More on Jarrett
by Section323 on Mar 1, 2008 4:58 PM PST
46 comments
Interesting "behind the story" blog from Jason Quick about a story set to run in tomorrow's Oregonian.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2008/03/the_making_of_a_point_jack_str.html
I'm curious what people with strong opinions on Jack think of the transcript of Quick's interview at the end.
0 recs |
46 comments
Email
Print
Comments
It's a hot topic...
by hotstuffdb22 on Mar 1, 2008 5:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jack doesn't deserve all the hate from Blazer fans
by Billy Ray Bates on Mar 1, 2008 7:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jack seems slightly unhappy with is role
I like Jack and I love watching him play, but the writing seems on the wall for Jack to be traded to a team that is devoted to him playing the 1 fulltime. I don't see a team with Jack starting at PG being very successful specifically because of his Ast/TO ratio and his streaky outside shot. Don't get me wrong, Jack is a valuable player who will add scoring punch to any team who gets him, but to win a championship in the future, the Blazers need an upgrade at PG.
by WarEaglePDX on Mar 1, 2008 7:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jack is slightly unhappy...
It has always seemed to me that Jarrett Jack is definitely a leader on this young team, albeit, not to the extent of BRoy. Jack has just as good of a chance to be here long term as any of the supporting cast. I don't think his pure point guard skills and upside are really valued by a lot of short-minded bloggers on here. We aren't really a force until 2010. If Jack takes this off-season to AGAIN be the most improved Blazer in the off-season, he really could be our next breakout player.
I agree with the post that there is much more "relevant" stories to print than speculation on Jack's future. Leave the speculation to non-pros on the BLOGS, and write a story that actually has substance rather than speculation.
Unless you are writing about Darius, speculate away.
by Scotty the Mastermind on Mar 2, 2008 8:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Jack is like Michael Vick.
by jayseyfield on Mar 1, 2008 7:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good analogy.
I think Jack would be effective on a team that used him similar to the way we use Roy. Unfortunately for Jarrett, Roy already fills that role for the Blazers and that's not likely to change. I think that if Jack is traded to a team that can accommodate his style of play, he could consistently put up strong numbers.
by bocious on Mar 2, 2008 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By strong numbers
Jack's numbers the past two games might not be an aberration. When defenses are spread, Jarrett can get to the rim and score pretty consistently.
When there aren't as many shooters that defenses need to cover starts to suck it up. This is because when he drives he usually has poor court vision and doesn't pass it off to the open man. Or at least this is what I've noticed.
If he works on getting a consistent jump shot, on passing (he's done well the past two games in this respect) and figuring out how to run the fast break, he's a keeper. Those are a lot of if's though.
JJ is also much better on defense when he plays more aggressively. I think when JJ picks up 2 or 3 steals the Blazers have a pretty good record. The truth is our PG's usually get burned on defense, (I'm looking at you Steve Blake) so our big men get in foul trouble. Consequentially, I think Nate should Ok our guards to gamble more on defense, because we're allowing penetration even playing it safe.
If JJ really starts killing it the rest of the season we need to start reassessing our off-season plans. But right now I still say Keep Sergio, drop Jack.
This is simply because Sergio can run the break really well, and next year the second unit is going to be a killer running team. JJ cannot run a fast break(period).
JJ isn't going to be our starting point guard so there's not much use for him.
by Dheepan on Mar 2, 2008 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BARF...
by Cool Hand Roy on Mar 2, 2008 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you sir, are a genius.
by sergioFTW on Mar 2, 2008 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
MVP = Hyperbole
Jack: APG = 4, TO = 1.96 A2T = 2.04
Sergio Almighty: APG = 1.7, TO = .84 A2T = 2.02
The only stat the Sergio has better than Jack is fouls. But its hard to foul when you play no D. wooooooooooohoooooooo indeed.
I'm sure Sergios stats would go up if he had more mintues, but he has to earn them when he does play.
And i'm not trying to irritate you SergioFTW!! I love how zealous you are for your guy. I just like Jack more, so somebody has to stick up for him.
by Cool Hand Roy on Mar 3, 2008 7:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
fyi, Sergio has had 8 games, EIGHT, where he 4 or more assists in 16 minutes or less of time, so almost half the time of jack, but the same number of assists, or more. AND in those eights games he averaged 1 turnover per game (4:1 assist ration to Jack's 2:1). but jack scored 9 points too, right? well in those same eight games Sergio scored 45 points, or 5.6 per game, so, if you double his 16 minutes to 32 he's getting 11.2 points. I guess my point is, he very well could have done better than Jack with those 27 minutes--double his assists with the same number of TOs and scoring more points.
by sergioFTW on Mar 3, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I used the year averages,
And I really doubt sergio would score more than Jack if he was given more minutes. All of his shot %'s are lower. FG, 3pt, FT.
