Jarret Jack out for the season with torn ACL. Good or bad for our BKN pick?

robbie84 · Post #1 » by **robbie84** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 2:52 am

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SpearsNBAYahoo/status/683724920862277632[/tweet]

Good or bad for our Brooklyn pick?
Why?

Post #2 » by **Parliament10** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 3:05 am

It's a bad thing. We don't wish serious injury on any player.

For that reason, I'm not going to vote on it.

robbie84 · Post #3 » by **robbie84** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 3:29 am

Parliament10 wrote:It's a bad thing. We don't wish serious injury on any player.

For that reason, I'm not going to vote on it.

Jesus man of course it's a bad thing. No one wishes hurt on any player.
But it's happened, and now the question has to be asked...

As a result of Jarrett Jack going down and the Nets losing their starting point guard, will Shane Larkin replacing him mean Brooklyn win more games or lose more games?

It's a serious, conversational and genuinely valid question/discussion.

Some will say that Jack sucks, and replacing him is good for the Nets. Some will say he brought attitude and toughness/leadership to a weak team.
His stats were terrible but he was capable of having some good games every now and then.

So is it a good or bad thing for our Brooklyn pick?

Post #4 » by **Parliament10** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 3:33 am

robbie84 wrote:
Parliament10 wrote:It's a bad thing. We don't wish serious injury on any player.

For that reason, I'm not going to vote on it.

Jesus man of course it's a bad thing. No one wishes hurt on any player.
But it's happened, and now the question has to be asked...

As a result of Jarrett Jack going down and the Nets losing their starting point guard, will Shane Larkin replacing him mean Brooklyn win more games or lose more games?

It's a serious, conversational and genuinely valid question/discussion.

Some will say that Jack sucks, and replacing him is good for the Nets. Some will say he brought attitude and toughness/leadership to a weak team.
His stats were terrible but he was capable of having some good games every now and then.

So is it a good or bad thing for our Brooklyn pick?

Perhaps, it's the way that you worded it. And it being so soon, after the injury.

"Is Larkin starting a good thing, for our Brooklyn pick?" -- Probably so.

Avalanche · Post #5 » by **Avalanche** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 3:34 am

Hate seeing anyone get injured like that.. but..

If they just play it out with Larkin, they will be worse... opposing point guards will light them up and a thin bench gets even worse. Jack was a veteran presence with a decent shot and high assist rate

The worry is that they might try and jump on a Lawson/Jennings, who could potentially win them more games

CeltsfanSinceBirth · Post #6 » by **CeltsfanSinceBirth** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 3:35 am

New thread discussing value of our Brooklyn pick even though there is already a thread with a sticky discussing the value of all of our picks. Good or bad for this forum? Discuss

Captain_Caveman · Post #7 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 4:06 am

Jack is just good enough to win every 4th game by himself. Even if he shoots you to a loss in one or even two of the other 3, his ability to potentially single-handedly turn them from a 17 win to a 27 win team made him the ultimate enemy of our pick.

Sad to see him go down, though. Will acknowledge the benefit to our pick, just can't celebrate it.

Captain_Caveman · Post #8 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 4:09 am

CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:New thread discussing value of our Brooklyn pick even though there is already a thread with a sticky discussing the value of all of our picks. Good or bad for this forum? Discuss

Mods can deal with it if they want to, but personally, I cannot imagine giving a f--k.

Really don't care who talks about what or where. If it doesn't interest me, I just scroll past, or even do something else with my time.

rmal8852 · Post #9 » by **rmal8852** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 4:13 am

Sad to see Jack go down. He has been one of my favorite players since he was the only NBA player to have the stones to publicly call out Ray Allen for leaving the Cs. Called him a "traitor."

However, this has to hugely benefit us. To me, Jack was the leader of that team. Defensively, the Nets will suffer substantially. Jack's 6'3" 200 lb. frame and his aggression will be replaced by a 5'11" (that's generous) 175 lb. (that might be generous, too) Larkin.

Post #10 » by **SuperDeluxe** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 4:18 am

rmal8852 wrote:Sad to see Jack go down. He has been one of my favorite players since he was the only NBA player to have the stones to publicly call out Ray Allen for leaving the Cs. Called him a "traitor."

However, this has to hugely benefit us. To me, Jack was the leader of that team. Defensively, the Nets will suffer substantially. Jack's 6'3" 200 lb. frame and his aggression will be replaced by a 5'11" (that's generous) 175 lb. (that might be generous, too) Larkin.

