.

 Leonard and Butler basically reach their ceilings which is impressive hats off to both of them. We have no idea if brown or Jackson will reach the ceiling but the point is is that Jackson is the most advanced out of all of them to this point.

 

[KG Living Legend]

One thing that really drives me nuts is Jackson's suppose of lack of length. He's six foot seven shoes off with a 6-10 wingspan and some reports have his standing reach at eight foot nine.

 In comparison Tatum is six foot seven with a 6ft 11 wingspan, and he's considered long.

 But Jackson can jump over Tatum's head and run circles around him, he's a freak athlete he's long he's wiry he can guard anyone. Tatum might not be able to cover small forwards because if his lack of footspeed.

With Jackson the lack of length thing is pointless. I. Much more worried about his shooting mechanics and FT%>

It's hard to say it's pointless if he's supposed to be the starting PF on a team that struggles to rebound and defend the interior.

 That's just an added bonus that he can play some power forward. Jae Crowder played power forward for us a lot last year and he's about six foot five. I know he's stronger but Jackson is certainly going to be better than Jonas.

[Androslav]

 Come on. Jackson has an even worked out with us yet. That is just too strange. Jackson's the far superior player overall. Of course he can't shoot as the basketball Gods will have it.

 I have serious concerns about Jason's ability to play defense on the wing in the NBA, and if he can't do that then what does that make him a scoring undersized power forward? 

  Jackson is a sure thing, except the jumper, he did avg 38% on three's which is huge.  I made a post a while ago on how he could be the perfect small Ball PF for us.

 That still holds true. He also could replace Avery as a Shooting guard. He's a natural small forward, but that gives you an idea of his versitility.

 He's better than Butler was at the same age. If he's w good worker he will be better.

KGLL I know you know this, but now you have a man crush as I can see. 3pt shooting in not so much about % as it is for the 3 PM. Best shooters have the most 3 PM.
http://www.basketballreference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_leaders.html
Almost anyone can hit a decent 3pt % on few unguarded attempts in a 1 big ecosystem. By statistical translation, Jackson is projected to shoot 1,8 3pta per game in the NBA. That is weak for an outside player in this era (4 or 5 pg is good). He is a Winslow level shooter that benefited playing the stretch 4 position on a talented college team. Keep in mind that we are in the 3pt shot era. Shooting is valuable for the whole team even if a player doesn't hit it always, as long as he gets guarded.
example:
OKC VS LAC, a game with 90 possesions, both players played for 60 of those:
Andre Robertson hits 2/5 3pts (nice %, no doubt)
J.J. Reddick hits 3/9 3pts (slightly below Avg %)

AR, even though he was more efficient, this hypothetical game, he isn't guarded for 60/60 possessions on the perimeter, that doesn't leave a lot of workspace for his teammates and we see a lot of 5 on 4 defending. So even thought he had a good shooting night for his standards, he made LAC pay for only 6 pts on 60 possesions. LAC made a good decision.
On the other hand, JJ, even though he isn't having a great shooting night gets guarded for 60/60 possesions. His role is beneficial even on tough shooting nights. basically, JJ puts pressure on D each time he passes mid court.

I just don't see Jackson ever being guarded out there. He might have an OK floor game, but the path for him to become a star is a long one.

[JOMVP]

Celtics talked about Fultz lack of explosiveness being an issue with them not drafting him, I wouldn't say Tatum is a real 'explosive' player either. He doesn't look overly athletic, but he is just a solid, rounded player who knows the game of basketball to get what he wants on the offensive end. Josh Jackson is explosive. I think they pick Jackson if he's available.

I also think Danny doesn't care if the Lakers make this choice for him. If Lakers take Jackson, Ainge is probably perfectly fine taking Tatum.

[Celtics4ever]

Celtics talked about Fultz lack of explosiveness being an issue with them not drafting him, I wouldn't say Tatum is a real 'explosive' player either.

Agree, TP


Neat article on the team, basically the Tatum is playing safe guy who could be a volume scorer.

If you're convinced that Jackson can handle himself as an adult in the NBA, and you're looking for all-around contribution on the wing—as opposed to primarily scoring—he's a hard prospect to pass up at No. 3.

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/06/19/nba-draft-josh-jackson-celtics-76ers-kansas-jayson-tatum

I just don't see Jackson ever being guarded out there. He might have an OK floor game, but the path for him to become a star is a long one.

It is well known that Shooting is not Jackson strong point.   That being said he shot better at from the field than Tatum save the FT line.  Better FG%, Better 3p% why do not think that guys would guard him over Tatum?   

One reason is Tatum is not a great athlete who is a threat to blow by guys so they can guard him close and still recover.