I cant argue about the assists. Serg is clearly better in that regard, he's got much better court vision than Jack. And i'm not sure if thats something that can be taught, so it very possible he could be much better that Jack. But right now, he's just not.
by Cool Hand Roy on Mar 3, 2008 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jack on the fast break
by mrwonderfull on Mar 2, 2008 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jack?!?
Sergio maybe "the best" but I'll take Roy and Blake any day over Jack at the break.
I don't have a big problem with Jack, but fast breaks are probably 1 of his 2 major weaknesses offensively.
by Philthyanimal on Mar 3, 2008 2:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree..
Did you see the no look pass on the break to Outlaw for the Jam in the Golden State game?
Have you seen the numerous times that on the break he forces the retreating player to foul while he goes to the basket, takes the hit and scores? Roy does the same off on the cross-over dribble in half-court, but no one else is doing this on the break. On the contrary, the Blazers are ofthen settling for outside shots instead of shooting within the paint and drawing the foul.
by mrwonderfull on Mar 4, 2008 4:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
did you see
the fast break you talk about was easy, 3 on 1, anyone can run that right and Jarrett can even do it most of the time, it's the 3 on 2 and even 3 on 3s that are more difficult and he REALLY struggles in those situations.
by sergioFTW on Mar 4, 2008 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Questions:
I would really like to know the answers to these questions because this storyline seems to conflict somewhat with Quick's previous PG story lines and just doesn't all add up. (Plus remember the Harris trade talk that of course also didn't come to pass with us in the picture.)
As for Jack, boy I'm impressed with his play the last couple of games but I still don't think that he will shine as a starting PG in the league. I think that he's a much better SG back-up to Roy who plays some 1. I like Jack, but I dislike complaints about what position he's playing, how much he's playing, etc.... he has been doing a great job, but he has plenty to work on. Ultimately I don't see a contender having him at the point on a starting unit, and I think combo guard off the bench is a more suitable position. I don't think Jack is as good at delivering the ball to his team mates as I would like our PG to be and the only reason this isn't more obvious is that we don't have great PG on the team, so Jack currently keeps up with his peers fairly well.
Bottom line: I want Jack to stay, but only if he is not only OK with making the most of the off-guard position, but he embraces it. I do not want to go back to the days that players publicly dictate where and when they should be played, that practice was my least favorite theme of the Jail Blazer era as it spread and in my opinion seriously effected team morale in the midst of title contention, things slowly crumbled from there.
by drawingjeremy on Mar 1, 2008 7:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
On court...
ROy is the type of player who makes everyone around him better, and teaming Roy with Jack would give the starting unit excellent scoring ability, definitely more trips to the line and aggression with ball, solid defense (as Jack has a leg up on Blakes D), and intangibles. I feel Jack is second on this team right now in intangibles and that will count for something the closer we get to contention.
by Scotty the Mastermind on Mar 2, 2008 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i feel bad for jack
by Cool Hand Roy on Mar 1, 2008 8:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Uh-oh...
by rockingharder on Mar 2, 2008 4:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
It's already apparent that Jack isn't a longterm-er for the Blazers. I expect him, unfortunately, to be packaged with 1 other current player, along with a draft pick potentially this summer. I think KP will hold onto Jack for another year, and then make a major move where a known starting PG with All-Star potential comes. Right now, Jack is too important for the team, but will be more spendable as options become better on the FA market.
by hotstuffdb22 on Mar 1, 2008 9:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Reading between the lines
A few comments on the Quick Blog;
- If Jarrett was serious when he said, "Your little interview fired me up..", I've got to say that seems silly. I really hope he was just saying that as playful banter with Quick, rather than being serious about that. If that is seriously what it takes to get Jarrett Jack fired up, then we ought to fire Dean Demopolous and put Jason Quick in a suit on the Blazers bench. Yes? No? Give me a break Jarrett. How about that debacle against the L*kers down in the St*ples Center, where your entrance into the game did nothing but put the L*kers on a 5-0 run to wipe out all of our momentum? If that can't fire you up to come back better the next game, what can?
- When Quick brought up the idea of addressing the point guard issue in the offseason, Jarrett's initial response was, "**, we've already got three of them." Hmmmm....What did you think he was alluding to Jarrett? Is there some kind of denial going on here? Do you really believe our point guard play on offense and (especially) on defense has been so above par that it does not need to be addressed at all?