...who has shorter arms than my 12-year-old nephew.

This is the time when Markel Brown and Donald Sloan have to show what they are made of. Fun.

Curmudgeon · Post #11 » by **Curmudgeon** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 4:42 am

Parliament10 wrote:It's a bad thing. We don't wish serious injury on any player.

For that reason, I'm not going to vote on it.

LOL. if Marcus Smart had torn his ACL, the majority of Nets fans would be cheering.

I have no ill will towards Jarrett Jack or any other player. I hope he makes a full recovery. But this is a wonderful development for the Celtics, obviously.

Banks2Pierce · Post #12 » by **Banks2Pierce** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 4:45 am

Jack is pretty bad. Not sure if Larkin/Sloan are worse, but possessions should get distributed towards the other guys as well.

BillessuR6 · Post #13 » by **BillessuR6** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 9:13 am

That is a huge loss for them. People are criticizing Jack but he is a solid player and would have brought them a few wins. Also he is their leader...

Larkin is awful, they will have to adress their PG situation...

Great for our pick...

klemen4 · Post #14 » by **klemen4** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 12:26 pm

They will be worse imo. Jack still had in him some game winners and shots in last minutes.

Larkin is and was good to change tempo, break defense and assist to shooters, but question is what he can do playing a lot of minutes.

And as one poster mentioned...the thing Im afreaid the most is Johnson 24 mill expiring contract and Jack partially guaranteed contract...whatever trade happens, will make them better.

For instance Johnson to MIN for Martin+Pekovic for instance.

I do not think they have enough for Jennings or Lawson having no picks...but they could take long term contracts back.

Time will tell, but no doubt Jack being out makes them worst!

Post #15 » by **Slartibartfast** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 4:40 pm

Banks2Pierce wrote:Jack is pretty bad. Not sure if Larkin/Sloan are worse, but possessions should get distributed towards the other guys as well.

He's actually been surprisingly and disappointingly decent this year. Still prone to stretches of insanity (nobody more likely to take a bad shot in crunch time than Jack), but he managed to tone down his chucker instincts to become a fairly consistent pick and roll facilitator. Was having a career year as a passer.

And ESPN's RPM kinda liked him this year after hating him the prior 2 years. Went from being a massive sucking negative offensively to a solid positive. He's 16th among PGs as of now, right between Parker and Rondo.

Problem is Shane Larkin's right behind him in RPM, so not a huge drop-off. Larkin isn't the scorer that Jack can occasionally be, but he's much more disruptive defensively with his aggressiveness/energy and he can run pick and roll well enough. And Sloan can do some Jack things - bulky slasher with decent quickness of the dribble and some size defensively.

I don't think the Nets will be hurt too much from this. Shane will probably get exposed a bit more, but there was a good chance that Jack would have started regressing to the mean as a facilitator too.

Cornbread · Post #16 » by **Cornbread** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 5:58 pm

As others have mentioned, Jack is the kind of player that will go out and win a game for you. He's not very good, but he is the type of player that makes terrible teams only sort of terrible.

So this injury will most likely cost the Nets a game or two over the course of the season. Larkin should be solid enough, but his game seems better suited for the energy role off the bench. I think you'll see his production and energy drop off in a starters role. In addition, the depth after Larkin is really lacking.

2Mas · Post #17 » by **2Mas** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 6:40 pm

I don't think anyone is happy that Jack got injured. Come on now.

I'm on the board with thinking this is good for our pick, as he was underrated as a leader. Obviously he's a good backup pg, but he was solid as a starter this year.

However, I'm also with the thinking that now King needs to make moves. Johnson's been brutal. I can 100% see King making a move for Lawson, Jennings, maybe even Lance?! Anyone that can possibly help BK out.

But finally -- This is King here. Any time he's trading, it's probably good for our pick lol.

RondoToKG · Post #18 » by **RondoToKG** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 7:03 pm

Good he was playing well. Bad for my fantasy team.

Homerclease · Post #19 » by **Homerclease** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 10:30 pm

This thread is in poor taste, like parliament I'll obstain from this poll

robbie84 · Post #20 » by **robbie84** » Mon Jan 4, 2016 11:39 pm

Homerclease wrote:This thread is in poor taste, like parliament I'll obstain from this poll

How is it poor taste?
It's a legitimate discussion and what's done is done. The guy didn't die out on the court for god's sake.

They're talking about it on the Nets forum.

And I think you meant 'abstain'.
Please go and stain other threads.

Is Jarrett Jack being out for the season good or bad for our Brooklyn pick?