Jarrett Jack

by knickfan on Jan 15, 2008 11:25 PM PST Comment 28 comments

He's a 6'3, 200 pound point guard. His total NBA career has encompassed about 200 games or so thus far. Despite a distinguished college career which included strong performances in the NCAA tournament, by his third professional season, he's widely regarded as a bust.

His name frequently surfaces in trade rumors, eagerly repeated by many of the team's fans who'd like nothing more than to see him on the next plane out of town.

By his fourth year in the league, he will have been traded - three times, in fact. He's then on his fourth team and there is no longer any doubt - his pro career has been a colossal disappointment. In that fourth season, he'll appear in 77 games, averaging 23 minutes along with 9.3 pts, 2.1 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 1.4 turnovers, 0.7 steals, 42.3 FG%, 84.2 FT%, 37.6 3pt%.

That player's name?

Chauncey Billups.

Well, we all know how that story turned out. And - for all we know now - we could easily be watching a rerun here in Portland. Judging by the dozens of comments I read on this very blog whenever I check in, I doubt there is a single Blazer player more universally reviled by the faithful than Jarrett Jack. Yet, ever since he came into the league, he has reminded me of Billups. Perhaps it's the fact that they are both 6'3, 200 pound point guards with shaven pates. Maybe that's why tonight I decided to compare the two players at similar points in their respective careers.

At this point, Jack has played in 195 NBA games - all, of course, with the Portland Trail Blazers over two and a half seasons. Billups didn't play in his 195th game until his fourth season. By that time he had already bounced from Boston to Toronto to Denver to Minnesota. As noted above, he played 77 games with the T'Wolves that year, 2000-01. Jack has played in 37 with the Blazers thus far this year. Let's check out Billups 2000-01 averages alongside Jack's so far this year:

Player    Min Pts Reb Ast TO Stls FG% FT% 3pt%
Billups    23 9.3 2.1 3.4 1.4 0.7 42.3 84.2 37.6
Jack    27 9.7 2.8 3.7 2.3 0.7 42.2 84.8    36.0

Pretty eerie, huh?

Now, I'm not offering this up as "proof" that Jack will eventually turn out to be as good a player as Billups (although it certainly remains a possibility) I offer it instead as yet another cautionary tale warning against the pitfalls of jumping to hasty conclusions about the talent level of young, developing players (especially point guards, probably the toughest position to master) I'm fairly certain that at some point, Boston, Toronto, Denver and Minnesota all felt a twinge of regret on having so quickly given up on a player of Billups' caliber. Elite point guards don't usually descend, fully formed, from on high. Especially not 6'3, 200 pound ones who possess the kind of physical advantage that enables them to overpower many of their smaller counterparts around the league.

So relax, y'all and cut the kid some slack.

End of sermon.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Jack

drives more consistently than any guard we have and draws/hits foul shots. He can make us more aggressive. Also he doesn't quit even in the face of adversity. He's a vocal/emotional leader on the team. Not everybody misses what he does.

--Dave

by Dave on Jan 15, 2008 11:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I still like him

And I definitely think he brings something no one else does. Until Sergio learns how to finish a drive, we will absolutely need Jarrett Jack.

by robrun2 on Jan 15, 2008 11:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Shows how far we've come

That Jack is the least popular player on the team. I mean, I still love Jack even if he's having an up and down year, and I think most-ish of us still like him, but since we all love every single player so much I guess Jack is the one kinda sorta least loved.

It is cool how closely his numbers and physique resemble Billups, as he has been linked to Chauncey since he was playing for Georgia Tech. I wish I was following the NBA as closely as I am now back when Billups was a bust, so I could recall how he progressed, but alas...

Jack is too young to be given up on, especially since he has a great attitude (except for when he makes his emoticon sad face), plays the hardest position to learn, and came into the league with no one to look up to on his own team.

Fans just gotta bitch about someone, and if you factor in the cultish adoration for Sergio, it adds up to Jack being the scapegoat for when we actually lose (which doesn't happen much). Even if Jack doesn't progress, he is still a great slasher and FT shooter who can play both guard positions.

