RealGM

He likes to make love to pressure (from the back )



Oh yeah, and ever since the date of his return, the Warriors have the best record in the Western Conference. For some reason I wasn't disappointed that he didn't make the All-Star team though. I know there's obviously no room for him on that team, but do you still consider him as an all-star player?

i think he is close... but not there yet... he's a bit inconsistent... i do think a lot of western conf players should have made it including baron davis who is a GSW... but if you move all the snubbed over to east i still dont think there is room for jackson.

I think ray allen and jackson fall around the same category of being really close but not quite

i dont think an argument like they went on a roll since he came back from suspension means he is an allstar... there are a lot of teams out there that would be worse without a single player not that great (utah comes to mind with kyle kover). jackson is very important to the team, but that doesnt make him an allstar...

No he's not.

YiYaoYue wrote:i dont think an argument like they went on a roll since he came back from suspension means he is an allstar... there are a lot of teams out there that would be worse without a single player not that great (utah comes to mind with kyle kover). jackson is very important to the team, but that doesnt make him an allstar...

Stephen Jackson is one of the Captains on the Warriors.
Stephen Jackson is the 2nd leading scorer on the Warriors.
Stephen Jackson is the 2nd best playmaker on the Warriors.
Stephen Jackson is the Warriors best defender.

Kyle Korver is neither of those on his team. I do agree with the Ray Allen example, but the Celtics have KG and Pierce as all-stars winning them games while the Warriors have no all-stars at all.

Maybe once he improves his shooting efficiency.

No. Not at all. Being the best defender on the Warrior's is like being the smartest kid in special ed - not much of an achievement. He's a horrible chucker, an inefficient scorer with an attitude problem. He's also a poor rebounder and turnover prone. If Stephen Jackson is an All-Star, half the league can make the same claim.

Don't get me wrong guys i'm not being biased towards Jackson. The Warriors "under the radar" success is due to a mix of talents. Jackson's leadership, Baron's overall game, Monta's great mid range shooting and fastbreaks, Biedrin's efficiency inside etc.

I'm just sayin that the Warriors having the best record in the West since Stephen Jackson's return, being a .600 team in a tough Western Conference etc. should say something about him. Especially when the casual NBA fan thought that the Warriors would do tremendously bad this season without Jason Richardson on the team anymore.

It's ok though. This thread wasn't made to beg for respect, only for opinions. It's hard to give any positive credit to Stephen Jackson after what he did in Detroit in 2004 anyways.

Bucky O'Hare wrote:No. Not at all. Being the best defender on the Warrior's is like being the smartest kid in special ed - not much of an achievement. He's a horrible chucker, an inefficient scorer with an attitude problem. He's also a poor rebounder and turnover prone. If Stephen Jackson is an All-Star, half the league can make the same claim.

Damn all you did was list everything he's bad at without even mentioning all the positives he brings.

And without Stephen Jackson, the Warriors wouldn't even be CLOSE to .500 at all. Yeah, with Stephen Jackson the Warriors have the most wins in the Western Conference... a conference where the 10th seed would be the 4th seed in the East, YET you compare his team to a speical ed class.

Maybe if this was back then when he was a Spur, you would give him credit. You probably aren't giving him any good recognition right NOW since he's playing for a wild team, and that it's humiliating to see a "THUG" like him being so successful as a leader on a team. Hmm, but back then he was the 2nd leading scorer on the Spurs when they won the championship, Tim Duncan called him the "Ultimate Teammate". Yeah, Stephen Jackson sucks.

jackson is very important to the team, but that doesnt make him an allstar...

I'm not asking if people think he's an OFFICIAL all-star, as in if he would make the team or not. I'm just asking if he would be a snub or something like that.

But this is my point: Since Stephen Jackson returned, the Warriors have the best record in the Western Conference (i've said it too many times, sorry). Now, if he managed to be playing in those first 7 games that he missed, the Warriors would probably be sitting at a TOP 3 SEED right now.

So, what would a TOP 3 team in a conference be, if they had no All-Stars? That would be pretty awkward. That's basically what the Warriors are now if you look at their record and how good they've been playing lately. The most winningest team in the league without an All-Star.

But yeah, i'm not mad or anything. I know it seems like I am since i'm making all these posts. I know it's a reputation thing, and i'm fine with that. Stephen Jackson has a bad reputation from his Indiana days and now he's paying the price.

I'm just saying that if it were some other player like Paul Pierce or whoever that missed the first 7 games and came back to rack up a big amount of wins, they probably would be considered an All-Star. So yeah i'm about done. You guys can keep discussing if you want go hate on Jackson if you want to i'm not gonna get mad.

No do I don't consider him an allstar, or a snub from the ASG. I do consider him a good player though.

with him their the best in the west
without him, they'd be a loto team..

does he deserve it this year? sure, if there were 15 spots available
is he an all star? nah, he's a very good player

I love Jack to death.

And I don't think he's an All-Star.

Especially not in the Western Conference.

I don't get it. After a loss, the GSW fans were classy and didn't think it to be the end of the world. After the Allstar rosters were finalized however, they (read: some of them) became really vocal about how they got robbed/snubbed/whatever...its an all star game, it doesn't really mean anything...stop getting worried over it.

i dont think jackson is an all-star and im a warriors fan. Sure hes having a career season and his numbers are awesome...but watching the games its obvious hes not all-star calibur. He is a big reason why the warriors are winning, especially last year too.

I consider Baron Davis an all-star before Stephen Jackson.

CupcakeNoFillin wrote:

jackson is very important to the team, but that doesnt make him an allstar...

I'm not asking if people think he's an OFFICIAL all-star, as in if he would make the team or not. I'm just asking if he would be a snub or something like that.

But this is my point: Since Stephen Jackson returned, the Warriors have the best record in the Western Conference (i've said it too many times, sorry). Now, if he managed to be playing in those first 7 games that he missed, the Warriors would probably be sitting at a TOP 3 SEED right now.

So, what would a TOP 3 team in a conference be, if they had no All-Stars? That would be pretty awkward. That's basically what the Warriors are now if you look at their record and how good they've been playing lately. The most winningest team in the league without an All-Star.

But yeah, i'm not mad or anything. I know it seems like I am since i'm making all these posts. I know it's a reputation thing, and i'm fine with that. Stephen Jackson has a bad reputation from his Indiana days and now he's paying the price.

I'm just saying that if it were some other player like Paul Pierce or whoever that missed the first 7 games and came back to rack up a big amount of wins, they probably would be considered an All-Star. So yeah i'm about done. You guys can keep discussing if you want go hate on Jackson if you want to i'm not gonna get mad.

Since Korver were traded to the Jazz Utah is 17-3 .... and it don't make him all-star. Of course Stephen Jackson is better than Korver, but he is not very consistent.

i think hes a borderline allstar

He's one of a handful of guys who puts up 20, 4, and 4. Plays some of the best defense amongst swingmen. Then you factor in the winning, leadership, and clutch ability.

But honestly, it's tough as hell to be declared a top-12 player in the West. Jack is around top-20 - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Add to the fact most people know very little about him and Jack couldn't care less.

He's one of a handful of guys who puts up 17 shots a game and shoots 40% from the field. Plays some of the most overrated defense amongst swingmen. Then you factor in the fact that any team without their starting shooting guard will struggle, the crazyness, and ability to implode in the clutch...

And no Jackson easily does not deserve to be an all-star.

nah