Phx-Suns.Net

ShelC wrote:I don't know that Jackson was "clearly" the best talent available. I think we drafted for fit, not talent, which is what you never do in the draft. But hey, McD....

Over the years Shel I have almost always seen your side of the argument on things and consider you a great mind when it comes to the Suns. With all that being said, I don't get why you don't like the Jackson pick. Even if we lost both Bledsoe and Knight for any reason PRIOR to the draft,(this obviously didn't happen but to take our PG situation out of the picture) I dont see how you pass on Jackson and pick up anyone early. Unless you can get an additional asset to pair with the PG. If anything you move Bledsoe and/or Knight in a draft day trade to get you PG but you STILL take Jackson at 4 because of the fit. The FIT is what should allow him to earn the minutes that he needs to get the experience to excel.

When we drafted Amare Stoudamire he got rookie of the year because of the FIT. Now I am not saying that Amare turned out to be HOF or anything but he did carve out a nice career dunking on people. Minus the knee problems, who knows? From a perspective of evaluating a GM I feel like Jackson was a smarter pick than Booker. My guess is we got lucky with Booker. With Jackson we went out and made it happen. We did the same last year with Bender and Chris. I am not saying that these things are all great. I am saying that it takes a good to great GM to be able to pull off drafts like we have recently. I also think Sarver and Watson have both Handicapped Ryan and even with that we are navigating drafts VERY well as of late.

Let me clarify that I certainly don't dislike Jackson as a talent. I'm not unhappy he's on the team and I get why we took him and see the value in that. For me tho, you draft for talent and trade for need and I think the bigger talent might be DeAaron Fox. It's a difference of opinion. I'm taking Fox to put in the backcourt with Booker for the next 10 years. You need a PG in this league and Fox has all the tools. I think he and Booker would've been more dangerous than Booker and Jackson. I also think you can find guys like Jackson more easily than you can find guys like Fox. And even as much as I like Jackson, there are flaws in his game that I'm not sure are fixable - namely his jumpshot and general offense. But even drafting Jackson meant we were still committed to Bledsoe, which I was less than thrilled about. Sometimes you gotta cut bait and just move on. And in two years, I think Fox and Booker in the backcourt would've had the potential to be a top backcourt in the league, up there with Lillard/McCollum and Wall/Beal. Fox the lightning guard with gamechanging speed and defensive potential and Booker with his all around offensive go-to ability. That's not easy to find and put together.

But even back in June I was in the Tatum/Fox camp and Jackson was 3rd. Tatum had the most definable NBA skill and his rebounding and defense were underrated at Duke. His fit may not have been as great with us, but the talent was certainly there. Fox filled both columns. Jackson was pegged as 4th on almost all boards because the pundits and draft experts knew we weren't in the market for a PG. It was surface level analysis at its best.

ShelC wrote:Let me clarify that I certainly don't dislike Jackson as a talent. I'm not unhappy he's on the team and I get why we took him and see the value in that. For me tho, you draft for talent and trade for need and I think the bigger talent might be DeAaron Fox. It's a difference of opinion. I'm taking Fox to put in the backcourt with Booker for the next 10 years. You need a PG in this league and Fox has all the tools. I think he and Booker would've been more dangerous than Booker and Jackson. I also think you can find guys like Jackson more easily than you can find guys like Fox. And even as much as I like Jackson, there are flaws in his game that I'm not sure are fixable - namely his jumpshot and general offense. But even drafting Jackson meant we were still committed to Bledsoe, which I was less than thrilled about. Sometimes you gotta cut bait and just move on. And in two years, I think Fox and Booker in the backcourt would've had the potential to be a top backcourt in the league, up there with Lillard/McCollum and Wall/Beal. Fox the lightning guard with gamechanging speed and defensive potential and Booker with his all around offensive go-to ability. That's not easy to find and put together.

But even back in June I was in the Tatum/Fox camp and Jackson was 3rd. Tatum had the most definable NBA skill and his rebounding and defense were underrated at Duke. His fit may not have been as great with us, but the talent was certainly there. Fox filled both columns. Jackson was pegged as 4th on almost all boards because the pundits and draft experts knew we weren't in the market for a PG. It was surface level analysis at its best.

That was the problem, and why I was also disappointed with the pick.

A few other points....Booker was the smart/safe pick, but we also got lucky. Same as what Pop said about Kawhi. You just don't know with some guys. Booker, Butler, Gobert, Jokic....guys fall in the draft and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think Jackson was "smarter" pick than Booker necessarily, but a safer pick because he filled a need. It was like when we drafted Markieff. Solid, if unspectacular.