I am disappointed that he hasn't seemed to have improved his PG skills, and he is still dreadful on the fastbreak. But, we're lucky to have a backup PG as good as he is already. Lots of teams desperately need a Jarrett Jack.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jan 15, 2008 11:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thank you knickfan

I've wanted to post a diary in support of J. Jack. I just love the guy & the way he fits into the team. Obviously he needs to work on the fast break and he is a combo guard.

He should be commended for the way he has handled being on the white unit... he was a starter last year. He had a couple of 30 pt. games last year and was on the all star ballot for this year... many players would have become a cancer over less.

by tweener on Jan 15, 2008 11:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like him

by coolguyrob on Jan 15, 2008 11:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Before I read this

I've always compared him to Jerry Stackhouse. It's mostly a "the role he provides for the team" thing, but their styles are fairly similar too. In the "dreaming of potential" thread, I picked Sergio because of how good he can be, but back in reality I've preferred Jack over Sergio because he doesn't need to be shoe-horned in to a role.

This gives me much more hope that, four or five years down the road, he'll have "figured it out". I still don't see him becoming Billups though. The turnovers are conspicuously higher, but that should get better with time he'll be a great compliment to Roy in our dual-combo guard attack.

by Gargen on Jan 16, 2008 12:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good point

I haven't given up on him but sometimes I do get caught up in the Jack hatred. I think Jack does have potential but I just have a feeling even if he is going to become a good player it won't happen here. Jack just dosen't seem to mesh with McMillian's style.

I think he'd thrive in a bad team where he would have freedom to look to shoot as much as he wants.

by jayseyfield on Jan 16, 2008 12:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

look a likes

I always thought he looked like Marbury with that alien head.

I imagine Jack would be regarded as a bust if he was the third pick in the draft as well.

With that said I really like both Jack and Sergio. Jack seems to be improving his game and is looking comfortable out there and could really tear it up as a combo guard. I have not seen a post game out of him, which is something Chauncey posses. Maybe something he could develop.

Does anyone have a good read on Billup's history? Did he have a flip the switch moment where all of a sudden he seemed to get it like Curt Schilling? It looks like he started upping his stats when he got under Rick Carlisle, who interestingly enough could do little with the underachieving Tinsley.

by jonestr on Jan 16, 2008 12:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

He's got to fight for his spot

Rudy is coming over, Sergio is improving, and there is likely to be a trade around draft time.

Jarrett is a very hard worker, and you can't have too many of those on your team. He's got the physical tools. But sometimes, it just isn't clicking for him.

If it does click, he could be our PG of the future, or a 25-30 minute a game combo guard -- or, he might be traded to a team where he will really shine.

If it doesn't click, he will either be traded or his minutes will gradually disappear, as Sergio progresses and Rudy adjusts.

Either way, for now he's a good guy, a team leader, contributes in ways a lot of fans don't notice, and I'm glad we've got him. His potential is high. I don't know if he'll live up to it, or if it will be in Portland if he does, but for now, if we didn't have him, it would hurt us badly.

by jscot on Jan 16, 2008 1:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

comparison

Thats a good comparison of jack and billups. i knew they were similar types of players but the stat comparison is crazy. i dont think the hatred of jack as of late is due to the adoration of sergio...but the fact that jack has regressed badly since last year.

when we traded away blake a few years ago...i was confident that jack was not only the better slightly player but had more upside than blake...but fast foward 2 years later and its a sharp sharp contrast.

by Philthyanimal on Jan 16, 2008 1:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You should check the numbers

before making a statement like this. Some are down, some are up and some are about the same. His scoring average is down, as is his FGA percentage. His 3pt percentage is up.

by timg56 on Jan 16, 2008 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i have

theres also a lot more to a player than stats. if you take only stats into consideration than pryzs picks will go unnoticed...or james jones tips to teammates.

his FG% is down as his assists...and while his 3pt% is slightly up...the increase in turnovers outweigh that.

by Philthyanimal on Jan 16, 2008 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel like the Apostle Thomas

I will believe it when I see it. Truthfully, I really want to believe. Jack is like an ex-girlfriend who has dumped you unexpectedly. He will come around at times, get your hopes up, get you excited about things, and then tear your heart out all over again.

JJ is no Jermaine O'Neal. I don't think we would kick ourselves if we should let him go. He does do an ok job as a reserve. He has proven that he isn't much of a starter in this league.

