Are we starting Jack to showcase him?
Moderators: DeBlazerRiddem, Moonbeam
Are we starting Jack to showcase him?
- Twith
- Senior
- Posts: 537
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 09, 2007
Are we starting Jack to showcase him?
Is this a move made for our trading activity's sake or is this a better lineup than Webster at the 3 and Roy at the 2?
IMO, our team played its best ball of the year with Webster starting, and we've played pretty poorly as of late, much of it with Jack starting.
IMO, our team played its best ball of the year with Webster starting, and we've played pretty poorly as of late, much of it with Jack starting.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 3,301
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 25, 2007
- Location: Birthplace of the future dyansty.
- Twith
- Senior
- Posts: 537
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 09, 2007
Unless his 11-1 ast-TO ratio today makes SOMEBODY interested in him and perhaps giving us more than fair value for him.
That said, would you sacrifice a few wins now showcasing him and end up trading him in your average KP trade? Consider the track record of KP's trades and think of the value he could squeeze out of Jack to a desperate Eastern Conf team.
That said, would you sacrifice a few wins now showcasing him and end up trading him in your average KP trade? Consider the track record of KP's trades and think of the value he could squeeze out of Jack to a desperate Eastern Conf team.
- Mr Odd
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 12,081
- And1: 8
- Joined: Jul 08, 2003
cucad8 wrote:I am pretty sure Nate said when he initially did it that it was to give us more of a punch off the bench with Webster, since Jones was hurt.
Actually last night he said he put Jack in the
line up to help Roy since he had a headcold
and played a lot of mins over the All-Star
weekend. Nate said he wanted to help Roy
by putting another decision on the court.. .


bing'o-bang'o-bong'o-baby!!
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,275
- And1: 1,400
- Joined: May 27, 2007
Mr Odd wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Actually last night he said he put Jack in the
line up to help Roy since he had a headcold
and played a lot of mins over the All-Star
weekend. Nate said he wanted to help Roy
by putting another decision on the court.. .
Oh, woops. I know when Jones first went down, he said something along those lines. Didn't hear his resoning for it last night, was just assumingit was a continuation of the previous thought. Another decision maker? I can make decisions as well. Doesn't mean they are any good. I'd rather less decision makers, and more good players, but that's just me.
- Mr Odd
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 12,081
- And1: 8
- Joined: Jul 08, 2003
cucad8 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Oh, woops. I know when Jones first went down, he said something along those lines. Didn't hear his resoning for it last night, was just assumingit was a continuation of the previous thought. Another decision maker? I can make decisions as well. Doesn't mean they are any good. I'd rather less decision makers, and more good players, but that's just me.
Thats what I thought at first to because that was
Nates reason last time. I guess his excuse for
starting Jack changes. lol. I hate diggin' on Jack
tho because he seems like a great guy and in all
honesty hes not a bad player, he can play and has
some upside to still grow into. Jack just makes some
bonehead plays that really hurts the team and in my
opinion Nate & Jack stunt the growth of other players.
Thats probably the biggest reason why I think Jack
needs to be traded. I know, its a weird reason.. .

bing'o-bang'o-bong'o-baby!!
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,902
- And1: 150
- Joined: Jun 26, 2001
- Location: Portland, Oregon
-
God I hope so.
The initial explanation for the move was that they wanted Martell to come in with the second unit to help spread the floor like James Jones was able to do back when we were winning.
That seems to be failing miserably and the white unit actually misses a guy like Jarrett Jack that takes it to the hole.
The move of Jack to the starting lineup has been a disaster. Not only didn't it pull the team out of the funk they were in but they're now doing even worse.
I really really hope they're showcasing him. Cause if Nate still thinks this is a good idea it says to me that he's not the kind of coach that recognizes something as a mistake and changes something back to the way it was before. So what we're likely to see is yet another lineup change that might even be worse than Jack at the starting 2. Like maybe he'll put Jack back on the bench and start Travis at the 3.
The initial explanation for the move was that they wanted Martell to come in with the second unit to help spread the floor like James Jones was able to do back when we were winning.
That seems to be failing miserably and the white unit actually misses a guy like Jarrett Jack that takes it to the hole.
The move of Jack to the starting lineup has been a disaster. Not only didn't it pull the team out of the funk they were in but they're now doing even worse.
I really really hope they're showcasing him. Cause if Nate still thinks this is a good idea it says to me that he's not the kind of coach that recognizes something as a mistake and changes something back to the way it was before. So what we're likely to see is yet another lineup change that might even be worse than Jack at the starting 2. Like maybe he'll put Jack back on the bench and start Travis at the 3.
Green Apple wrote:Portland fans are and have been some of the great citizens of basketball, they are a sea of basketball knowledge and passion.
- jeffhardyfan52
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,894
- And1: 596
- Joined: Jul 09, 2006
- Location: Portland
- Contact:
-
Return to Portland Trail Blazers