- Last, there is a reason you aren't playing much point guard Jarrett, and the reason is that Steve Blake is better than you. You apparently had the training camp of training camps and won the starting spot. Remembering how decent Steve Blake played for us when he was here before, and following him as a Buck and McNugget, I assumed that meant you drastically improved over the summer, and I was happy for you, the team, and the fans. Many people were happy for you. Then you played SO TERRIBLE, that you were pulled before you had a chance to lead us to a fourth painful loss in a row to start the season. You pretty much haven't been our starting PG since.
There is a part of me that wants to say, "What the heck...let Jarrett start at PG for the next 10 games, now that we have a full roster again. If you can win 6 out of 10 as a starter with starter type minutes, I say we keep you for another year. Anything less than that, and you have proven that you simply aren't as good as you think you are. If you can't beat Steve Blake out, there is no real reason to keep you. Steve Blake is solid, but he isn't exactly tearing things up against this league. The truth concerning our future is that Blake is a back-up quality point-guard on a championship quality team. If you can't beat Blake out, that makes you a third string point guard at best.
by silkybrown on Mar 1, 2008 9:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I sometimes wonder if the reason
I must say that coming into this year I was one of Jacks supporters and I do like the guy and the fire that he brings to the team, but Roy is our heart and if the off guard cannot play well with Brandon then there are players that we should target that will make us a better team overall.
I think it all comes down to this: Blake is a solid backup PG and he has no problem accepting that role, but Jack seems to want to be a starting PG. Think long and hard on the answer to this question and then tell me if you still want to keep Jack,
Can Jarret Jack be a starting PG on a championship level team?
To this my answer is no, and we need to look in another direction. But that is just my humble opinion.
by SpyderRyder on Mar 1, 2008 9:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
as a jack hater
by Philthyanimal on Mar 1, 2008 9:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hope Quick interviews him before every game
Jarrett Jack has a quarter of a season to show he's part of the solution. If it doesn't happen, we'll see a trade, and he'll either be part of the trade or be 3rd string.
by jscot on Mar 2, 2008 12:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
fwiw
by PoliSam on Mar 2, 2008 12:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
fwiw
by PoliSam on Mar 2, 2008 12:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Blade runner?
by amlmart1 on Mar 2, 2008 2:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What the numbers say... position by position?
1. Steve and Jack are fine back up guards.
2. A starting point guard is the Blazers greatest need.
I compiled a list of Blazer players and there PER ranking and numbers as calculated by ESPN using Hollingers formula. His system isn't perfect but if you look at how is rankings correlate to the players it looks like the system is very good.
In addition to the 2 points above it is also interesting to examine the PER's of what I would call Nate's all-star unit. The unit he picks to play the fourth quarter and close out games. Are these the best five according to their PERs?
The PER formula is adjusted to give an average player at each position a PER of 15. That counts starters and non-starters. Since I'm interested in comparing our players to average starters in the league I'm listing the average PER for starters at each position.
avg starter PER's: pg 16.39, sg 16.87, sf 17.15, pf 17.64, c 16.44
Here is the list of Blazer players, followed by their rank within their position followed by their PER. Since there are 30 starters at each position in the league, with 15 above the average rank and 15 below the average rank, the average rank is 15.5 for starters. To keep it simple, lets presume each team has a back up at each position. With 30 back ups at each position in the league, the average back up rank is 45.5.
Travis was ranked as an SF. I give what his PF rank would be given his PER in (). Likewise, James was ranked as a PF and I give what his SF rank would be in ().
player: rank, PER
Roy: 7, 19.86
LaMarcus 13, 18.2
Travis: 16(19), 16.95
James: 25(21), 15.79
Jack: 34, 13.14
Channing: 39, 13.21
Steve: 40, 12.4
Joel: 41, 12.16
Martel: 59, 11.77
sergio: 60, 9.19
POSITION BY POSITION COMPARISON
2008-2009
CENTER:
Starting Position: Greg, no PER or Ranking yet.
Backup: Joel ranked 41, average back up rank of any position is 45.5, Joel gives us better than average back up at Center.
POWER FORWARD:
Starting: LaMarcus ranked 13, slightly better than average as a starter.
Backup: Channing ranked 39, better than average as a backup power forward.
Backup: Travis Outlaw 19, fantastic as backup PF, slightly below average as a starting PF.
SMALL FORWARD:
Travis 16: average as a starting SG, fantastic as backup SG
James 21, slightly below average as starting SG fantastic as a back up SG
Martel 59, poor even as a backup SG.