Obviously Billups is a veteran and finally came around. Billups is interesting because I think he plays with a poise and confidence JJ doesn't have. He has good control of running an offense, can shoot, can drive, and can play decent defense.
Sounds a lot like Brandon Roy to be real honest.

With a few exceptions, JJ has not shown good poise. He is an average shooter who makes an effort to drive to the hoop(which can be good, but is bad when he disrupts the flow of the offense.) I think he is an overrated defender, especially from the perimeter defense standpoint. He is part of the reason we play zone as much as we do. If you remember the pre- zone days (5-12 record) one of the glaring weaknesses of our team was perimeter defense. Our PG's were letting opposing guards DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED. We'd break down on defense, the other team would get easy layups, and Joel will get into foul trouble because of it. Between Blake, Jack, and Rodriguez, we really had nobody who was a good lock down perimeter defender who played point. Also, because we play zone, it has made us all the more vulnerable to giving up offensive rebounds, which is our big achillies heel. So Nate goes to the zone with the white unit, because he'd rather the shots come from outside than inside. He will take his chances with rebounding. If we don't take care of the perimeter defense, Oden and Przy will get lots of fouls next year.

I want to be a Jack fan. I really do. He just has some work to do before I am sold on him.

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Jan 16, 2008 3:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Defense

I am not sure who overrates him on defense because I think most people who have commented on his defense have said he is a smart defender who works hard with what he has or he is a horrible defender.

I fall in the first camp. I think he is a good team defender who knows how to direct his men where the defense wants them to go. In the NBA, most of the time, that is what you want. Nobody shuts down Tony Parker, Steve Nash etc. You direct them where you think you can get help and make them the least effective. Jack understands this and does it well.

In the zone, he is always communicating and making sure everyone knows where all the offensive players are on the court. He also does a good job of denying the ball to certain players in specific positions. That is why the zone is effective right now. Teams are not getting the shots they want.

Anyway, I understand why people get a little crazy with him because he makes some crazy TOs and passes that guys bail him out on, but, I think the other things he brings to the team are what keep him on the court and if you take away his 6 TO performance against Golden State, he has controlled the ball pretty well over the last 20 games even when he logs big minutes.

I see improvement and I think he can keep learning. I hope it is with the Blazers.

by tssbro on Jan 16, 2008 7:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wish Jarrett Jack posted up

the way Chauncey Billups does. The one stat that jumps out at you the most with that fourth year comparison is the turnovers. Billups had his turnovers down pretty low even by that point, and now, obviously, he's one of the best at ast/to ratio. Billups also always uses his physical advantage by taking smaller guards down low getting high percentage shots. Jarrett doesn't post up at all as far as I know.

Jack when playing well simply either takes a jump shot, or drives. So the physical advantage he has over other guards gets throw out the window because he's going at interior defenders who are much taller than he is to start with before he makes any contact. By posting up, Billups causes mismatches and automatically gains advantage. Jack's only advantage is the better than average ability to finish when he drives and absorbs contact, and he's not yet quite good enough at that to look past his turnovers. He needs to get more decisive and play to his strengths and he'll be fine.

I'm ok with having Jack around, but we're getting into a roster spot crunch here next year. We have 15 guaranteed contracts this year, and we're bringing in Rudy Fernandez. If Rudy doesn't suck, where do the minutes he gets come from?

by ranma on Jan 16, 2008 7:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

not a PG

I think one thing that is clear from this season is that Jack is not a PG, but rather a combo guard. The turnovers I can live with (for the most part), but the typical sluggishness of the way that he does distribute the ball and his inability to find teammates on the break make him a better fit at the 2. (Note that there are exceptions to all of this, I've seen him make terrific passes. Usually, though, when he takes control of the ball it is to drive and score or draw a foul.) Blake, Rodriguez and Green are all true PGs, and we have Brandon to take that role as well. I like his role this year at the backup 2 spot, and he certainly does mix things up by driving and bringing energy. Long term, though, he's going to be difficult to find minutes for.

by BrailleTaser on Jan 16, 2008 8:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The One Comparative Stat

that is a concern is the turnovers.

If Jack could ratchet his turnover rate down significantly, it would change his 'outlook' significantly as well. He does bring an offensive aggressiveness to the game that few blazers have, and that's important.

