Who's better: Josh Jackson or Andrew Wiggins?

Johnny Be Goode · Post #121 » by **Johnny Be Goode** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:59 pm

Josh looks otherwise like a fantastic prospect. He has basically everything but his shot seems to be broken. Should we be concerned that this is another MKG case? (56FT% and 25 3P%)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/josh-jackson-2.html

Mulhollanddrive · Post #122 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:59 am

Would you consider this similar to how Jackson projects?

17 Points, 9 Rebounds, 4 Assists
50% 2PT, 29% 3PT, 65% FT

That's peak Josh Smith.

ItsThatEasy · Post #123 » by **ItsThatEasy** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:03 am

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Would you consider this similar to how Jackson projects?

17 Points, 9 Rebounds, 4 Assists
50% 2PT, 29% 3PT, 65% FT

That's peak Josh Smith.

If you factor in that he won't take as many 3's as Smith then yes. He's too smart of a player to jack up shots he's not good at. And I believe his peak FT% will be a tad higher than 65% also.

Upperclass · Post #124 » by **Upperclass** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:02 pm

He's Gerald Wallace 2.0 15/16ppg, 6rbdge, 1blk, 1.5/2 stls, 44% fg, 31%3pt type guy

sixerswillrule · Post #125 » by **sixerswillrule** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:44 pm

ItsThatEasy wrote:
Mulhollanddrive wrote:Would you consider this similar to how Jackson projects?

17 Points, 9 Rebounds, 4 Assists
50% 2PT, 29% 3PT, 65% FT

That's peak Josh Smith.

If you factor in that he won't take as many 3's as Smith then yes. He's too smart of a player to jack up shots he's not good at. And I believe his peak FT% will be a tad higher than 65% also.

11 percent of Smith's fga in Atlanta were threes. I guarantee Jackson will take that many if not more. Smith took more deep twos than threes.

ItsThatEasy · Post #126 » by **ItsThatEasy** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:46 pm

sixerswillrule wrote:
ItsThatEasy wrote:
Mulhollanddrive wrote:Would you consider this similar to how Jackson projects?

17 Points, 9 Rebounds, 4 Assists
50% 2PT, 29% 3PT, 65% FT

That's peak Josh Smith.

If you factor in that he won't take as many 3's as Smith then yes. He's too smart of a player to jack up shots he's not good at. And I believe his peak FT% will be a tad higher than 65% also.

11 percent of Smith's fga in Atlanta were threes. I guarantee Jackson will take that many if not more. Smith took more deep twos than threes.

Thanks for the correction. In this scenario my statement regarding him not taking shots he's poor at still rings true. He's not a long-2 guy in general from what I've seen.

sixerswillrule · Post #127 » by **sixerswillrule** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:57 pm

ItsThatEasy wrote:
sixerswillrule wrote:
ItsThatEasy wrote:
If you factor in that he won't take as many 3's as Smith then yes. He's too smart of a player to jack up shots he's not good at. And I believe his peak FT% will be a tad higher than 65% also.

11 percent of Smith's fga in Atlanta were threes. I guarantee Jackson will take that many if not more. Smith took more deep twos than threes.

Thanks for the correction. In this scenario my statement regarding him not taking shots he's poor at still rings true. He's not a long-2 guy in general from what I've seen.

It'll be very difficult for him to be effective on offense as a SF while taking such few shots outside of 15 feet. That's very rare these days.

Post #128 » by **GimmeDat** » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:12 am

He is very MKG-esque, but I'd say his shot is a lot more fixable, plus he has his ball handling and facilitating skills. That's a high impact prospect.

guille_4 · Post #129 » by **guille_4** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:07 pm

GimmeDat wrote:He is very MKG-esque, but I'd say his shot is a lot more fixable, plus he has his ball handling and facilitating skills. That's a high impact prospect.

I've never seen him play but his numbers look more MKG-esque than Wiggins-esque.

He must have a lot of intangibles and be a good defender. It's surprising to see a SF ranked so high with such poor 3PT and FT percentages (52,9% FT% and 26,7% 3PT%).

His playmaking abilities don't really show up in the boxscore. 3,1 assists @ 2,3 TOs.

tsmith · Post #130 » by **tsmith** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:27 pm

guille_4 wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:He is very MKG-esque, but I'd say his shot is a lot more fixable, plus he has his ball handling and facilitating skills. That's a high impact prospect.

I've never seen him play but his numbers lookmore MKG-esque than Wiggins-esque.

He must have a lot of intangibles and be a good defender. It's surprising to see a SF ranked so high with such poor 3PT and FT percentages (52,9% FT% and 26,7% 3PT%).

His playmaking abilities don't really show up in the boxscore. 3,1 assists @ 2,3 TOs.

Cant really make such brass calls after admitting you've never even seen him play...

guille_4 · Post #131 » by **guille_4** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:45 pm

t_smith979 wrote:
guille_4 wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:He is very MKG-esque, but I'd say his shot is a lot more fixable, plus he has his ball handling and facilitating skills. That's a high impact prospect.

I've never seen him play but his numbers lookmore MKG-esque than Wiggins-esque.

He must have a lot of intangibles and be a good defender. It's surprising to see a SF ranked so high with such poor 3PT and FT percentages (52,9% FT% and 26,7% 3PT%).

His playmaking abilities don't really show up in the boxscore. 3,1 assists @ 2,3 TOs.

Cant really make such brass calls after admitting you've never even seen him play...

Calls? Either you have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old or you have misread me.

I'm not making any calls.

tsmith · Post #132 » by **tsmith** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:57 pm

guille_4 wrote:
t_smith979 wrote:
guille_4 wrote:
I've never seen him play but his numbers lookmore MKG-esque than Wiggins-esque.