With Amare, it was about talent as much as anything. It was a PF heavy draft and we passed on Jeffries, Ely and Haislip. Yea we needed a big because we had Steph and Shawn, but we took the chance on a HS talent rather than more "polished/known" quantities who played college ball.

Why do people leave out Curry and Thompson when talking about best backcourts? It's usually Lillard/McCollum or Wall/Beal but how are they even close to what GSW have?

Not trying to put you on the spot ShelC, I see this often, you just reminded me.

ShelC wrote:Let me clarify that I certainly don't dislike Jackson as a talent. I'm not unhappy he's on the team and I get why we took him and see the value in that. For me tho, you draft for talent and trade for need and I think the bigger talent might be DeAaron Fox. It's a difference of opinion. I'm taking Fox to put in the backcourt with Booker for the next 10 years. You need a PG in this league and Fox has all the tools. I think he and Booker would've been more dangerous than Booker and Jackson. I also think you can find guys like Jackson more easily than you can find guys like Fox. And even as much as I like Jackson, there are flaws in his game that I'm not sure are fixable - namely his jumpshot and general offense. But even drafting Jackson meant we were still committed to Bledsoe, which I was less than thrilled about. Sometimes you gotta cut bait and just move on. And in two years, I think Fox and Booker in the backcourt would've had the potential to be a top backcourt in the league, up there with Lillard/McCollum and Wall/Beal. Fox the lightning guard with gamechanging speed and defensive potential and Booker with his all around offensive go-to ability. That's not easy to find and put together.

But even back in June I was in the Tatum/Fox camp and Jackson was 3rd. Tatum had the most definable NBA skill and his rebounding and defense were underrated at Duke. His fit may not have been as great with us, but the talent was certainly there. Fox filled both columns. Jackson was pegged as 4th on almost all boards because the pundits and draft experts knew we weren't in the market for a PG. It was surface level analysis at its best.

Great post. I agree 100%. Jackson may develop into a nice player, but as you say, he has some deep flaws that may never go away. I worry a lot about his shooting and about the fact that he is averaging 0.8 rebounds a game (!). Fox has a very high ceiling and could have paired deliciously with Booker for years to come. And we could have easily traded Bledsoe for a SF/swing asset instead of Jackson, or just given the minutes to Warren.

PG: Fox
SG: Booker
SF: Warren
PF: Bender/Chriss
C: Len/Chandler/Williams

Not a bad core, there.

deliciously
paired deliciously

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

ShelC wrote:Let me clarify that I certainly don't dislike Jackson as a talent. I'm not unhappy he's on the team and I get why we took him and see the value in that. For me tho, you draft for talent and trade for need and I think the bigger talent might be DeAaron Fox. It's a difference of opinion. I'm taking Fox to put in the backcourt with Booker for the next 10 years. You need a PG in this league and Fox has all the tools. I think he and Booker would've been more dangerous than Booker and Jackson. I also think you can find guys like Jackson more easily than you can find guys like Fox. And even as much as I like Jackson, there are flaws in his game that I'm not sure are fixable - namely his jumpshot and general offense. But even drafting Jackson meant we were still committed to Bledsoe, which I was less than thrilled about. Sometimes you gotta cut bait and just move on. And in two years, I think Fox and Booker in the backcourt would've had the potential to be a top backcourt in the league, up there with Lillard/McCollum and Wall/Beal. Fox the lightning guard with gamechanging speed and defensive potential and Booker with his all around offensive go-to ability. That's not easy to find and put together.

But even back in June I was in the Tatum/Fox camp and Jackson was 3rd. Tatum had the most definable NBA skill and his rebounding and defense were underrated at Duke. His fit may not have been as great with us, but the talent was certainly there. Fox filled both columns. Jackson was pegged as 4th on almost all boards because the pundits and draft experts knew we weren't in the market for a PG. It was surface level analysis at its best.

Great post. I agree 100%. Jackson may develop into a nice player, but as you say, he has some deep flaws that may never go away. I worry a lot about his shooting and about the fact that he is averaging 0.8 rebounds a game (!). Fox has a very high ceiling and could have paired deliciously with Booker for years to come. And we could have easily traded Bledsoe for a SF/swing asset instead of Jackson, or just given the minutes to Warren.

PG: Fox
SG: Booker
SF: Warren
PF: Bender/Chriss
C: Len/Chandler/Williams

Not a bad core, there.

To clarify, it's his assists that are at 0.9 per game. Rebounds are at 3.5

Ha, yea that's a big omission Hermen.

Shel for Suns GM! Make it so, Sarver!

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

ShelC wrote:Let me clarify that I certainly don't dislike Jackson as a talent. I'm not unhappy he's on the team and I get why we took him and see the value in that. For me tho, you draft for talent and trade for need and I think the bigger talent might be DeAaron Fox. It's a difference of opinion. I'm taking Fox to put in the backcourt with Booker for the next 10 years. You need a PG in this league and Fox has all the tools. I think he and Booker would've been more dangerous than Booker and Jackson. I also think you can find guys like Jackson more easily than you can find guys like Fox. And even as much as I like Jackson, there are flaws in his game that I'm not sure are fixable - namely his jumpshot and general offense. But even drafting Jackson meant we were still committed to Bledsoe, which I was less than thrilled about. Sometimes you gotta cut bait and just move on. And in two years, I think Fox and Booker in the backcourt would've had the potential to be a top backcourt in the league, up there with Lillard/McCollum and Wall/Beal. Fox the lightning guard with gamechanging speed and defensive potential and Booker with his all around offensive go-to ability. That's not easy to find and put together.

But even back in June I was in the Tatum/Fox camp and Jackson was 3rd. Tatum had the most definable NBA skill and his rebounding and defense were underrated at Duke. His fit may not have been as great with us, but the talent was certainly there. Fox filled both columns. Jackson was pegged as 4th on almost all boards because the pundits and draft experts knew we weren't in the market for a PG. It was surface level analysis at its best.

Great post. I agree 100%. Jackson may develop into a nice player, but as you say, he has some deep flaws that may never go away. I worry a lot about his shooting and about the fact that he is averaging 0.8 rebounds a game (!). Fox has a very high ceiling and could have paired deliciously with Booker for years to come. And we could have easily traded Bledsoe for a SF/swing asset instead of Jackson, or just given the minutes to Warren.

PG: Fox
SG: Booker
SF: Warren
PF: Bender/Chriss
C: Len/Chandler/Williams

Not a bad core, there.

Remove Len. He is gone.
I would still rather have Jackson than Fox. JJ just has to focus on D right now and let his offense come in the flow. If he does that, he will be awesome.

As of now, Kuzma was the BPA when we picked.

It will be fun following this draft class for the next decade and a half. Who's going to have the longest productive career? Who will have the highest peak? Who will be the solid playoff contributor? Who will be the star that never can win in the playoffs?

It is way too early to judge the class yet, but nobody is really playing well yet except Kuzma and Collins.

Tatum has been pretty good. Mitchell has had some moments, but been pretty inefficient too.

Hindsight? I'm beginning to think ShelC is right about this. Especially considering we have TJ playing the 3, he's our second best scorer. It's going to be tough for Josh Jackson to get minutes, especially with his limited offensive ability and our need for offense.

I just fear Jackson is the type of swing who got his offense off in college against lesser talented players, gets to the league and sees his offense regress because the players are better. Everyone wanted to build him up as the next Kawhi, but I see him more along the lines of MKG, Stanley Johnson, Justise Winslow, Kelly Oubre. Not terrible, but not the best talent and not really a game changer. Best case would be Otto Porter, but even Otto had a jumper coming out of college and while he's a nice piece for Washington, I wouldn't call him irreplaceable.

ShelC wrote:I just fear Jackson is the type of swing who got his offense off in college against lesser talented players, gets to the league and sees his offense regress because the players are better. Everyone wanted to build him up as the next Kawhi, but I see him more along the lines of MKG, Stanley Johnson, Justise Winslow, Kelly Oubre. Not terrible, but not the best talent and not really a game changer. Best case would be Otto Porter, but even Otto had a jumper coming out of college and while he's a nice piece for Washington, I wouldn't call him irreplaceable.

His max contract says otherwise.

iLLmatic wrote:Hindsight? I'm beginning to think ShelC is right about this. Especially considering we have TJ playing the 3, he's our second best scorer. It's going to be tough for Josh Jackson to get minutes, especially with his limited offensive ability and our need for offense.

We will trade TJ eventually. It just makes the most sense with TJ and JJ both at the SF spot. TJ will get a lot of return in trade and possibly get us the C or PG we need. I imagine they will want to see a little more from JJ before making a move like that.

I'll also give JJ the benefit of the doubt because we don't have a legit starting PG who can make others better and make the game easier on him. Everyone on the team needs that.

If the opportunity presented, I wouldn’t be opposed to trading Jackson over Warren. Not advocating trading him for the sake of it, but if it meant getting a star PG or C, I wouldn’t hesitate.

Split T wrote:Tatum has been pretty good. Mitchell has had some moments, but been pretty inefficient too.

Yeah, I've got to give Tatum credit. So far, he's a step or two above the Fox / Ntilikina / Jackson level.