Those turnovers are one reason he's held in low regard, but perhaps the main reason is that he's seen as standing in the way of Sergio. Of course, the sergio-love is rather irrational in my view, but it's there, nonetheless.

I've read game treads here and elsewhere. The game will be in progress, and Jack will commit a turnover or have a bonehead play. Immediately in the threads there will be a dozen posts of jack-hate. Sergio will be playing and make the same type of turnover or bonehead play as Jack...rarely will there be comments, and if there are, they aren't filled with venom like the comments towards Jack are.

I think Jack's teammates, his coaches, and KP view Jack a lot more favorably then Blazer fans. Still, he may be on the trading block this summer if the Blazers are convinced Fernandez is the real deal. If jack doesn't have his contract extended this summer (not likely) and isn't traded by the 2009 trading deadline, then Jack's cap-hold entering the 2009 off-season (that cap-space summer)will be over 6 million. Portland's only option then would be to renounce him and I doubt KP wants to give up an asset for nothing.

by moldorf on Jan 16, 2008 8:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, knickfan

Lately, I've been pointing out Jack's value repeatedly. It's been surprising to me that so many Blazer fans are down on this guy. As valuable as Jack's contributions are now, they'll prove far more so in the playoffs, when jumpers inevitably stop falling. In that more physical "second season," guards who can penetrate while being hacked, draw fouls, and hit those foul shots are always at a premium.

Someone complained above that Jack isn't playing at a starter-level. Well, if he was, the Blazers would have to pay him starter-money. In fact, JJ, is playing well enough to start for many teams in the league. Moldorf points to his turnovers, but players who create offense for their teams by penetrating time after time are always high-risk/ high-reward. Just look at the league leaders in turnovers and there's Steve Nash, et al.

It's interesting that it takes a relative "outsider"--knickfan--to recognize what Jack brings to this young Blazer team. Other teams around the league would snatch him up the moment the Blazers put him on the trading block. A few months later, the chorus would arise from Blazer fans, "Rudy's coming along OK, but we also need a tough combo guard off the bench who can penetrate, draw fouls, hit the occasional three, play tough D, and be an emotional leader for the white unit. We also badly need a 'poor man's Roy' who can step in when Brandon is hurt. Geez, Jack was a perfect fit; what were we thinking?"

Sure, with the arrival of Rudy--assuming he pans out (a big assumption), the Blazers will have too many guards. So someone will have to go. But most likely that odd man out will be Green, not Jack, IMO.

"Ime caught the guy in mid-air with a fist and calmly continued his dispatching of oncoming people." -Gabe Muoneke

by hurryup09 on Jan 16, 2008 9:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Jack has a real shaky handle

So you don't want him handling the ball too much. At 6'3" having a shaky handle really limits your options in the NBA.

Also JJ allows himself to temporarily lose his confidence which can make it tough to leave him out on the floor at all at certain times.

On the other hand, JJ is a pretty effective scorer given the tools that he has. He's a good free throw shooter. He plays with energy and passion. And his contract is very reasonable. I think overall he's a very solid 2nd unit player and there would definitely be interest in him from other teams.

The question is: is JJ worth more to us as a back-up guard or is he more valuable as trade bait to shore up a guard or another position for the title run? I don't think we can really answer that yet. For now he fits here.

by leeroyjenkins on Jan 16, 2008 9:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thank you, knickfan

I've been trying to get to this without comparing him to others. I don't know why he seems to get such wrath, especially since we've been winning. He's been a vital component in several of the wins, and by all accounts is such a great team guy. I don't see how 10 ppg, 3 rpg, and 4 apg off the bench is a bad thing, and I really couldn't care less about that stupid +/- stat.

I won't be upset if he gets traded, as he's expendable and has value and that's when it makes sense to deal. But in no way am I calling for his head.

Can you smell what the Pritch is cooking?

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 16, 2008 9:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The problem is...

...short attention spans. Knickfan has definitively spelled out the comparison, but it has come up numerous times before. I've made it myself, because it seems so obvious, and I definitely wasn't the first.

http://www.blazersedge.com/comments/2007/11/4/133119/536/3#3

But sometimes, trying to post thoughtful analysis on this site is like teaching poetry to orangutans: it seems like it should be possible, and it works for a brief moment, but at the first distraction they forgot everything and they go back to flinging feces...

