Frank Jackson

Draft talk all year round

Moderators: Ruzious, Marcus

SBM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,318
And1: 236
Joined: Nov 16, 2013
     

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#41 » by SBM » Wed May 17, 2017 6:53 pm

reanimator wrote:
SBM wrote:Kennard makes more sense for the Bucks.


How? I just don't see a large shooting gap going forward and Frank clearly has more upside.


Are you seriously saying Frank and Luke are close as shooters?
reanimator
Starter
Posts: 2,197
And1: 733
Joined: Jan 31, 2014
     

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#42 » by reanimator » Wed May 17, 2017 7:01 pm

SBM wrote:
reanimator wrote:
SBM wrote:Kennard makes more sense for the Bucks.


How? I just don't see a large shooting gap going forward and Frank clearly has more upside.


Are you seriously saying Frank and Luke are close as shooters?


Kennard as a freshman : 32 3pt% on 4.8 attempts, 56 TS%, 86 FT%
Jackson: 39 3pt% on 3.6 attempts, 60 TS%, 76 FT%

Not some absurd gap even if Kennard is a bit more versatile as a shooter but how much of that will translate with slow feet and not being featured in a ball-dominant role?
User avatar
whitehops
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,494
And1: 3,177
Joined: Dec 12, 2012
     

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#43 » by whitehops » Wed May 17, 2017 7:25 pm

reanimator wrote:
SBM wrote:
reanimator wrote:
How? I just don't see a large shooting gap going forward and Frank clearly has more upside.


Are you seriously saying Frank and Luke are close as shooters?


Kennard as a freshman : 32 3pt% on 4.8 attempts, 56 TS%, 86 FT%
Jackson: 39 3pt% on 3.6 attempts, 60 TS%, 76 FT%

Not some absurd gap even if Kennard is a bit more versatile as a shooter but how much of that will translate with slow feet and not being featured in a ball-dominant role?



can jackson shoot off the dribble? off of screens? pullups? stepbacks? jackson excels at hitting open, spot-up threes but the ability to get off your shot is an important one and there's absolutely no comparison there between kennard and jackson.
Duke4life831
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,471
And1: 29,296
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
   

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#44 » by Duke4life831 » Wed May 17, 2017 7:36 pm

whitehops wrote:
reanimator wrote:
SBM wrote:
Are you seriously saying Frank and Luke are close as shooters?


Kennard as a freshman : 32 3pt% on 4.8 attempts, 56 TS%, 86 FT%
Jackson: 39 3pt% on 3.6 attempts, 60 TS%, 76 FT%

Not some absurd gap even if Kennard is a bit more versatile as a shooter but how much of that will translate with slow feet and not being featured in a ball-dominant role?



can jackson shoot off the dribble? off of screens? pullups? stepbacks? jackson excels at hitting open, spot-up threes but the ability to get off your shot is an important one and there's absolutely no comparison there between kennard and jackson.


There is no doubt Luke is the superior pure shooter. Luke is probably the best pure shooter in this class. I will say one thing about Luke that I do question about his shooting. He doesn't shoot off screens well. He moves very poorly off the ball and if his feet aren't completely set his jumper isn't nearly effective. I'm not saying Frank is better at it since I don't recall Frank taking one jumper while running off on off ball screen.

I did begin to cool on Luke towards the end of the year because I started to notice he always needed to be set to get a good shot off and he isn't going to get that many of those type of looks in the NBA.
reanimator
Starter
Posts: 2,197
And1: 733
Joined: Jan 31, 2014
     

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#45 » by reanimator » Wed May 17, 2017 7:49 pm

whitehops wrote:
reanimator wrote:
SBM wrote:
Are you seriously saying Frank and Luke are close as shooters?


Kennard as a freshman : 32 3pt% on 4.8 attempts, 56 TS%, 86 FT%
Jackson: 39 3pt% on 3.6 attempts, 60 TS%, 76 FT%

Not some absurd gap even if Kennard is a bit more versatile as a shooter but how much of that will translate with slow feet and not being featured in a ball-dominant role?



can jackson shoot off the dribble? off of screens? pullups? stepbacks? jackson excels at hitting open, spot-up threes but the ability to get off your shot is an important one and there's absolutely no comparison there between kennard and jackson.


