RealGM

He is a young combo guard who has played pretty well for us. He was a back thought with Telfair until he out played him. We all know he is pretty much Ha Seung Jin on the fast break but what is with blatantly hating and trying to get rid of him. If anything I hope we keep him until we need to trade him or let him walk, Chauncey Billups was treated the same way. He just needs to learn to play under control.

But feel entitled/more then welcome to air him out. Tell me why ya hate him on the team, obviously not as a person.

I like him on the team, to an extent. I think a lot of people seem to think they could easily upgrade Jack for very little, and that's simply not the case. If looking at Jack like a pg, he's not that great. Looking at him as a combo guard, he does his job pretty well. I think Nate is partially to blame for putting Jack in this position because he benched sergio for the exact same thing Jack is doing (stupid stupid turnovers) and Jack is still get more PT.

Jack can get to the line. Jack is our best FT shooter. Jack's got a good locker room presence. HE JUST NEEDS TO STOP TURNING IT OVER.

I agree that Jack has been in a position battle between PG and SG which may have messed him up but he's made some very crucial mistakes that can't be overlooked. I don't care how he does statistically, If he can't control the ball when it matters the most, he does more harm than good for this team.

It does seem like Jarrett gets an inordinate amount of hate on this board. He's not perfect, but he's not as awful as some people make him out to be.

I think he's just an easy target for people.

Spykes wrote:I think he's just an easy target for people.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. We have a near perfect team full of great guys and good players. We are used to having Randolph, Ruben, Darius, Sheed, Bonzi, etc. on our team. I think we got comfortable hating on our own players, and now we are having a hard time adjusting.

I just feel like as of now he is our best prospect at PG and sure doesn't get that respect. A combo guard off the bench the next few years? Exactly what we need next to Roy if Rudy aint all he cracked up to be.

jarret "the fast break killer" jack.. other then that he is prety good

I love the energy Jack brings to the team. It sounds like he's crucial for the chemistry of the team right now, and for that reason I don't want him going anywhere.

The turnovers drive me crazy, though. Especially that one where he steps out of bounds for NO ****ING REASON and he does it EVERY ****ING GAME.

jack plays defense, makes the open shot, can go to the hole, makes free throw, is a good rebounder for a PG... and we need the ball in roys hands... so what more do u ask for a pg?

jordan had kerr, paxon, harper... miami had j.williams and an almost ritired payton, s. antoio has parker (5.5 assis pp. in his career), houston has k.smith, now boston is with the best record with rando, i think i made my point.

I think Jack must be our starting pg with the current roster, obviously we can upgrade (hinrich can fit here), but i belive if aldridge, roy and oden will play like all stars, hes the perfect pg for our championship team.

pd: sorry for my english

I'm a Jack fan! But he does need to work on the fast break and to a lesser extent his decision making.

As long as he ain't handling the ball until our offense is set, I'm good.

Sorry, I'm not a fan. He plays defense...poorly. He settles for outside shots far too often...which clank off the rim. We've already discussed the turnovers and fastbreak-killing aspects of his game. He's just not that good a player. He can, at times, put up good games, but game-in/game-out he is, at best, a below average player in the NBA for a player who gets the type of burn he gets on a borderline playoff team. If he would play within himself he would be considerably better, but he doesn't. He far too frequently thinks of himself as the only option when he has the ball when usually he is, at best, the second or third best option on the floor (and at worst the last option you want taking a shot, but somehow he still ends up with the shot anyway ).

On the plus side, he seems to get along great with his teammates, he works hard, he's not a bad rebounder for a guy his size and he has a nice shiny head. That, however, isn't enough to make up for 1.6 a/to ratio for a primary ballhandler, which is terrible; a .6 spg average for a player that is supposedly good at defense, which is also terrible; and the fact that despite the team playing better this year and Jack having that all-important one more year of experience, he is statically worse in FG%, 3P%, FT%, Assists, Steals, Blocks and Turnovers this year while being the same in Points on a per36 basis. In other words, his game has gotten worse this year while virtually every other member of the team has gotten better. To me, that's a sign of a player who plays decently on bad teams but who can't keep up his level of play when the team ratchets it up a notch. And when faced with that fact, he seems to pout.

Here's some food for thought--compare this to Webster, who is also much-maligned on this board, who has improved his FG%, 3P%, FT%, Rebounds, Assists, Blocks, Turnovers, Personal Fouls and Points on a Per36 basis this year. Webster also has shown new wrinkles in his game, moving better off the ball, getting to the rim aggressively on occasion, and playing much, much better defense than we've seen out of him previously. Which trend in a player would you rather see? I would take Martell's trend in a heartbeat. I won't even begin to compare him to Blake, they guy he primarily takes minutes from, who is of course a much better three point shooter but who also has a two-and-a-half times better assist/turnover ratio and who can run a fast break and who doesn't force things like Jack does.

Do I hate Jack? No. But I don't think he's anywhere near a difference making player, unless you count making the difference between the other team losing a close one or winning because Jack stepped out of bounds for some inexplicable reason at one point or another during a game.

He has more turnovers than any other non starter and his assist to turnover ratio is horrible. Those turnovers and lack of ability to run a fast break cost them the last game where he got the ball and tried to drive it to the hoop, even though the smart play would have been to hold back for the last shot at the win....he almost had the quadruple double, points, rebounds, assits and turnovers!

He has abilities and some value, but he believes he deserves a ton of minutes, while in my opinion, he is a spot player, someone to change the tempo of a bad game.

--------The above is true when he tries to run the offense, when he plays
--------the 2, and lets the game come to him, he has done fairly well!

It is a numbers thing though with him, is he better than Brandon or Rudy?
If the answer is no then at best he should be no better than the 5th guard on this team next year.[/b]

trentsdad wrote:He has more turnovers than any other non starter and his assist to turnover ratio is horrible.

horrible??...maybe...and yet it's better then Aldridge, Outlaw, Webster, Jones, Frye, and Pryzbilla

trentsdad wrote: Those turnovers and lack of ability to run a fast break cost them the last game where he got the ball and tried to drive it to the hoop, even though the smart play would have been to hold back for the last shot at the win....he almost had the quadruple double, points, rebounds, assits and turnovers!

ok...jack's "lack of ability" to run a fast break: Isn't Portland dead last in the NBA in fast break points? Maybe some of Jack's 'failure' in this area is derived from a team issue. The only way to get better at running a fast break is to actually run it more then 1.4 times a game.

a team that never runs a fast break probably shouldn't dump a player just because he's poor at running a fast break.

as to the denver game, blaming that one play for the loss is simple tunnel vision...excuse me for saying that. Portland had multiple opportunities to win, multiple opportunites to not brick field goals or free throws, and multiple opporunites to block out on defensive rebounds.

Portland scored a pathetic 8 points on only 2 field goals in the last 10 minutes of that game (that would be 38 points total for a game)...and only 3 points in overtime. Jack doesn't deserve all the blame for that poor performance, and that poor performance easily could be blamed. For that matter the game ended regulation even (duh) after Travis missed a foul shot, but if Channing hadn't made the stupid pass to end the 3rd, portland wins by 3.

trentsdad wrote:He has abilities and some value, but he believes he deserves a ton of minutes, while in my opinion, he is a spot player, someone to change the tempo of a bad game.

how were you able to determine he "believes he deserves a ton of minutes"?

I guess if a player believes in himself...an important attribute I'd say...they would naturally think they should play more. I would estimate most blazers feel that way.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think statement of yours is bogus. I don't think you know Jarret's beliefs, and I also don't think that him wanting playing time carries a negative connotation.

trentsdad wrote:--------The above is true when he tries to run the offense, when he plays
--------the 2, and lets the game come to him, he has done fairly well!

It is a numbers thing though with him, is he better than Brandon or Rudy?
If the answer is no then at best he should be no better than the 5th guard on this team next year.

right now, he's the 3rd best guard, no matter what sergio supporters say. So adding one more doesn't yield the mathmatical answer you deduced.

I'm not a giant fan of Jack, I just don't hold him in as low regard as many here do. I had higher hopes for him this summer then I do now. That's in part due to Roy's emergence as a P-SG, but also due to Jarret's inconsistent play and continued flubbing of ball-handling tasks.