I think some folks just have to hate. It doesn't matter how many wins the team ties together, they have trouble breathing if they aren't complaining about something. I used to call those people New Yorkers (joke...), but I've obviously been proven wrong! I can only hope that some of the venomous posts are saving some spouse from being beaten, or some dog from being kicked...

by webted on Jan 16, 2008 10:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Another Amen, knickfan

I have had trouble understanding how those folks here that are down on Jack reach their conclusions. It's like some anomoly from an otherwise knowledge group of people.

A lot of the criticism of Jack appears to be subjective, rather than objective. Maybe it comes from watching games. Unlike most of you I onkly get to see one or two games a month on TV. You see him have a bad game or make the sort of mistake you've see him make before and come away with a bad perception of what may otherwise have been a good performance and it just reinforces your opinion.

But look at the numbers and you see that Jack put up comparable ones to Paul and Williams last year. Look at what he's doing this year and you see that it looks fairly decent compared historically to 3rd year PG's.

Then look at what his coach says and what his teammates say. Either you think Nate is a lousy coach or just obsessively blind when it comes to Jack. Sorry, but I have to get more weight to McMillan's opinion than to the Jack naysayers here.

It is entirely possible that Jack plays his best basketball somewhere else. But it will be due to his having been beaten out by somebody who is even better.

by timg56 on Jan 16, 2008 10:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Diamond in the Rough

I haven't done the statistical analysis... but before we pay too close attention to this, I'd sure like to see all the PGs from that year that fell within a standard deviation of that statline.

Out of that list of names, I bet the ones that have great NBA success (like Billups) is very, very short. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it had only one name: Billups.

Maybe Jack turns in to Billups. But I say the odds of that happening are vanishingly low. The reason I want to see Sergio play more is because I don't think his ability is a settled question. I think we can predict with a certain degree of certainty what Jack's trajectory is/will be (with some addmitted error) but we don't yet have a good handle on Surge.

Perhaps Surge will be a Telfair-like bust. In that case, the decision gets even easier: dump both of them. Evaluating talent is nothing more than a prediction on their future ability and play now will help determine the thresholds of that future.

That is, unless KP and others see something Jack that I and others are missing. But "draws fouls, communicates on D, and is a vocal/emotional leader" is not enough, I think, to warrant a long-term roster spot. Valueable, certainly, but extremely replaceable.

by Fizbin on Jan 16, 2008 11:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think you're missing the point.

It isn't about which of the point guards drafted in 1997 developed into a star by 2002.

It's about a big, physical combo guard taking more than 3 years to develop as a team leader.

But, here's the list of point guards drafted in 1997 you're interested in:

Antonio Daniels
Brevin Knight
Bobby Jackson
Jacque Vaughn
Anthony Johnson
God Shammgod
Alvin Williams
DeJuan Wheat
CJ Bruton

Antonio Daniels (6'4", 195#), Anthony Johnson (6'3", 195#) and Alvin Williams (6'5", 185#) are the only ones that really compare in size to Billups.

Daniels has had a decent but unspectacular career, peaking in '04 (11.2 pts, 4 asts) with Seattle.

Johnson has pretty much been a bench player his entire career, although he's still in the league.

Williams (Portland drafted him w/#48) has been a little better, playing starter's minutes by 2001 until 2004 in a decent run with Toronto (averaging 13.2pts, 5.3 asts) until injuries took their toll.

If Jack develops more in the direction of Antonio Daniels then Chauncey Billups, I'd say that's still a pretty good thing.

The part I don't understand is why so many people are convinced that Nate has somehow been fooled by Jack's potential into playing him more than he deserves? It's exacerbated by people convinced that Sergio just needs to play in games more, and it's Jack that's keeping him out.

Jack isn't going to turn into Billups, any more than Kobe was going to turn into MJ. He'll develop his own strengths and his own weaknesses. He's consistently shown a strong work ethic and a willingness to conform his game to the team's needs. That's why I think he still has untapped potential.

-t

by webted on Jan 16, 2008 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for running the numbers...

... I think that's for interesting.

Is Nate playing Jack more than he deserves? Yes, I think so. Not because Surge has demonstrated he's better but because Jack has demonstrated that he's likely not going to have spectacular career. But then again, as I've said elsewhere, I want to understand. I want to see what Nate sees in Jack but I have yet to see a good explanation.

