PDA

View Full Version : should jackson play SF? (if he stays)



Jon Theodore
06-12-2006, 01:29 PM
This is obviously a loaded question, none the less. I was thinking jackson really thrived, ESPECIALLY last year when he played the SF position. Compared to other SG's he is clearly slow. Could it be that Jackson is more of a SF than a SG? I absolutely think he plays like one (sf), but that is just my opinion.

This team desperately needs a shooting guard and that is painfully obvious. The only way we are getting a GOOD shooting guard is by trading Jermaine or Granger. Those are the only players we have who have any trade value.

I think if Jackson isn't on a team with other "knuckleheads" or whatever you want to coin guys like Tins and JO, that he can be productive. We all know with a disciplinarian style coach Jackson would be a player we could root for.

Here's what I am leading up to. Could jackson be the 6th man behind Peja. Then we could make a blockbuster type deal involving JO, Granger, and Tinsley for essentially an all-star caliber SG (other players obviously involved) you name it.

I know a lot of your jaws are dropping right now. But a package of JO and Granger would interest a LOT of teams. We can get a LOT of talent back there also. We're not getting anything back for Jackson/tinsley guys so that is not gonna happen. Donnie will not trade for garbage.

I think Milwaukee would be a good trading partner. We get Magloire, Redd (the new NBA demands you have this kind of player for success, a SCORER) and Mo WIlliams, maybe their draft pick. I am just speculating so don't think im proposing this actual trade.

All of you here want to just trade Jackson and Tinsley, but you have to realize we get nothing for those guys together or as parts of single deals involving each of them.

Anyways, I think a blockbuster deal like that is what this team needs. I don't think minor changes are going to help us at all.

I also am deep down an avid stephen jackson fan who is a firm believer that he wants to win more than anyone on our squad since Reggie Miller. I also believe what we have all come to hate about Stephen Jackson can be attributed to coach Carlisle's lack of discipline.

I think a rotation with Stephen Jackson as the 6th man could be VERY solid. I know a lot of you don't think Jack would accept that role but I do. He'd get starter minutes essentially and he'd be our main scoring option off the bench.

Anyways, im speculating sure...but hey its the offseason and its slow around here.

jcouts
06-12-2006, 02:05 PM
you lost me when you put "trade" and "Granger" in the same sentence...

I see no reason to trade good things to give a knucklehead a chance.

Why not just trade the knucklehead?

Unclebuck
06-12-2006, 02:07 PM
Jax is probably better at small forward. But he won't be a pacer next season so it doesn't really matter

ChicagoJ
06-12-2006, 02:32 PM
If Jackson is back, I'd be okay with making him the third-string SF between Granger and Peja.

Maybe if he only got off the bench every fifth game or so it would coincide with his current, "only playing well once every five games or so."

Or not...

Jon Theodore
06-12-2006, 03:11 PM
well granger unlike our whole team has trade value. We are team that is in desperate need of a change.

JACKSON AND TINS FOR OTHER GARBAGE ISN'T GOING TO WORK, REALITY CHECK.
--- Edited Follow-Up ---
Jackson has a ring.

Jose Slaughter
06-12-2006, 03:37 PM
Jud Buchler has a ring too! So, whats your point?

As for not getting anything back for Jackson & or Tinsley in a trade..... we get them off our team. To me, at this stage, that is more than enough.

Lord Helmet
06-12-2006, 03:39 PM
Granger is a fresh start. Trading him is stupid.

Also, I don't attribute knucklehead to JO, I give that to Jackson and Tinsley.

Where are getting decent deals for Jackson and Tinsley it seems, higher draft picks and all, even though we'd all like more.

I see it stupid to trade Granger, this kid has what it takes to be a lockdown defender and a very good scorer, basically a Ron Artest type player, that is so far not mental. Trading him and keeping guys like Jackson only hurt the team and the fanbase, IMO.

Although I will say, I do like Jackson, I like how his ethusaism about the game and winning. But, the bad overplays the good in Jack. He's constantly barking at the refs, not getting back on defense, picking up T's and such. Add the fact he is a very, very inconsistant scorer. Sorry Jackson, I like you as a man, but not really as a player.

Time to go, IMO.
--- Edited Follow-Up ---

Jud Buchler has a ring too! So, whats your point?

As for not getting anything back for Jackson & or Tinsley in a trade..... we get them off our team. To me, at this stage, that is more than enough.
Agree so much. That's how bad it's been at times.

BoomBaby31
06-12-2006, 03:48 PM
If Jackson is back, I'd be okay with making him the third-string SF between Granger and Peja.

Maybe if he only got off the bench every fifth game or so it would coincide with his current, "only playing well once every five games or so."

Or not...

Okay, I know we all don't like Jackson here but, third string lol... Remember Jackson was one of our only none injured players last season. If we trade him we need to get someone to fill his shoes. If we just let him go our team is going to be in alot worse shape then we probably relize.