I think there's a decent chance he'll be traded this summer just because of roster and contract circumstances. But I'm not ready to annoint Rudy deserving of Jack's spot quite yet. European players have tended to take a long time to adjust to the NBA...when they haven't been busts.

But if he isn't traded, it will be because Nate and KP see more value in his game then many here do, and because he's a good locker room presence and an emotional leader.

well...if Roy doesn't play, Jack should get a ton of minutes so the opportunities to criticize him could be plentiful.

Wizenheimer wrote:horrible??...maybe...and yet it's better then Aldridge, Outlaw, Webster, Jones, Frye, and Pryzbilla

Except none of those guys are primary ball handlers, and as such they don't have the opportunities nor are they looked at to create assists. Jack is. It is far, far more problematic for a player who has the ball in his hands as much as Jack to have a poor assist/turnover ratio.

mojomarc wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Except none of those guys are primary ball handlers, and as such they don't have the opportunities nor are they looked at to create assists. Jack is. It is far, far more problematic for a player who has the ball in his hands as much as Jack to have a poor assist/turnover ratio.

and yet, the jack-critics have spent the entire season making the case that Jack is NOT a PG. So maybe Jack shouldn't be held to PG standards then...that seems fair doesn't it??

so compare Jack's assist/turnover ratio to other SG's and the picture isn't quite so negative for jack:

Jack............1.66
Ginobli.........1.61
Ray Allen......1.59
Kobe............1.57
Wade............1.56

I'm not happy with his turnovers, they certainly irk me at times. But that ball-bungling doesn't blind me to other things he does for the team, or to the fact that that calling him a 'turnover-machine' is an exaggeration when he's measured realative to other SG's.

Wizenheimer wrote:and yet, the jack-critics have spent the entire season making the case that Jack is NOT a PG. So maybe Jack shouldn't be held to PG standards then...that seems fair doesn't it??

No, it doesn't, and this is a specious objection. Jack is not a PG, but he is being played as a PG, so he has to be judged how he is being played, not as how he should be played. Remember, the same people who are critical of Jack's play are mostly critical of it in light of Nate's constant insistance of putting the ball in his hands at critical moments in the game.

so compare Jack's assist/turnover ratio to other SG's and the picture isn't quite so negative for jack:

Jack............1.66
Ginobli.........1.61
Ray Allen......1.59
Kobe............1.57
Wade............1.56

I'm not happy with his turnovers, they certainly irk me at times. But that ball-bungling doesn't blind me to other things he does for the team, or to the fact that that calling him a 'turnover-machine' is an exaggeration when he's measured realative to other SG's.

Okay, I'll bite. This is really bad, Wiz--you're honestly going to say his turnover ratio isn't all that bad comparing him to that cavalcade of all-stars and MVP candidates? You know Jack doesn't bring anything near to the table what these guys do. Not even remotely close. If Jack were putting up 25 points per game but turning the ball over a lot, I think us Jack critics could forgive him the poor turnover ratio, but he doesn't. So bringing up these stats doesn't defend Jack at all. Instead, when you compare him to players like you do above, you just make it obvious that if you're not able to produce like Wade or Kobe, with that kind of assist/turnover ratio you're not going to get played nearly the number of minutes that Jack does.

Instead, let's compare Jack to guards (point or otherwise) that have similar A/TO ratios and bring about as much elsewhere to the table, thus earning similar minutes. We get:

Keith Bogans
Aleksander Pavlovic
Kelenna Azubuike

That's it. Those are the players Jack most closely compares to. Everyone else that has that kind of assist/turnover ratio either brings much more to the table (like a Kobe or Wade) or plays significantly less than Jack. Notice none of these guys are considred great (or even very good), and none of them are given primary ball-handling duties. So out of players that are supposed to be PGs (we drafted Jack to play a PG, and we use him primarily at PG), no one in the league has a worse A/TO ratio. Even if you want to consider him a SG, you're seeing the only three that have similar or worse A/TO that offer so little elsewhere that play as much. Of these players, all are bigger and thus more able to handle the defensive side of the SG role better than Jack. So he's either an incredibly butter-fingered PG, or he's an incredibly short, ineffective SG that still turns the ball over a lot but without a payoff in another area of his game. Take your pick.