Meanwhile, Surge is the unknown quantity where Jack is a known. So in the same spirit as LMA gets minutes in Toronto as a "learning experience" (see today's Behind the Beat), I want to see if Surge could perhaps have a spectacular career. But I'm ready to drop the hammer on that guy just as fast as on Jack. Then we move on.

You disagree: you think Jack has untapped potential. Excellent! I hope you're right. I just haven't seen it yet. The stuff he has shown (willingness to work, drive, and communicate) seems pretty commonplace on the market--not the kind of thing that needs to be locked up in a long-term deal. So I ask this:

What potential is that, when you see it realized in Jack, will not be readily available on the free agent market?

Btw, it's not just Surge. I was puzzled by Jack starting at the beginning of the season over Steve Blake. That seemed strange to me as well.

by Fizbin on Jan 16, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Unsure how to proceed

I think the things you yourself describe Jack as having are not "readily available in the marketplace." The other things that you criticize him for are available, for a price, but will they fit into this team.

Jack is a role player. I think he fits a role on this team that you may or may not find in another player. Part of that is his leadership and communication on the court. The TOs and can be worked out of a player. You can't instill the character part that I think Jack has.

My guess is that this off-season Jack will be working hard again to refine his game. His handle can get better. He can develop a post up game to add to his offensive arsenal (maybe a bit strong of a word to describe his offense.) He can work on getting the ball exactly where guys can catch and shoot. Guys like him get better every year because they are hard workers.

By the way, Surge is not an unknown quantity to Nate, KP and the coaching staff. They see him every day and they know what they have.

by tssbro on Jan 16, 2008 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I had the same comment as tssbro

Not sure why you think willingness to work, drive, and communicate are common place. A large percentage of players who make it to the NBA have been treated as stars since they were in their early teens. Some, like Kevin Garnett, have the internal drive to work hard everyday and not take their God given talent for granted.

Others, like Tim Thomas, Derrick Coleman, Eric Dampier, Eddie Curry, Darius Miles, etc, etc, do not. Hell, Zach Randolph showed plenty of willingness to work hard, but he didn't exhibit much dedication to improving his game.

But for me, the bigger issue here is with all the folks who seem to think they really can judge the abilities of NBA players. How is it that you are so certain that Jarrett Jack has "flat-lined", "plateaued out", "reached his potential"? You all watch him on TV and only during televised games. McMillan, watching through the eyes of a coach and former player, sees him up close during the games, at practice, and on film that's broken down and analyzed.

Jack may never become an all-star. He may never be as good as Billups or become another Terry Porter. But he shows all the signs of becoming a solid player who is also a good teammate. If Antonio Daniels, Bobby Jackson or Alvin Williams represent Jack's ceiling, then we should consider ourselves fortunate.

(As a side note: a third year Alvin Williams would be perfect for this team. I sometimes wonder what Portland would have been like with a backcourt of Aaron McKie and Alvin Williams. I always liked both of those guys.)

by timg56 on Jan 17, 2008 8:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a superstar..

JJack is growing in to exactly what this team needs; a complementary role player. It goes along the vein of what I commented on yesterday comparing PDX with the Spurs.http://www.blazersedge.com/comments/2008/1/15/11244/1888/3#3 I think it is just taking JJ a bit of tim to give up on the idea that he is an NBA starter. He started for us when we were bad, and I think that gave him a false sense of what he is: Starter vs that guy who can come of the bench and give the team what it needs at the time; be it tough D on a guy that is hurting you, or instant offense ala Vinny johnson with the great Pistons teams. As the season goes on I really hope that Jack embraces his role with the "white" squad and can become our Vinny Johnson. Ultimately I would love to see us get to the point where we can trust either Sergio or TGreen to be consistent enough PG's to allow Jarret to play his true position which is SG. Taking all the decision making out of his hands will cut down on his TO's and just allow him to do what he's good at. Knock down open shots and get to the Freethrow line. If he can't accept being a role player here, and still feels he is a starter he better get used to the idea of playing big minutes on bad teams.

On Paul Allen's cash it should say "In Pritchard We Trust"

by kevingiard1 on Jan 16, 2008 3:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs