Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

    Today I examine, in the 4th of the series, the potential, play, impact, and utilization of another key member of this years Pacer rotation, guard Jarrett Jack.

    Jack is a bigger, more physical point guard, whose value and worth is particularly important when he is sharing a position with a player so diametrically different than he is, in our case that is dimunitive point guard T.J. Ford. Jack becomes even more critical for us because of Ford's lack of size against bigger guards in the East will make him a defensive liability. (Rajon Rondo, Chauncey Billups to name two) Add Ford's defensive shortcomings in certain matchups to his tendency to get dinged up occasionally, and there may not be a more important player on our roster when it comes to winning big games than Jarrett Jack.

    With that said, I wanted to take a closer look at Jarrett Jack's game, both positively and negatively. Let's start with what he brings to the table potentially as a defender.

    The Pacers point guard defense has been atrocious for quite a few years now. Ford and Jack as a tandem will be able to solve most of our problems in this area, except that neither of them will be able to do it without the other's help. Both matchup differently against different opponents, and each bring different things to the table offensively as well. If you want to learn alot about Coach Jim O'Brien, here is a true litmus test of whether he truly is a "defensive minded" or "offensive minded" coach: Does he decide which point guard to play in the 4th quarter based on who is the better defender, or who is the better offensive player?

    Jack brings alot of advantages to the floor on the defensive end against certain opponents. Jack is strong physically and has superior strength and size against most of his brethren in the league, so teams will not be able to post him up at all. When opposing coaches have done this in the past from what I have seen, Jack holds his ground very well, keeps people with his strong lower body from being able to back him down, and forces posting up guards to have to rid themselves of the ball or take a bad shot.

    On the perimeter, Jack is still a good defender, but not spectacular. He lacks the superior quickness Ford has, so you won't see him as often get right up in someone's grill and pressure the ball up the floor. You will however see him apply good to decent ball pressure against second level guards, and some starting level floor generals. Because he lacks blinding quickness, he more often than not usually stays just a bit back from someone, and more or less focuses on staying in front of his man, instead of trying to dictate where he wants his man to be forced to go.

    I think the words that describe Jack in most cases as a ball pressure point guard defender are conservative, careful, and consistent. He probably won't get a huge amount of steals, but he will be reliable and won't get toasted all that often in this situation, unless he is forced to guard the types of players that T.J. Ford can match up better against, such as Chris Paul, Devin Harris, Tony Parker, etc etc.

    Now, it is rumored or speculated that Jack will play alot of time paired WITH Ford, in a small ball type of backcourt. I hate that for many reasons as I study it, and defensively is a big reason why. I don't find Jack to be a very good defender in chasing players around and thru screens. Granted, I haven't seen a huge amount of tape of him in these situations yet, but when I have I feel like Jack is a pretty easy guy to rub off screens and clear space against.

    You see, I think Jarrett Jack's main advantage in life is being bigger and stronger than his opponent. When you ask him to play with a smaller player in his own backcourt, he loses that entire advantage, and I think becomes a below average player on both ends. I have a feeling that if the Pacers think the defensive answer to stopping guys like Rip Hamilton and Ray Allen is Jack, they are in for a giant disappointment. Watching Jack under the microscope for the little bit I have, he seems to lose focus just a bit when his man is away from the ball side, and he tends to drift just a bit. You see him be slow to recover from helpside back to strong side, as he always seems to be just a fraction too late to defend a shooter.

    He has another pretty clear to me defensive tendency when he is being screened that I both like and dislike: he tends to just run full speed right into the screener! Let me be clear....I like the physicality of that, and it does make screeners a bit more cautious knowing that this man is going to inflict as much punishment on them as they do to him. But the obvious negative to that is that guys shoot too many wide open jump shots when he guards them when they run him through a maze of screens.

    The other defensive reason I already hate the idea of him playing with Ford is that Jack looks like he has slightly below average length and hops, which is again a concern when he is asked to defend alot of jump shooters. I like Jack's chances of being strong enough to keep guys out of the paint, or to be smart/quick enough to cut off the drive of most wings he'd be asked to defend.....but the one last athletic move he needs to have to be able to be a really strong wing defender would be to stop on a dime, rise up, and contest a jump shot hard with a big hand up, hopefully influencing a shot and creating a miss.

    So, defensively, I think Jack is above average as point guard, but below average when defending other positions. Whether I'm right or not is something to keep an eye out on this season.

    Offensively, Jack is what you like as a coach: very mistake free most of the time. He usually plays within his limits, and tries to run the stuff called for him. He isnt a creative player, and won't push the ball nearly as well as T.J. Ford will. Ford is the superior ballhandler, no question.

    And it is ballhandling with Jack that he needs to improve the most I think, particularly his speed with the ball when trying to attack. Much like Anthony Johnson, opponents can get up on to Jarrett and make him turn his back to the defense in order to protect the ball, which of course hurts his vision trying to run an offense. Jack stands up too high when dribbling, and that hurts his speed with the ball. He needs to flex his knees more and quit dribbling so high.

    Everybody, including me, loved the idea of the contrast of styles we could use with Ford and Jack when the deal was first made. It seems to be a pairing at first glance that can be very successful. I still feel that may end up being true, but there are some pitfalls from having 2 so radically different players playing minutes for you at this key position of point guard.

    Can Jim O'Brien deal with having to play so drastically different strategies depending on which guard he has in the game? Will he be willing to adjust to these 2 guys and their strengths, or will he try to pigeonhole Jack in a system that he can't be as successful in? The Pacers I think will almost need 2 separate playbooks, one with Ford playing point guard and one with Jarrett Jack playing it. Will O'Brien adapt to that, or will he feel more comfortable playing Travis Deiner at times instead of Jarrett?

    Think about a screen/roll for a second. With Ford as the ballhandler, you want to space the floor differently and have the "screener" perhaps just "pop back" and stay on the perimeter, because Ford will get to the basket most of the time. But with Jack, he will likely pull up short and not turn the corner as hard or penetrate as deep, so players with them will need to react differently. Neither are bad inherently, but adjustments will need to be made by the staff.

    I hate the Ford/Jack combination playing together offensively as well. I doubt that it does anything positive for us to leave Jack out front with the ball and run Ford off of baseline screens, as this isnt something T.J. is adept at. Likewise, running multiple screens for Jarrett Jack isnt going to give you much either, as Jarrett just isnt the dynamic or creative type player that would merit that much effort to get him open.

    In the halfcourt playing the point guard spot, we can get some production out of Jarrett Jack however. I think most teams will, if they are forced to at all, will double off of him to try and defend against Granger or anyone else we have who is temporarily "hot". I dont see him as a great shooter against pressure, but if left wide open I think Jarrett Jack can and will make a three point wide open shot, although he takes some time getting it off and he needs quite a bit of space.

    I like Jack alot as a screener potentially. It could be one of his better strengths. I like the idea of Jarrett playing inside a bit and screening across for our bigs, who need help getting open if they are to score inside. Some very nice "little on big" screens involving Jack and Hibbert/Murphy/Foster/Rasho or Granger make alot of sense from a strategic standpoint.....much like Jerry Sloan would do in Utah.

    It would be unbelievably convenient if Jack could develop a post up game he could rely on on the low block. His size and strength and type of game really dictate he continue to develop this. If he could come up with this asset (think of a point guard like Sam Cassell, for instance) the Jack could solve some of post up concerns offensively, especially for the second unit. For this reason, if the Pacers were smart enough to have a "big man" coach I'd have them working with Jack alot on the low block developing a couple of basic moves he can use to punish smaller defenders.

    This is key because it is likely that, due to injuries or matchups, that Jack will be forced to start against some opponents he will struggle to guard this season. If he could at least punish guys inside like Allen Iverson or Daniel Gibson, it would really be a giant help to us. I particularly would like him to develop the right handed jump hook, and the turn around baseline fadeaway jump shot.

    How many minutes Jack should play, and at what position should he play them, will likely be a controversial topic this season on this board all season. To me, he helps us most when he plays about 20-22 minutes a game or so, all at point guard. I think he can be used to play in the 4th quarter if we matchup better defensively with him in the game instead of Ford, although Ford won't like that at all. Handling that potential infighting between our headstrong point guards might be an issue worth monitoring.

    There is one small but critical way Jack potentially can help us win some close games at the end of the 4th quarter: Jack can inbound the ball! This is a lesser thought of but crucial thing, as in the past the Pacers have had issues coming up with someone trustworthy to throw the ball in either from the side or under the basket. Jack has the size and decision making ability to really help in this regard, which frees up other guys like Granger and Dunleavy to come off screens and be scorers.

    For those of you who have seen Jack play more than I have and read this thread, I'm particularly curious to see if you believe that, like the Pacers apparently do, that Jack and Ford can prosper playing together at the same time if asked to. To me, it's obvious that they can't, but I'm thinking Im in the minority here. We havent that I can recall had a real specific, in depth discussion of Jarrett Jack yet, maybe this thread can be that.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

    I am in agreement with you on the jack/tj situation. This could be our teams biggest strength in matching up point guards against other teams. I would love to see Jack starting on certain occasions, like playing detroit or utah. He is going to see starter minutes against chauncey. TJ can then come in and run their second unit into the ground. I would love to see JOB use our points to get the OTHER TEAMS' PG's into foul trouble. If that means using ford against someone slow at first then make it happen. If it means having jack posting up a smaller guard then do it. I think this would create a lot of matchup problems with other teams and take a lot of pressure off of our front court. I think the only way our team will be successful is if both of our point guards get significant minutes in productive roles. I'm thinking Jack averaging about 20 minutes per game and TJ about 25. I think a fresh TJ will wear people down who rely too much on a single point guard. Thus, allowing Jack to come in and size them up better. And vice versa. As the season wears on, having both guys averaging over 20 minutes a game could make a huge difference if we make the playoffs (which we will).

    I am strongly opposed to them playing together unless a unique situation presents itself. The interesting thing to me is.... will they be capable of learning from one another by going at it in practice? I hope they don't let their egos get in the way of a VERY good situation for both of them. I hope they realize that.

    And as always TBird, Thanks for the insight.

    Bo
    Last edited by pacergod2; 09-10-2008, 05:45 PM.
    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

      I suspect that Jack will play the majority of his minutes at the backup PG spot.....but will likely play a minimal $ of minutes at the SG spot as well.

      IMHO....he'll be the 1st Guard off the bench averaging about 25mpg.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

        Great stuff, as always...

        What about the occasional pairing of Jack & Diener? (Not long minutes, but situationally.)

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Great stuff, as always...

          What about the occasional pairing of Jack & Diener? (Not long minutes, but situationally.)
          I'm guessing that there won't be much of a difference....isn't Diener just a taller version of Ford that can't score as well and gets posted up as much?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            I'm guessing that there won't be much of a difference....isn't Diener just a taller version of Ford that can't score as well and gets posted up as much?
            You're probably right, but I wondered if Diener might not be more comfortable running off of screens...

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              Great stuff, as always...

              What about the occasional pairing of Jack & Diener? (Not long minutes, but situationally.)

              I don't see this being effective at all, but maybe I'll end up being surprised. But, in my view, this pairing probably means we are either ravaged by injuries, 20 points ahead or behind, or in some unique situation or matchup that I can't fathom yet.

              But, this brings up an interesting question our Pacers coaching staff will likely face at some point this season. Let's just say a team intentionally plays "small ball" against us, and inserts 2, smaller and quicker players in their backcourt, and plays a smaller frontline as well. Do the Pacers choose to continue to play conventionally, and try and make the opponent suffer by playing a "power" game against that, or do the Pacers acquiese and go small as well? If the Pacers lineup is for instance:

              PG Ford, Wings Granger and Dunleavy, Posts Hibbert and Foster. (or some other combo of bigs including Murphy and/or Rasho)

              If a team goes supersmall against that grouping, do they stay on the floor, or do you take out a big, insert Jarrett Jack, and bump Granger and Dunleavy up a spot defensively?

              That is a major strategic question I see looming on the horizon at times this season.

              I still dont know what the right answer is for sure, but at this moment I'd be inclined to stay conventional and see if we could punish the opponent with our superior size.

              Tbird

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

                Marquis Daniels?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  Marquis Daniels?
                  Too unreliable and injury prone to be counted on, and a poor fit in this system anyway I think.

                  I'm fairly certain the Pacers will rely predominantly on guys they feel are part of their long term future this season, and that can be counted on to be available to play every night. Marquis fits neither stipulation.

                  Tbird

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

                    Well written and an accurate assessment.

                    Unless the other team is playing really small small-ball, I hope to see Jack working almost exclusively backup PG minutes....or if we face certain big post-up type PG's I suppose he should get big minutes...unless we can use TJ to our advantage in those situations. Basically, Jack should be used if TJ is at a distinct disadvantage considering both offense and defense.

                    I like the acquisition, but the more we see him on the bench, the more likely TJ is healthy and playing well, which is our best bet to win more games.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Coach em' up, season 2: Jarrett Jack

                      I've just never been afraid of our point guards getting posted up. Sure there times when it can be a problem for parts of certain games. Bilups comes to mind as someone who can cause problems doing that. But I think being able to apply ball pressure and being able to keep your man from blowing past you are two much more important parts of being a defensive point guard. That is not to say that having a bigger point guard isn't important - it really is - but not for the postng up part of it.

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X