Wizenheimer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

so compare Jack's assist/turnover ratio to other SG's and the picture isn't quite so negative for jack:

Jack............1.66
Ginobli.........1.61
Ray Allen......1.59
Kobe............1.57
Wade............1.56

If Jack produced numbers anywhere near one of those players, he could increase his turnovers and I would still be happy.

mojomarc wrote:
No, it doesn't, and this is a specious objection. Jack is not a PG, but he is being played as a PG, so he has to be judged how he is being played, not as how he should be played. Remember, the same people who are critical of Jack's play are mostly critical of it in light of Nate's constant insistance of putting the ball in his hands at critical moments in the game

I don't believe Jack plays PG as often as you do apparently. When he's on the floor with Roy, Roy initiates the offense most of the time. When it's with Blake, Blake does, and the same goes for Sergio.

And yes, I do remember that the same people who are most critical of Jack are also most critical of nate. There's a flow of logic to that, I just don't necessarily agree with it. I won't go so far as to call it specious though.

mojomarc wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. This is really bad, Wiz--you're honestly going to say his turnover ratio isn't all that bad comparing him to that cavalcade of all-stars and MVP candidates? You know Jack doesn't bring anything near to the table what these guys do. Not even remotely close. If Jack were putting up 25 points per game but turning the ball over a lot, I think us Jack critics could forgive him the poor turnover ratio, but he doesn't. So bringing up these stats doesn't defend Jack at all. Instead, when you compare him to players like you do above, you just make it obvious that if you're not able to produce like Wade or Kobe, with that kind of assist/turnover ratio you're not going to get played nearly the number of minutes that Jack does.

Instead, let's compare Jack to guards (point or otherwise) that have similar A/TO ratios and bring about as much elsewhere to the table, thus earning similar minutes. We get:

Keith Bogans
Aleksander Pavlovic
Kelenna Azubuike

That's it. Those are the players Jack most closely compares to. Everyone else that has that kind of assist/turnover ratio either brings much more to the table (like a Kobe or Wade) or plays significantly less than Jack. Notice none of these guys are considred great (or even very good), and none of them are given primary ball-handling duties. So out of players that are supposed to be PGs (we drafted Jack to play a PG, and we use him primarily at PG), no one in the league has a worse A/TO ratio. Even if you want to consider him a SG, you're seeing the only three that have similar or worse A/TO that offer so little elsewhere that play as much. Of these players, all are bigger and thus more able to handle the defensive side of the SG role better than Jack. So he's either an incredibly butter-fingered PG, or he's an incredibly short, ineffective SG that still turns the ball over a lot but without a payoff in another area of his game. Take your pick.

all well and good constructed points.....except for the fact that I was responding to a specific statement you made:

It is far, far more problematic for a player who has the ball in his hands as much as Jack to have a poor assist/turnover ratio.

that didn't come with any qualifyers like "except for all-stars" or "excluding players that disprove the point".

'player'...'assist/turnover ratio'....those were the two prongs of the goalposts in the first quarter....

Now, if you want to argue that at some point, a level of production trumps turnover rate, then fine...that's reasonable. But then, it becomes just matters of degrees doesn't it? Would a 1.97 ast/to ratio change your mind?...a 12.1 scoring average instead of 9.4?.... a .398 3pt %?

You say a primary objection of yours about jack is how nate uses him. Well we know that the coaches ask and expect jack to drive the lane...attack the basket. That's a part of the game that will generate turnovers. We know that; it's one of the reasons Wade has such a high rate. So do we 'discount' Jack's turnover number because of that?

And speaking of discounting, it seems that other things Jack does are discounted because of the focus on his turnovers. He's third on the team in points per shot, and he's 3rd on the team in free throws made which often comes after he has penetrated the heart of the opponent's defense...and that's important.

Again...I don't really anticipate he'll be on the team next season. And after this exchange we're engaged in, he'll likely go out tonight and absolutely stink up detroit, if only to make me look the fool for tacitly defending him.