Target JACKSON

[AzStevenCal]

But what are we going to talk about?

However, what Fox has going for him is his ability to play PG leaving defense out of the equation. IMO, this gives him an edge over Jackson.

I agree the Suns could go in a lot of different directions.

I think Fox has a big edge over Jackson.

Obviously, these are very (very, very) soft numbers. I figure Fultz and Ball each roughly have a 15% chance of having the best overall career from this class. I give Fox, Markkanen and Tatum a 10% chance each. The remaining field of a hundred plus players has a combined 40% chance.

 

[Mainstreet]

I think Fox has a big edge over Jackson.

Obviously, these are very (very, very) soft numbers. I figure Fultz and Ball each roughly have a 15% chance of having the best overall career from this class. I give Fox, Markkanen and Tatum a 10% chance each. The remaining field of a hundred plus players has a combined 40% chance.

I'm not sure about the math aspect but if Fultz and Ball did not have the early publicity, I think Fox would be competing for the first two spots in the draft.

It's getting harder to tell who goes where after the first two picks until after team workouts. More and more I think Boston will trade out of the #1 slot.

Although I doubt the Suns move up in a PG heavy draft it's hard to ignore the Suns and Celtics have connections. However, both teams have solid PGs, so in this respect they are similar and both might benefit in trading down.

 

[overseascardfan]

Personality wise? B/c he's a better passer than Fox...

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Check out his weaknesses. Careless TO's, overdribbling, jacking up jumpshots, failing to get teammates involved in offense. Now, granted he did not have a supporting cast at NC State and his numbers looked good but hopefully his decision making and feel for the position improve when he gets to the NBA because he should have more talent around him and shouldn't have to be the man like he did in college.

 

[devilalum]

All the talk about Jackson being redundant is irrelevant. With the fourth pick you take the guy you think has the most potential to become a superstar. The Suns have a lot of good young talent. But they don't have a single superstar, yet anyway. (Chriss)

Drafting a player to fill a need is stupid. In two or three years when they peak that may not be your need anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I'm not sure about the math aspect but if Fultz and Ball did not have the early publicity, I think Fox would be competing for the first two spots in the draft.
.

NOt with his poor shooting and assist numbers in todays nba.

 

[Mainstreet]

NOt with his poor shooting and assist numbers in todays nba.

It's all about projection with these youngsters.

In regard to shooting, Fox has a nice soft mid-range shot so it's not hard to see how he cannot expand it to 3 point range with repetition and coaching.

Fox's turnovers (2.4) are not out of line with Ball (2.5) although Fultz (3.4) had the most. They do have better assist numbers however Monk may have contributed to Fox's lower number.

I like the other two PGs as well. Fox is not going to win the stat war. I'm just thinking he might be as good as the other PGs given time in the NBA.

 

[pokerface]

All the talk about Jackson being redundant is irrelevant. With the fourth pick you take the guy you think has the most potential to become a superstar. The Suns have a lot of good young talent. But they don't have a single superstar, yet anyway. (Chriss)

Drafting a player to fill a need is stupid. In two or three years when they peak that may not be your need anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well forgive if drafting Jackson as BPA also fills a need. At #4 pick how can he not be BPA? You guys really think Fox has overtaken Jackson now? I don't know about that! Its possible but the only thing I'll concede 'maybe' at this point is there is no clear cut BPA at #4.

 

[devilalum]

Well forgive if drafting Jackson as BPA also fills a need. At #4 pick how can he not be BPA? You guys really think Fox has overtaken Jackson now? I don't know about that! Its possible but the only thing I'll concede 'maybe' at this point is there is no clear cut BPA at #4.

No, that's what I was saying.
I don't know who the best player is but that should be the only focus. Which player has the most superstar potential?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AzStevenCal]

All the talk about Jackson being redundant is irrelevant. With the fourth pick you take the guy you think has the most potential to become a superstar. The Suns have a lot of good young talent. But they don't have a single superstar, yet anyway. (Chriss)

Drafting a player to fill a need is stupid. In two or three years when they peak that may not be your need anyway.

