Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: On Stephen Jackson

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    40
    Posts
    117

    Default On Stephen Jackson

    It's easy to dislike Stephen Jackson. The quick shots. The bad on-court attitude. The inconsistent shot. Shoot, even those godawful cornrows.

    And, of course, those infamous haymakers he threw at the Detroit debacle.

    But the real reason that Jack is bad for this team is this: We're far deep enough to get by -- get by much better -- without him.

    I'll concede this: On a team with less depth, Jack could be a catalyst to motivate lesser-talented players to elevate their games. In a way, he's a jump-shooting, finesse-playing version of old Charles Oakley. He speaks his mind. He plays the game he wants to play. He displays admirable toughness.

    But there's two reasons we don't have a need for Jackson:

    1. Despite his tough attitude, Jack really isn't THAT tough. He isn't a board banger or a disruptive defensive force like Oakley was. He's a fair-to-middling shooter who doesn't slash nearly as often as he should. And unlike Oakley, he totally lets his emotions dictate his shot selection. And also unlike Oakley, he plays next to no inside game.

    Additionally: If you weren't appalled at the way he so enthusiastically popped into the stands last season to drop blows on much smaller, far less physically gifted fans -- if you couldn't see the pure SATISFACTION he got out of it -- then you've got blinders on.

    2. Jackson's obviously the biggest chemistry problem on the team. Look, he didn't throw a punch at JO. That's bunk info. But that whole fiasco last season when he whined about the team turning on him, and his general me-against-the-world attitude whenever things aren't working the way he'd prefer they work -- it's an incredibly tired routine. He's basically a slightly less talented Allen Houston with much, much more baggage.

    I personally would trade Jackson for nothing -- less than nothing -- and be happy with it. I truly believe we'd be a better team without him.

    To those Jackson fans out there, I know what you like about the guy. He is passionate. He says what he thinks. On most nights, he's clearly driven to prove something. But sometimes that chip on a player's shoulder gets so big that it becomes a weight, a distraction, and yes, a cancer. I believe that is the case with Jackson. Trade him, I say. And the sooner the better.

  2. #2

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Hasty trades don't fit in with anything LB/DW's past. They understand that market value changes depending on the time of year, that is why they do their dealing in the off season rather than the midseason unless it is absolutely necessary. You really think that some issues with Jackson (whether on the court, or rumors of possible maybe semi-sorta off court dealings) are going to make them change their minds about him?

    The Pacers picked him up after getting several decent offers for Al Harrington, and they did so for a reason. Let's not forget that Jackson, Croshere, AJ, and Samaki Walker are the only Pacers that have Finals experience.


    Like him or hate him, I trust that LB/DW know what they're up to and if they keep Jack or trade him I will almost certainly believe it is whats best for the team. If you don't, consider their track record!

  3. #3
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,129

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    I'm not ready to throw Sjax aside. Not just yet. That said, I'm not sold on him either.

    But I don't believe he is as big of a chemistry problem as some might think. His flareups SEEM to be heat of the moment things and not game to game to practice to game recurring issues. That doesn't mean they wouldn't wear thin after a while. But how often do these things really happen? (And I'll grant you his Atlanta game was one for the "Book of bad basketball").

    I have no idea whether he went into the stands to take on Detroit fans or get Artest out of there. The fans didn't give him a chance to make the first move.

    He does offer some things in the court we can use and he gives us a backup plan and options in case Artest goes "Artest"... and I think I'll still be worried about that 50 games from now even if Artest has been perfect all season.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    40
    Posts
    117

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLemonSong
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hasty trades don't fit in with anything LB/DW's past. They understand that market value changes depending on the time of year, that is why they do their dealing in the off season rather than the midseason unless it is absolutely necessary. You really think that some issues with Jackson (whether on the court, or rumors of possible maybe semi-sorta off court dealings) are going to make them change their minds about him?

    The Pacers picked him up after getting several decent offers for Al Harrington, and they did so for a reason. Let's not forget that Jackson, Croshere, AJ, and Samaki Walker are the only Pacers that have Finals experience.


    Like him or hate him, I trust that LB/DW know what they're up to and if they keep Jack or trade him I will almost certainly believe it is whats best for the team. If you don't, consider their track record!

    Blind faith in anything other than God is foolish (and even that's obviously arguable). I admire the Pacers braintrust as much as anyone else, but I'm not so enamored with them that I think their judgement is beyond reproach. In fact, I actually think that it is sometimes easier for fans, looking in from the outside as we do, to see things the PBT can't see.