Once again, what makes you so sure those things translate? And yes, Jackson absolutely has a pull up and a stepback.

Let me guess, you thought Nik Stauskas would be better as a shooter than Andrew Wiggins, Zach Lavine and Gary Harris, too? He too could shoot off DHO, pull-ups, off screens, etc.
User avatar
EvanZ
Head Coach
Posts: 7,289
And1: 1,240
Joined: Apr 06, 2011

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#46 » by EvanZ » Wed May 17, 2017 7:55 pm

Fischella wrote:Jeanne? having Maker? for what?


Because he's a future star? He's way longer and more skilled than Maker. He might have the most upside in the entire draft tbh.
User avatar
whitehops
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,494
And1: 3,177
Joined: Dec 12, 2012
     

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#47 » by whitehops » Wed May 17, 2017 8:14 pm

Duke4life831 wrote:There is no doubt Luke is the superior pure shooter. Luke is probably the best pure shooter in this class. I will say one thing about Luke that I do question about his shooting. He doesn't shoot off screens well. He moves very poorly off the ball and if his feet aren't completely set his jumper isn't nearly effective. I'm not saying Frank is better at it since I don't recall Frank taking one jumper while running off on off ball screen.

I did begin to cool on Luke towards the end of the year because I started to notice he always needed to be set to get a good shot off and he isn't going to get that many of those type of looks in the NBA.


i'm not sold on kennard for the same reason i'm not completely sold on justin jackson, i question how well they are going to be able to maneuver off the ball. jackson didn't create a ton of separation coming off screens in college and it's going to be harder to get that separation against NBA athletes. kennard doesn't have jackson's size so he'll have to be even more creative to get shots off. luckily he's better at handling the ball than justin jackson and seems more natural improvising.


i don't think frank jackson is a bad prospect and he would go well on a team like the bucks. i just think if people are expecting him to eventually be a "leading, scoring guard" as i've seen some predict then i think they are going to be disappointed.
User avatar
EvanZ
Head Coach
Posts: 7,289
And1: 1,240
Joined: Apr 06, 2011

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#48 » by EvanZ » Wed May 17, 2017 8:32 pm

whitehops wrote:
i don't think frank jackson is a bad prospect and he would go well on a team like the bucks. i just think if people are expecting him to eventually be a "leading, scoring guard" as i've seen some predict then i think they are going to be disappointed.


How would you compare FJ to Dion Waiters?
Duke4life831
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,471
And1: 29,296
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
   

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#49 » by Duke4life831 » Wed May 17, 2017 8:36 pm

whitehops wrote:
Duke4life831 wrote:There is no doubt Luke is the superior pure shooter. Luke is probably the best pure shooter in this class. I will say one thing about Luke that I do question about his shooting. He doesn't shoot off screens well. He moves very poorly off the ball and if his feet aren't completely set his jumper isn't nearly effective. I'm not saying Frank is better at it since I don't recall Frank taking one jumper while running off on off ball screen.

I did begin to cool on Luke towards the end of the year because I started to notice he always needed to be set to get a good shot off and he isn't going to get that many of those type of looks in the NBA.


i'm not sold on kennard for the same reason i'm not completely sold on justin jackson, i question how well they are going to be able to maneuver off the ball. jackson didn't create a ton of separation coming off screens in college and it's going to be harder to get that separation against NBA athletes. kennard doesn't have jackson's size so he'll have to be even more creative to get shots off. luckily he's better at handling the ball than justin jackson and seems more natural improvising.


i don't think frank jackson is a bad prospect and he would go well on a team like the bucks. i just think if people are expecting him to eventually be a "leading, scoring guard" as i've seen some predict then i think they are going to be disappointed.


I agree if you are expecting Jackson to be your #1 scoring option then I think youre expecting way too much. I think Frank is a very talented scorer and Im expecting him to be a good 3rd option scorer on a good team or if he really excels a 2nd option scorer.
User avatar
whitehops
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,494
And1: 3,177
Joined: Dec 12, 2012
     

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#50 » by whitehops » Thu May 18, 2017 2:17 am

EvanZ wrote:
whitehops wrote:
i don't think frank jackson is a bad prospect and he would go well on a team like the bucks. i just think if people are expecting him to eventually be a "leading, scoring guard" as i've seen some predict then i think they are going to be disappointed.