Has there been much talk about him being redundant? If you believe in his defense, he's the ideal fit for us (game-wise) and I don't see how any aspect of his game would be redundant?

I'm not an expert on him but from the clips I've watched, I don't believe in his defense. I think it's mostly smoke and mirrors (often risky too) and he'll be nothing special in the NBA. But again, that isn't me dismissing him because of redundancy except that I guess we already have enough players that are nothing special.

I agree we don't have a superstar yet but I'm surprised you're pointing to Chriss over Booker as a likely candidate. It seems to me that a lot of people are writing Booker off as if he's all he'll ever be. The kid is still 20 years old and he's already done unheard of things in the league despite being the focus of every defense and having played much of the season hampered by a sprained ankle and turf toe.

 

[elindholm]

I'm wondering if we could deal for Fultz by including Bledsoe in a package?

I think this board hugely overrates Bledsoe's trade value. He's a borderline top-12 PG -- and that's if you're being really generous -- who can't stay healthy. For how many teams in the league would he be a real upgrade?

 

[Carolinacacti]

Which player has the most superstar potential?

Isaac and Fultz

 

[devilalum]

Has there been much talk about him being redundant? If you believe in his defense, he's the ideal fit for us (game-wise) and I don't see how any aspect of his game would be redundant?

I'm not an expert on him but from the clips I've watched, I don't believe in his defense. I think it's mostly smoke and mirrors (often risky too) and he'll be nothing special in the NBA. But again, that isn't me dismissing him because of redundancy except that I guess we already have enough players that are nothing special.

I agree we don't have a superstar yet but I'm surprised you're pointing to Chriss over Booker as a likely candidate. It seems to me that a lot of people are writing Booker off as if he's all he'll ever be. The kid is still 20 years old and he's already done unheard of things in the league despite being the focus of every defense and having played much of the season hampered by a sprained ankle and turf toe.

I love Booker but I think his average athleticism lowers his ceiling.

Lots of people have said Jackson is redundant with Warren.

All I'm saying is don't pass on the best available because he seems redundant or doesn't fit the system. The Suns are currently a collection of really nice second tier players. Someone on the current roster may rise to the next level but I don't think any of them are a sure thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AzStevenCal]

I love Booker but I think his average athleticism lowers his ceiling.

Lots of people have said Jackson is redundant with Warren.

All I'm saying is don't pass on the best available because he seems redundant or doesn't fit the system. The Suns are currently a collection of really nice second tier players. Someone on the current roster may rise to the next level but I don't think any of them are a sure thing.

I agree about best available but I don't think we have any idea what the Suns are. Booker, Chriss, Bender, Ulis and even Warren still have up-side and some of them appear to have considerable up-side. And while none of them are sure things, that statement applies just as well to this class IMO. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to learn 15 years from now that 2 of our players put together better careers than anyone from this draft.

And Booker led the combine in the shuttle, I think his athleticism is underrated. He's not an explosive leaper but he checks a lot of the physical boxes. The knock coming out of school was that he was a limited athlete and that he was just a catch and shoot guy. IMO both have been proven incorrect.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I agree about best available but I don't think we have any idea what the Suns are. Booker, Chriss, Bender, Ulis and even Warren still have up-side and some of them appear to have considerable up-side. And while none of them are sure things, that statement applies just as well to this class IMO. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to learn 15 years from now that 2 of our players put together better careers than anyone from this draft.

And Booker led the combine in the shuttle, I think his athleticism is underrated. He's not an explosive leaper but he checks a lot of the physical boxes. The knock coming out of school was that he was a limited athlete and that he was just a catch and shoot guy. IMO both have been proven incorrect.

Yeah, he's got sneaky athleticism... and a Hornacek-like wiggle/weave to get to the hole. I think he can ultimately end up a Klay Thompson on offense, but I do think he doesn't have Thompson's defensive game which will put him just a notch below.

But even with that said, if we ever actually get GOOD, he'll be an All-Star, IMO. Probably a GREAT #2, but I think the NUMBER 1 player on a title contender isn't on this team yet... and probably won't be no matter who we take at the 4.

 

[Suns_fan69]

I think this board hugely overrates Bledsoe's trade value. He's a borderline top-12 PG -- and that's if you're being really generous -- who can't stay healthy. For how many teams in the league would he be a real upgrade?

Agreed, the number of teams that Bledsoe would be a clear upgrade for (especially given the draft is strong in PGs) we can probably count on one hand. It's the same problem for Knight, who's also saddled with a bad contract.

 

[Mainstreet]

Agreed, the number of teams that Bledsoe would be a clear upgrade for (especially given the draft is strong in PGs) we can probably count on one hand. It's the same problem for Knight, who's also saddled with a bad contract.

I think Knight is in his own category.

Trading Bledsoe would be easy with his reasonable salary. Now getting equal value is another thing. Knight has a reasonable salary (considering) but he would be a hard sell for positive trade value. The Suns best bet might be trading him for another player with a similar contract but is more useful.

 

[sunsfan88]

I think this board hugely overrates Bledsoe's trade value. He's a borderline top-12 PG -- and that's if you're being really generous -- who can't stay healthy. For how many teams in the league would he be a real upgrade?

Minnesota, Sacramento, Denver, Utah, Lakers, Dallas and in East every team besides Boston, Cleveland, Washington, Miami, and Charlotte would find him to be a real upgrade imo.

 

[Mainstreet]

Minnesota, Sacramento, Denver, Utah, Lakers, Dallas and in East every team besides Boston, Cleveland, Washington, Miami, and Charlotte would find him to be a real upgrade imo.

Let's just say a number of teams pre-draft. I understand the point you are making. Bledsoe is playing at his peak.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Let's just say a number of teams pre-draft. I understand the point you are making. Bledsoe is playing at his peak.

no doubt he's playing at his peak... but I think his value suffers because while playing at his peek, he's still not someone who really moves the needle.

 

[Mainstreet]

no doubt he's playing at his peak... but I think his value suffers because while playing at his peek, he's still not someone who really moves the needle.

Certainly he does not move the needle enough.

 

[Raze]

It's all about projection with these youngsters.

In regard to shooting, Fox has a nice soft mid-range shot so it's not hard to see how he cannot expand it to 3 point range with repetition and coaching.

Fox's turnovers (2.4) are not out of line with Ball (2.5) although Fultz (3.4) had the most. They do have better assist numbers however Monk may have contributed to Fox's lower number.

I like the other two PGs as well. Fox is not going to win the stat war. I'm just thinking he might be as good as the other PGs given time in the NBA.

I agree that Fox has potential to become a better shooter. He seems hungry enough to work on it. However he is not a natural passer. His first instinct is to score. His passing almost primarily comes within the flow of the O. Once he lowers his shoulders at the top of the key, he's 99% sold that he's gonna shoot. There are just few plays where he's being creative with the ball. I could see him being a lifetime 20 ppg guy, but only a 5 apg one. And those 5 assists will come by default because he HAS to play PG because he's too small to really play anywhere else. This is my biggest problem with him: small guys that don't pass don't make players around them better.

Jackson is actually a more natural play maker than Fox. His assists are not in the flow of the O, rather in the flow of the Game. The semantical difference being one is a robotic passer, the other is an artistic passer. He's actual a good ball handler at his size. He's at least good at every aspect of the game and the guy is in on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. He has even clutch-ish shots (see the OSU game). While his defending isn't completely polished you can see him making heady plays and being passionate about it. He'll have to be stronger and commit to footwork, but he's a hungry player. Like Fox you can tell he wants to be great. The IT shines through. I really think this guy's stats could reflect Pippen-like numbers depending on where he lands. While I don't think he'll be the scoring superstar of the team, he will make the team very very good.

So Fox offers great scoring, hustling, and defending. Good passing and okay shooting at 6-3.
Jackson offers great athleticism, defending, passing, hustling. Good rebounding and shot altering ability at 6-8.