SHOOTING GUARD:
Roy 7: Very good as starter
Jack 34: Excellent as a back-up, poor as a starter
POINT GUARD:
Steve 40: Very poor as a starter, good as a back up.
Sergio : Extremely poor even as a back up.
CONCLUSION:
The PER numbers say what everyone has been saying:
1. That the greatest opportunity to improve next years Blazers is at the starting point guard position.
2. Both Steve and Jack, love um both as I do, are performing as good back ups but have not yet reached NBA starting level.
Nate's all-star team: LaMarcus, Travis, James, Roy and Jack are indeed the top 5 Blazer players by PER. Either Nate is doing a good job of selecting his fourth quarter team or the PER is doing a good job of ranking players. Even with these best by PER players on the floor their PER as a team is 83.94 as compared to a team of average PER's at each position coming to 84.49. So this is a slightly below average team with the greatest PER weakness at point guard.
One other observation I'll make with regard to the PER and next years team. Channing's PER is 13.21, while Martel's is 11.77. Travis with 16.95 is currently the Blazers best option at SG. So with Greg coming in at Center next year and no need to play Channing at the Center position. The Blazers PER wise would be better off to let Channing be the back up PF and let Travis get his minutes at SF at the expense of Martel at the SG. With James backup up Travis at SG. Martel may as well be moved to SG where his PER numbers may do better and he can compete for back up SG minutes.
by mrwonderfull on Mar 2, 2008 2:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
corretion
at the expense of Martel at the SF. With James backing up the Travis at the SF...
by mrwonderfull on Mar 2, 2008 2:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering the PER formula.
From Wikipedia:
=====
All calculations begin with what is called unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is:
\ uPER = frac{1}{Min} left ( 3P + [(2/3)*AST] + [(2 - factor(tmAST/tmFG))FG] + [FT*0.5(1 + (1 - (tmAST/tmFG)) + (2/3)(tmAST/tmFG))] - [VOP*TO] - [VOP*DRBP(FGA - FG)] - [VOP*0.44*(0.44 + (0.56*DRBP))(FTA - FT)] + [VOP(1 - DRBP)(TRB - ORB)] + [VOP*DRBP*ORB] + [VOP*STL] + [VOP*DRBP*BLK] - [PF((lgFT/lgPF) - 0.44*(lgFTA/lgPF)VOP))] right )
Where
* \ factor = (2/3) - [(0.5
* \ VOP = [lgPTS / (lgFGA - lgORB + lgTO + 0.44*lgFTA)] ,
* \ DRBP = [(lgTRB - lgORB) / lgTRB] .
Once uPER is calculated, it must be adjusted for team pace and normalized to the league to become PER:
\ PER = [uPER*(lgPace/tmPace)] * (15/lguPER)
This final step takes away the advantage held by players whose teams play a fastbreak style (and therefore have more possessions and more opportunities to do things on offense), and then sets the league average to 15.00.
by timbo on Mar 3, 2008 8:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Playing against Dickau and Farmer helps
Until he starts to play well against good teams with better PGs, I won't be holding my breath.
by blzrfan on Mar 2, 2008 7:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
that's a really good pt.
by hotstuffdb22 on Mar 2, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jack is playing against the best
by mrwonderfull on Mar 2, 2008 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It shows in his season stats
by blzrfan on Mar 3, 2008 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what shows in the stats
by mrwonderfull on Mar 4, 2008 3:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jack has played really well
It sounds like KP targeted two pg's before the deadline, they were Harris and Calderon. These guys both specialize at recieving outlets and increasing the tempo. If the fast break is there, they execute it well. If its not they pull up and get the better players the ball(LMA, Roy, Oden).
Harris and Calderon can also hit the outside shot with some regualrity, I think our point guard has to spread the floor with an outside shot. Nobody seems to think that Blake is playing that bad, yet his only real strength is 3 point shooting. I think the fact that Blake has been succesful with only one strength states how important 3 point shooting is from our point guard spot.
Jack has really made me eat my words the last couple of games, and I honestly hope he keeps it up. Our team needs his aggressiveness right now. I just dont think he plays the way we will need our point guard to play when Oden returns...
Rudy > MJby myemic23 on Mar 2, 2008 10:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Amazing
Jack Hate has become that institutionalized on this site.
I visit and comment on lots of sports blogs; I'm certainly no naïf when it comes to understanding the fan mindset. Hating on players - be they from your team or your opponent's - is one of the perks of fandom. In general, however, I find that fan hatred to players of their own teams falls into either one of the two following categories:
(1) A once productive veteran on the downside of his career with a huge multi-year contract that hangs like an albatross around the team's neck.
(2) A skilled but malevolent dirtbag whose carcinogenic qualities in the clubhouse and off the court outweigh their gaudy statistical contributions.
Last time I looked, Jarrett Jack did not fall in either of those two categories. Rather, he's a young, developing point guard still on his rookie contract who - by all accounts - is a leader in the clubhouse and well-liked by his teammates and coaches. Exactly the kind of player that should be banished from your team, post-haste.
I think Jack would get cut a lot more slack around here if the makeup of this team consisted of the normal mix of vets, youngsters and journeymen. Under those conditions, fans are usually willing to grant the youngsters time to develop before handing down their final, irrevocable verdict. Instead, they reserve their hatreds for the older players whose skill levels have been established. But in the Blazers quite unique situation in which almost all of the players are youngsters in the nascence of their NBA careers, Jack's three year tenure grants him the status of veteran by default. By golly, you have to hate somebody; hold someone accountable for a young team's myriad shortcomings. Might as well go with the guy you're most acquainted with; familiarity breeding contempt and all that.
Look: I don't know what Jack's future on this team will be. Nor do I know if he is a good fit for this team long term or not. That's a decision that Kevin Pritchard gets paid the big money to make. What I do know is that over the past two games, Jack has played nearly as well as any PG in the NBA. And while some here have written off his improved performance as a function of one extenuating circumstance or another, the fact remains that those games coincided with his return to playing his natural position. Like it or not, Jack is a 1 - not a 2. Any future he has in this league will be at the point.
Now, as I've said already, I don't know whether or not Jack will or should be the Blazers' PG of the future. But I don't think that I'm going out on a limb when I say that he will be a good NBA PG someday - perhaps even a star. Next to center, PG is far and away the toughest position for a young player to learn coming into this league. Guys like Chris Paul or Deron Williams who step in and dominate in their first or second season are freaks. And while I think Derrick Rose will have that kind of immediate impact, I have to laugh when I read the exhortations to Pritchard to draft a Jerryd Bayless (according to Draft Express "more comfortable as a scorer than he is as a playmaker") or a Russell Westbrook (talented but still extremely raw at PG). Yeah, there's the solution to your PG woes - one more player at a key position who many of you fans will undoubtedly sour on during the two to four year maturation process.
Finally, I know the Blazers are your team; root for them as you see fit. If hating on Jack helps to enrich your experience as a fan, then hate away. But speaking as an outside observer with only a marginal emotional invesment in the team, that hatred often seems irrational, bordering on the psychotic. And thus it is that you should view my comments here: not so much as an analysis of Jack's future with the Blazers, but rather as a clinical observation of this rather curious, increasingly entrenched pathology that may soon find its way into the pages of the DSM-IV.
by knickfan on Mar 2, 2008 11:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think the hate comes from
At the same time we all love Sergio because Nate seems to hate him (when you get benched for a guy named Von Wafer who joined the team 4 days ago you know the Coach hates you).
As a consequence we provide Sergio moral support in blog posts, cigarette cartons and Rebecca Haarlow.
by Dheepan on Mar 2, 2008 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Wow, you guys don't play!
I'm thinking that Jarrett will be asking Nate not to play, neither. Especially if his consolation prize is
and then relaxing afterward with
by knickfan on Mar 2, 2008 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well said...
by mrwonderfull on Mar 2, 2008 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's great having you here.
Your post does an excellent job of illustrating the unreasonableness of much of the Jack criticism. And I like how you point out the fallacy of thinking the answer to all our problems can be simply solved by moving up in the draft to get "that guy", whomever he may be.
by timg56 on Mar 3, 2008 8:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you should reconsider your initial assumption
Although there has been a great deal of discussion regarding Jack's play of late, the motivation for alot of this talk does not stem from any "Hate" but from seeing that his style of play and attributes/negatives do not mesh with our other players and/or style of play.
Just because some of us don't feel Jack fit's the teams needs for a championship does not imply "Hate." Granted, some posters may get overenthusiastic in making their points and some may add a touch of dramatic flair for pure reading enjoyment but I dont think that can all be taken as hate.
Perhaps the blog world differs with Webster in it's definition of hate , but even though I'd like to see Jack playing elsewhere...hate never entered my mind.
I thnk generalizations are in danger of becoming institutionalized on this site, but not hate.
Peace
by ColoradoBlazerFan on Mar 4, 2008 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the best solution
by tominhawaii on Mar 2, 2008 1:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
ok
by raging WebTed on Mar 2, 2008 3:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