How would you compare FJ to Dion Waiters?


waiters as a prospect or waiters this past season?

i didn't watch waiters at all when he was in college so i can't comment on that. i saw a few games of waiters this year and i think it's hard to compare them because their roles were so different. waiters was the 1b option to dragic, running a lot of pick and roll while jackson was in a much lesser role at duke.

nba teams have the benefit of seeing jackson in workouts this offseason pre-draft to see exactly what he can and can't do with the ball, based on his duke tape i see him being very efficient at what he did but he also benefited from circumstance (teams paid tatum, kennard and allen more attention). just based off that i find it hard to project jackson as having a huge role in the nba.
User avatar
Prez
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,237
And1: 29,455
Joined: Jan 26, 2015
 

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#51 » by Prez » Thu May 18, 2017 5:33 pm

Why is this guy mocked so low (39 on DX currently). He has great physical tools and his skill-set as a score first guy with good range but also good defensive upside would fit in really well with Milwaukee. Even his lack of true point guard playmaking isn't a big deal with guys like Giannis, Middleton, Brogdon on the roster. I just don't see why this guy isn't higher on some boards.
MotownMadness
RealGM
Posts: 26,772
And1: 14,508
Joined: Oct 08, 2013
       

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#52 » by MotownMadness » Thu May 18, 2017 6:10 pm

Prez wrote:Why is this guy mocked so low (39 on DX currently). He has great physical tools and his skill-set as a score first guy with good range but also good defensive upside would fit in really well with Milwaukee. Even his lack of true point guard playmaking isn't a big deal with guys like Giannis, Middleton, Brogdon on the roster. I just don't see why this guy isn't higher on some boards.

I'm not even paying attention to mocks this year. Hell you could make a case for anyone from 12-30 in the 1st round just about. If you like a guy take him.
User avatar
Prez
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,237
And1: 29,455
Joined: Jan 26, 2015
 

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#53 » by Prez » Thu May 18, 2017 6:36 pm

MotownMadness wrote:
Prez wrote:Why is this guy mocked so low (39 on DX currently). He has great physical tools and his skill-set as a score first guy with good range but also good defensive upside would fit in really well with Milwaukee. Even his lack of true point guard playmaking isn't a big deal with guys like Giannis, Middleton, Brogdon on the roster. I just don't see why this guy isn't higher on some boards.

I'm not even paying attention to mocks this year. Hell you could make a case for anyone from 12-30 in the 1st round just about. If you like a guy take him.

Ya it's a very balanced, deep draft. Still think 39 is weirdly low though. He's a guy I see going up with individual workouts and stuff, read he did well at the combine.
RationalGaze
Junior
Posts: 377
And1: 63
Joined: Jun 07, 2015
   

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#54 » by RationalGaze » Thu May 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Prez wrote:Why is this guy mocked so low (39 on DX currently). He has great physical tools and his skill-set as a score first guy with good range but also good defensive upside would fit in really well with Milwaukee. Even his lack of true point guard playmaking isn't a big deal with guys like Giannis, Middleton, Brogdon on the roster. I just don't see why this guy isn't higher on some boards.

Because he's not a play maker at all. You have to be able to do more than shoot at the position. Making some plays with great shooting makes you more valuable. You all are drafting Center with your 17th pick and not a backup point.
Duke4life831
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,471
And1: 29,296
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
   

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#55 » by Duke4life831 » Thu May 18, 2017 7:01 pm

Prez wrote:Why is this guy mocked so low (39 on DX currently). He has great physical tools and his skill-set as a score first guy with good range but also good defensive upside would fit in really well with Milwaukee. Even his lack of true point guard playmaking isn't a big deal with guys like Giannis, Middleton, Brogdon on the roster. I just don't see why this guy isn't higher on some boards.


Ive been saying since before the season that I think Milwaukee can be a perfect fit for him. Wouldnt have to be the primary facilitator right away because of Giannis but he can be a really good scorer from all 3 levels and can defend. I think hes the perfect PG to compliment Giannis.