About the question, I don't know if SF would be a good full time position especially have Peja back maybe he could sub in and out the SG SF position

Putnam
06-12-2006, 04:16 PM
well granger unlike our whole team has trade value. We are team that is in desperate need of a change.

JACKSON AND TINS FOR OTHER GARBAGE ISN'T GOING TO WORK, REALITY CHECK.



Granger IS the change that the team is in need of.


As to Tinsley and Jackson, it doesn't have to be garbage for garbage. Most trades involve equal amounts of perceived value. What makes a beneficial trade possible is that one team perceives more value in a player than the team that is trading him away.

In the case of Tinsley, a team that just needs a back-up point guard might value Tinsley, if they believe he can stay healthy working only every 2-3 games or that he'll straigthen up under a different coach. With Jackson, a team might value him more than than the Pacers do, if they believe that he'll behave better there than he has here. Or if they want his 1,200 points and his 288 rebounds and don't care that he's a knucklehead.

I'm guessing this is very likely in the case of Jackson, less likely for Tinsley.



Re: the original thread question: No!

Fireball Kid
06-12-2006, 05:03 PM
This team desperately needs a shooting guard and that is painfully obvious. The only way we are getting a GOOD shooting guard is by trading Jermaine or Granger. Those are the only players we have who have any trade value.

Here's what I am leading up to. Could jackson be the 6th man behind Peja. Then we could make a blockbuster type deal involving JO, Granger, and Tinsley for essentially an all-star caliber SG (other players obviously involved) you name it.

I know a lot of your jaws are dropping right now. But a package of JO and Granger would interest a LOT of teams. We can get a LOT of talent back there also. We're not getting anything back for Jackson/tinsley guys so that is not gonna happen. Donnie will not trade for garbage.

Trade Granger, eh? LMAO!!!!!!!! LOL! Oh boy...........wow. Wait a minute, are you being serious?
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!! You know what I like about you, Jon, is the way you make me laugh. lol so uh, this is a joke, right?

NuffSaid
06-12-2006, 05:41 PM
The "trade Granger" notion is out. No way that's gonna happen. There's just too much upside to this kid to let him walk in the hopes that packaging him will bring much in the form of improvement(s). So, my vote is a flat out "NO!!!"

As to the point of this thread, I've said plenty of times in the IndyStar forum (aka, INdyBoy39 over there) that Stephen Jackson (Jax2) is more suited to play SF than SG. But if he is to remain at the 2-guard, RC should reconsider the way he is utilized. In other words, don't use him as a shooter because he's too streaky. Instead, let him attack the basket as a "scoring" guard. The only problem here is like Tinsley (TinMan), Jax2 tends to get too caught up in 1-on-1/isolation plays, but as a slasher he's not too bad.

Both player and coach will have to re-think their approach to the game before Jax2 could really take advantage of his strengths as a slashing 2-guard. He has the tools. He just needs to unlearn some of the tendencies he has learned over the years. I think if he is able to adjust his game and stop doing some of those things that the fans dislake about his character (i.e., arguing w/refs, taking ill-advised shots, shunning his teammates), he'd be just fine. It's for those reasons Pacers fans want him gone. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if he did make the adjustments and is then embraced more by the fans. It's a long shot, but hey, fans didn't like Reggie when he first came to town either.

Roaming Gnome
06-12-2006, 05:55 PM
JO a knuckle head? Says who? Come on Jon, I know that you don't like him for some silly *** reasons, but to label him a knuckle head in the same vain as Jackson is just over the top.

I can see some not liking him for his:
-Contract
-Style of play
-Flamboyant Nature
-"preceived" lack of skill

None of these merit him being a knuckle head!!!

Pacers#1Fan
06-12-2006, 08:26 PM
I'm not worried about what position SJax plays cause I don't think he's gonna be here. I would say staying at the 2 best fits his game though.

Jon Theodore
06-12-2006, 10:37 PM
i was actually expecting much more of a reaction out of you guys over this. Im dissappointed.

BlueNGold
06-12-2006, 10:44 PM
Jax can play SG adequately, but he is more effective at SF...at least if he played like a SF and did not try to be the go-to guy from outside. He is much better when he drives to the bucket, rather than when he shoots from outside. He gets fouled often, is solid from the line and is pretty nifty at converting from close range. Defensively, it is a wash.

pizza guy
06-12-2006, 11:07 PM
Yes.



I do believe Jackson should be traded.




He can play SF wherever he's traded.



That's it.

wooolus
06-12-2006, 11:29 PM
Jud Buchler has a ring too! So, whats your point?

As for not getting anything back for Jackson & or Tinsley in a trade..... we get them off our team. To me, at this stage, that is more than enough.

Wait... wait... WHO???