I think we could take Tatum, we could take Fox, we could take Isaac, and the pick can be dealt it is impossible to guess Ainge.

[Tr1boy]

 Come on. Jackson has an even worked out with us yet. That is just too strange. Jackson's the far superior player overall. Of course he can't shoot as the basketball Gods will have it.

 I have serious concerns about Jason's ability to play defense on the wing in the NBA, and if he can't do that then what does that make him a scoring undersized power forward? 

  Jackson is a sure thing, except the jumper, he did avg 38% on three's which is huge.  I made a post a while ago on how he could be the perfect small Ball PF for us.

 That still holds true. He also could replace Avery as a Shooting guard. He's a natural small forward, but that gives you an idea of his versitility.

 He's better than Butler was at the same age. If he's w good worker he will be better.

Going back and forth on this... But I think it will be jackson too

[jambr380]

I guess we will find out on draft night. If Danny stays at #3, I think it is Jackson; if he trades back to #5 (and #10, or whatever), then Tatum was likely always his guy. I don't think he will trade back to get who he views as a lesser prospect and for just a middling pick.

I agree with those who are bringing up the 'explosive' aspect in what Ainge said about Fultz. If there is any correlation there, then the pick is definitely Jackson. The Cs can swing for the fences here - they might as well take the highest ceiling guy.

Also, with those concerned about Jackson's rebounding, have you ever watched him do it? He boxes his man (or a man) out hard every time and gets up to the ball in a split second. He plays much stronger than Tatum, has great lateral speed, and can jump off of either foot (for the people comparing him to Smart).

[Fireworks_Boom!]

I think it is plain and simple. Whoever of the 2 are available DA will take. Both have tremendous potential. I prefer Tatum over Jackson. I don't see Jackson's shot improving.

[ThaPreacher]

I'm a Jackson fan.  Sadly I predict the first surprise of the night will be the Lakers taking him.  Luckily there are good consolation prizes and trade options.

If Ball falls to us and Danny does not like him. Will he take him? I can imagine that if he falls to 3 the phones are really going to be ringing.

In tier 1, on most NBA execs and pundits list were: Fultz and Ball.
That has not changed.

If Ball falls to 3, Danny will take him, even if it means dealing him. Hard to pass up on talent like that. Would be quite incredible to have Ball-Fultz battling in same division rivalry.

[Tr1boy]

I guess we will find out on draft night. If Danny stays at #3, I think it is Jackson; if he trades back to #5 (and #10, or whatever), then Tatum was likely always his guy. I don't think he will trade back to get who he views as a lesser prospect and for just a middling pick.

I agree with those who are bringing up the 'explosive' aspect in what Ainge said about Fultz. If there is any correlation there, then the pick is definitely Jackson. The Cs can swing for the fences here - they might as well take the highest ceiling guy.

Also, with those concerned about Jackson's rebounding, have you ever watched him do it? He boxes his man (or a man) out hard every time and gets up to the ball in a split second. He plays much stronger than Tatum, has great lateral speed, and can jump off of either foot (for the people comparing him to Smart).

Even though I already suggested danny may trade down again....this time I dont think he will...even if plan b will be there at 5

The basktball gods may punish danny if he tries to get too cute

Just pick one of jackson, tatum, ball at 3

[BlackCeltic]

Based on body build of every first round pick since Smart, I gotta say the pick is Tatum.

[ETNCeltics]

Draft Express said Tatum had a 6" standing reach advantage a year ago. Neither player has grown appreciably in the last year, so I doubt that Jackson's reach is anywhere near Tatum's. He effectively has the length of many guards.

[celticinorlando]

Jackson is a putrid FT shooter and a below average shooter in general. Boston already has a great athlete they are developing in Brown. You don't need Jackson who really add very little on offense to this team.

Boston needs offense and Tatum could turn into a Paul Pierce type player. Plus Jackson is a turd off the court. Poor attitude. Hangs around with questionable people. Got in trouble at Kansas. His agent is afraid he won't get enough PT...that feels like Jackson is afraid to compete.

I do not see the upside Jackson brings to this roster. Just another guy who can't shoot. He is a taller Marcus Smart. Jackson is rail thin and will get owned defensively in the post.

[Ed Hollison]

I think it would be Tatum out of the two.

1) Tatum is not as "explosive" as Jackson, but he's not exactly a slouch.
2) Tatum is bigger with a longer wingspan. He's much better equipped to play small ball PF in the NBA than Jackson.
3) Tatum is a year younger.
4) Tatum is a far superior offensive player.

But what do I know? I also think Ainge could trade back from #3 to #5 with SAC and take whoever's leftover among Jackson, Tatum, and Isaac.