It also all depends on who youre listening to when it comes to his position, DX has him mid 2nd while guys like Fran Frachilla has been saying since the start of the combine that hes hearing he can go as early as in the lottery. Im sure teams are going to fall in love with him during the interviews and his workouts. Great athleticism and shooting and scoring tends to translate pretty well in workouts.
User avatar
GimmeDat
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 23,184
And1: 15,932
Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Location: Australia
 

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#56 » by GimmeDat » Fri May 19, 2017 12:45 am

DX are completely sleeping on both Diallo and F.Jackson, I don't get it. Not worth of a 15-20 range 1st rounder? I get it. I don't get how you can have them slipping to 35-40 though. Too much potential.
Catchall
General Manager
Posts: 9,046
And1: 3,467
Joined: Jul 06, 2008
     

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#57 » by Catchall » Fri May 19, 2017 4:39 am

Diallo has been working out with teams in the teens and early 20s (including your Bulls). Frank Jackson should go by the late first.

There are so many arguably comparable bigs in this draft, it's flattening out the back half of the first round. All the positions are pretty subjective.
User avatar
EvanZ
Head Coach
Posts: 7,289
And1: 1,240
Joined: Apr 06, 2011

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#58 » by EvanZ » Fri May 19, 2017 4:44 am

RationalGaze wrote:
Prez wrote:Why is this guy mocked so low (39 on DX currently). He has great physical tools and his skill-set as a score first guy with good range but also good defensive upside would fit in really well with Milwaukee. Even his lack of true point guard playmaking isn't a big deal with guys like Giannis, Middleton, Brogdon on the roster. I just don't see why this guy isn't higher on some boards.

Because he's not a play maker at all. You have to be able to do more than shoot at the position. Making some plays with great shooting makes you more valuable. You all are drafting Center with your 17th pick and not a backup point.


He can make plays. Watch any highlight film he's on, a lot of great passing. He's also a gifted scorer, so of course, he's going to score when he has an open shot (and he had a lot of those).

https://youtu.be/3jd-Y078hT4?t=1m22s
User avatar
GimmeDat
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 23,184
And1: 15,932
Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Location: Australia
 

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#59 » by GimmeDat » Fri May 19, 2017 5:06 am

Catchall wrote:Diallo has been working out with teams in the teens and early 20s (including your Bulls). Frank Jackson should go by the late first.

There are so many arguably comparable bigs in this draft, it's flattening out the back half of the first round. All the positions are pretty subjective.


It's really hard to project Diallo - I think teams will need to see flashes of ability that we're not privy to at this point for him to go anywhere near the lottery, otherwise I see him in the sort of 18-25 range.

We've seen Jackson in the college setting though and I think he's clearly displayed enough to be a 1st rounder of some capacity, anywhere from 15-30.

If there was a guy I'd bank on to be the 'Booker' of this draft (under-utilized college player that stands out in the league) it's Frank. I think he has a George Hill-esque ceiling.
Duke4life831
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,471
And1: 29,296
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
   

Re: Frank Jackson 

Post#60 » by Duke4life831 » Fri May 19, 2017 5:31 am

GimmeDat wrote:
Catchall wrote:Diallo has been working out with teams in the teens and early 20s (including your Bulls). Frank Jackson should go by the late first.

There are so many arguably comparable bigs in this draft, it's flattening out the back half of the first round. All the positions are pretty subjective.


It's really hard to project Diallo - I think teams will need to see flashes of ability that we're not privy to at this point for him to go anywhere near the lottery, otherwise I see him in the sort of 18-25 range.

We've seen Jackson in the college setting though and I think he's clearly displayed enough to be a 1st rounder of some capacity, anywhere from 15-30.

If there was a guy I'd bank on to be the 'Booker' of this draft (under-utilized college player that stands out in the league) it's Frank. I think he has a George Hill-esque ceiling.


Yup. I haven't wanted to say it because I don't want to sound like too much of a homer. But ya I have a feeling Frank is going to be this draft classes Devin Booker. Goes probably 5-10 picks later than he should've and looking back it should've been pretty obvious. Big strong 6'4 tremendous athlete that can shoot it and attack the rim and finish at a high percentage and is only 19. That doesn't sound like a really late 1st or 2nd round pick.

Return to NBA Draft