Jackson has the CLEAR edge on Fox. And not just on Fox, but on everyone else.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I agree that Fox has potential to become a better shooter. He seems hungry enough to work on it. However he is not a natural passer. His first instinct is to score. His passing almost primarily comes within the flow of the O. Once he lowers his shoulders at the top of the key, he's 99% sold that he's gonna shoot. There are just few plays where he's being creative with the ball. I could see him being a lifetime 20 ppg guy, but only a 5 apg one. And those 5 assists will come by default because he HAS to play PG because he's too small to really play anywhere else. This is my biggest problem with him: small guys that don't pass don't make players around them better.

Jackson is actually a more natural play maker than Fox. His assists are not in the flow of the O, rather in the flow of the Game. The semantical difference being one is a robotic passer, the other is an artistic passer. He's actual a good ball handler at his size. He's at least good at every aspect of the game and the guy is in on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. He has even clutch-ish shots (see the OSU game). While his defending isn't completely polished you can see him making heady plays and being passionate about it. He'll have to be stronger and commit to footwork, but he's a hungry player. Like Fox you can tell he wants to be great. The IT shines through. I really think this guy's stats could reflect Pippen-like numbers depending on where he lands. While I don't think he'll be the scoring superstar of the team, he will make the team very very good.

So Fox offers great scoring, hustling, and defending. Good passing and okay shooting at 6-3.
Jackson offers great athleticism, defending, passing, hustling. Good rebounding and shot altering ability at 6-8.

Jackson has the CLEAR edge on Fox. And not just on Fox, but on everyone else.

It's funny that Jackson is being touted for his defense but IMO he's likely to be more impactful on offense and not just in the short term.

 

[SirStefan32]

I agree that Fox has potential to become a better shooter. He seems hungry enough to work on it. However he is not a natural passer. His first instinct is to score. His passing almost primarily comes within the flow of the O. Once he lowers his shoulders at the top of the key, he's 99% sold that he's gonna shoot. There are just few plays where he's being creative with the ball. I could see him being a lifetime 20 ppg guy, but only a 5 apg one. And those 5 assists will come by default because he HAS to play PG because he's too small to really play anywhere else. This is my biggest problem with him: small guys that don't pass don't make players around them better.

Jackson is actually a more natural play maker than Fox. His assists are not in the flow of the O, rather in the flow of the Game. The semantical difference being one is a robotic passer, the other is an artistic passer. He's actual a good ball handler at his size. He's at least good at every aspect of the game and the guy is in on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. He has even clutch-ish shots (see the OSU game). While his defending isn't completely polished you can see him making heady plays and being passionate about it. He'll have to be stronger and commit to footwork, but he's a hungry player. Like Fox you can tell he wants to be great. The IT shines through. I really think this guy's stats could reflect Pippen-like numbers depending on where he lands. While I don't think he'll be the scoring superstar of the team, he will make the team very very good.

So Fox offers great scoring, hustling, and defending. Good passing and okay shooting at 6-3.
Jackson offers great athleticism, defending, passing, hustling. Good rebounding and shot altering ability at 6-8.

Jackson has the CLEAR edge on Fox. And not just on Fox, but on everyone else.

Jackson would be my pick, assuming he can explain his off-court behavior/ issues, but this post is a bit too much. He does not have a "clear edge on everyone else". I do believe he is a good defender, but he is not as great of a defender as some suggest. He seems to gamble a bit too much, and staying in front of guys in the NBA is going to be more difficult. His free throw shooting is atrocious, and I am not sure how much of a shot blocker he will be on the next level. Again- he is my preferred pick, but he is by no means guaranteed to be anything better than Otto Porter.

 

[JCSunsfan]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Check out his weaknesses. Careless TO's, overdribbling, jacking up jumpshots, failing to get teammates involved in offense. Now, granted he did not have a supporting cast at NC State and his numbers looked good but hopefully his decision making and feel for the position improve when he gets to the NBA because he should have more talent around him and shouldn't have to be the man like he did in college.

Good grief sounds like BK!

 

[AzStevenCal]

Good grief sounds like BK!

With bad knees.