He must have a lot of intangibles and be a good defender. It's surprising to see a SF ranked so high with such poor 3PT and FT percentages (52,9% FT% and 26,7% 3PT%).

His playmaking abilities don't really show up in the boxscore. 3,1 assists @ 2,3 TOs.

Cant really make such brass calls after admitting you've never even seen him play...

Calls? Either you have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old or you have misread me.

I'm not making any calls.

Is calling him 'MKG-esque' not a call???

BillyKingGM · Post #133 » by **BillyKingGM** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:40 pm

I'd say this question is a bit of a misnomer.

I think Wiggins had the higher ceiling when he was a prospect, but now I think his ceiling has to have been adjusted based on what we've seen...

So, I think Josh Jacksons apparent ceiling now is higher than Wiggins current apparent ceiling, but theres a damn good chance JJ takes the same hit to his apparent ceiling when he enters the NBA, just like Wiggins has. Though personally, I do prefer JJ due to his defensive abilities.

guille_4 · Post #134 » by **guille_4** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:16 pm

t_smith979 wrote:
guille_4 wrote:
t_smith979 wrote:Cant really make such brass calls after admitting you've never even seen him play...

Calls? Either you have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old or you have misread me.

I'm not making any calls.

Is calling him 'MKG-esque' not a call???

I never called him MKG-esque. I said that his numbers look more MKG-esque than Wiggins-esque.

The subject of the sentence is 'Josh Jackson's numbers' not 'Josh Jackson'.

Zeitgeister · Post #135 » by **Zeitgeister** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:25 pm

guille_4 wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:He is very MKG-esque, but I'd say his shot is a lot more fixable, plus he has his ball handling and facilitating skills. That's a high impact prospect.

I've never seen him play but his numbers look more MKG-esque than Wiggins-esque.

He must have a lot of intangibles and be a good defender. It's surprising to see a SF ranked so high with such poor 3PT and FT percentages (52,9% FT% and 26,7% 3PT%).

His playmaking abilities don't really show up in the boxscore. 3,1 assists @ 2,3 TOs.

Per 40

Andrew Wiggins
20.8 ppg (.563 TS%) 7.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.2 bpg

Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
15.3 ppg (.570 TS%) 9.5 rpg, 2.4 apg, 1.3 spg, 1.2 bpg

Josh Jackson
21.9 ppg (.556 TS%) 9.1 rpg, 4.3 apg, 2.2 spg, 2.1 bpg

Jackson looks noticeably better than both of them, especially as a playmaker and gets considerably more steals and blocks than Wiggins and MKG.

Kolkmania · Post #136 » by **Kolkmania** » Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:55 pm

BillyKingGM wrote:I'd say this question is a bit of a misnomer.

I think Wiggins had the higher ceiling when he was a prospect, but now I think his ceiling has to have been adjusted based on what we've seen...

So, I think Josh Jacksons apparent ceiling now is higher than Wiggins current apparent ceiling, but theres a damn good chance JJ takes the same hit to his apparent ceiling when he enters the NBA, just like Wiggins has. Though personally, I do prefer JJ due to his defensive abilities.

I don't think the chances are equal. Andrew Wiggins was all about potential, due to his athleticism, wingspan and age. Josh Jackson has a much higher floor in my opinion. Even if he's never going to hit the 3 at ~33%, he'll contribute with his rebounding, playmaking, hustle plays and defensive versatility.

To be fair, they're nothing alike. The whole comparison is made because they both play(ed) for Kansas.

jrob23 · Post #137 » by **jrob23** » Sun Jan 1, 2017 12:02 am

Josh Jackson is about as elite a defender as you can find. His BBIQ is world's better than Wiggins. That said, you have to consider that Wiggins is only about 70% the player he'll end up being. Eventually I expect a much better defender and about a DeRozan type offensive player. Kid's not even 22 y/o. He's as good as Kobe was at the same age. Jimmy Butler was getting 8 mpg as a 22 y/o lol. Wiggins has superstar potential. He was a much better prospect than Jackson.

I don't think Jackson will ever be a great scorer in the NBA. If he gives you 16 ppg 8 rpg 5 apg with lockdown defense than he's worth a high pick though. And that's just in his early years. Prime years and he could reach 20 ppg. It's just as easy to win with guys like Jackson as it is Wiggins so neither is necessarily the definitively better option. Jackson could be a taller Avery Bradley. Since AB is a quasi all star and DPOY candidate (at least last year he was) than that's a good thing.

Post #138 » by **GimmeDat** » Sun Jan 1, 2017 12:40 am

I think the best comparison I can come up with is prime Igoudala. Elite defender, great feel for the game, very athletic, multi-skilled, jump shot isn't great but otherwise a talented scorer.

Post #139 » by **Marcus** » Sun Jan 1, 2017 12:47 am

GimmeDat wrote:I think the best comparison I can come up with is prime Igoudala. Elite defender, great feel for the game, very athletic, multi-skilled, jump shot isn't great but otherwise a talented scorer.

That Andre with more of a killer instinct is a pretty good player.

Post #140 » by **GimmeDat** » Sun Jan 1, 2017 12:53 am

Marcus wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:I think the best comparison I can come up with is prime Igoudala. Elite defender, great feel for the game, very athletic, multi-skilled, jump shot isn't great but otherwise a talented scorer.

That Andre with more of a killer instinct is a pretty good player.

Absolutely, and if he does happen to figure that jumper out, then he can be a star.

His talent level plus his BBIQ and feel for the game is an exciting combination. In the spirit of this thread, I'd say yes, Wiggins has more potential, but I think Jackson has a good chance to be a higher impact player.

Who's the better prospect: Josh Jackson or Andrew Wiggins?