  5. #5
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,738

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Well, I'll agree that shooting guard is the weakest spot (or at least the easiest to upgrade) in our starting lineup. And I agree that I'd be more comfortable with Jax if he was less streaky and more of a pure shooter.

    But trading him for nothing would be a big mistake. We need the guy right now. Whether or not he works long-term depends on how everything else works. Specifically, we as a team have a high "knucklehead quotient" (I think that's Jay's term). But with Jermaine really stepping into leadership and with Ron keeping a very solid head on his shoulders, I'm less worried about this. If Tinsley's ok, then Jax can be the team knucklehead without any problems.

    There aren't many players that are an upgrade to Jax that are available at this point in the season. Pierce could be one, though.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  6. #6
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,635

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Patiently waiting for D4G's response to this......I'll respond afterwards....
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  7. #7
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,635

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by flakcatcher
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. Despite his tough attitude, Jack really isn't THAT tough. He isn't a board banger or a disruptive defensive force like Oakley was. He's a fair-to-middling shooter who doesn't slash nearly as often as he should. And unlike Oakley, he totally lets his emotions dictate his shot selection. And also unlike Oakley, he plays next to no inside game.
    In all fairness.....I don't expect our starting SG to be like Charles Oakley...I expect our PF/C to be like Charles Oakley. All the things you describe that SJax lacks ( in the above quote ), is nothing that I would expect from a SG....I would expect that type of play from our frontcourt players. I would want SJax to do what he does.....shoot the ball, drive to the hoop and make a basket.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  8. #8
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,635

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthem
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, I'll agree that shooting guard is the weakest spot (or at least the easiest to upgrade) in our starting lineup. And I agree that I'd be more comfortable with Jax if he was less streaky and more of a pure shooter.

    But trading him for nothing would be a big mistake. We need the guy right now. Whether or not he works long-term depends on how everything else works. Specifically, we as a team have a high "knucklehead quotient" (I think that's Jay's term). But with Jermaine really stepping into leadership and with Ron keeping a very solid head on his shoulders, I'm less worried about this. If Tinsley's ok, then Jax can be the team knucklehead without any problems.

    There aren't many players that are an upgrade to Jax that are available at this point in the season. Pierce could be one, though.
    If we trade for Pierce....who on the Celtics are we going to own come Playoff time?

    Also......Pierce would be too expensive to get....there is no way that we would be able to get him.....and FYI....SJax wouldn't be enough to get him.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  9. #9
    Member Jon Theodore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,760

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    JAx and TIns for pierce??? why not?

    Does it work

  10. #10

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Theodore
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    JAx and TIns for pierce??? why not?

    Does it work
    It doesn't work in the sense that Boston wouldn't do it. PP is a legit all star and a real go to guy. He can shoot it from anywhere, post up, gets to the free throw line, defends, performes in the clutch, etc. I know Boston wouldn't get equal value for PP but atleast they can get a little cap relief or a nice young talent or something.

    Also, I can't say i'd want him in Indiana if JO and Ron are on the team. All 3 should never be anything less than a 2nd opition on any team they play on. Also, as great as Paul is, he takes some bad shots just like Stephen but then again Paul is a top scorer in the league so I think Indiana would have to do that deal. I just don't see Boston doing it.

  11. #11

    Default Re: On Stephen Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by flakcatcher
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Blind faith in anything other than God is foolish (and even that's obviously arguable). I admire the Pacers braintrust as much as anyone else, but I'm not so enamored with them that I think their judgement is beyond reproach. In fact, I actually think that it is sometimes easier for fans, looking in from the outside as we do, to see things the PBT can't see.
    Let me just make sure I'm understanding you correctly...you think it is easier for fans to assess the Pacers players and determine management roles than Larry Bird and Donny Walsh?

    I simply can't agree with that sentiment. LB/DW know whats up, and they'll take care of the situation if there even is one. I think that a true "situation" is debateable considering that we have the 3rd best record in the east and its early December and Foster has returned for just one game. Everyone knows that LB/DW built THIS team for a Championship run and they also know that midseason is the worst time possible for trades unless perhaps its right before the deadline and even then its usually last-gasp-style trading (i.e. C-Webb last year). So you really think it would be wise for them to just reverse course midstream and dump two guys they really like so we can add some new player in to the mix that will have to adjust to Carlisle's system, etc. etc. etc.

    Feel free to have fun second guessing LB/DW but there is a reason they are among the best in the business and its cuz they don't listen to the FANS! :::coughs Steve Alford:::

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •