Justin Jackson

[upinsmoke]

As many of you know the Kings brought in Jackson for a work out. He's a 22 year old junior who has shown he's capable of improving every year. So with this young man on our radar what are your thoughts? Personally I think he's going to be a good pro. And FWIW I think Scott Perry really likes him because he's in that T. Prince mold who he heavily scouted in his time in Detroit.

 

[kingsboi]

not a big fan to be honest, Kings could do better than drafting him.

 

[Kingsfan23]

As a trade down? 10 would be high IMO. Taking one of Portlands later picks for him I can see if the staff is high on him

 

[dude12]

He's a late first guy......not a big fan either

 

[Ozymandias]

10 is too high. He's got some great skill/touch, his floaters are pretty much automatic, I prefer OG Anunoby in general but especially in the case of the Kings though.

I know Jackson has really put on some good muscle in the past few years and he's got a 7'3" wingspan, he's still a softie in my book though.I'd rather draft a younger player and sign CJ Miles on the low..

 

[KingsFanSince85]

He's a late first guy......not a big fan either

That's likely going to prove untrue. Not really sure what you're basing this on. From what I've been reading, JJ could go anywhere from late lottery to early 20's.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

10 is too high. .

Says who? It's not too high if someone values him that high. I'm not sure it's going to happen, but it might.

JJ was a key piece from an elite winning program that was 2 plays away from winning back-to-back National titles. The kid can play.

 

[upinsmoke]

Says who? It's not too high if someone values him that high. I'm not sure it's going to happen, but it might.

JJ was a key piece from an elite winning program that was 2 plays away from winning back-to-back National titles. The kid can play.

He can also defend the perimeter better than some would assume. I myself prefer OG but someone is going to pick this kid in the lottery IMO.

 

[Ozymandias]

Says who? It's not too high if someone values him that high. I'm not sure it's going to happen, but it might.

JJ was a key piece from an elite winning program that was 2 plays away from winning back-to-back National titles. The kid can play.

I agree that things are worth what people will pay for them, thats a golden rule of pricing. The answer to your question is me, it's just my 2 cents, my personal appraisal - a nobody on the internet.

He can play, I've got him safely in the top-20, UNC was served the championship on a silver platter, I don't recognize them as the true champs - We all lost for watching that robbery. If we're being real UNC should've never even been eligible for post-season play but the NCAA eased their punishments for one of their cash cows.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I agree that things are worth what people will pay for them, thats a golden rule of pricing. The answer to your question is me, it's just my 2 cents, my personal appraisal - a nobody on the internet.

He can play, I've got him safely in the top-20, UNC was served the championship on a silver platter, I don't recognize them as the true champs - We all lost for watching that robbery. If we're being real UNC should've never even been eligible for post-season play but the NCAA eased their punishments for one of their cash cows.

I liked your post, but not for your comments on UNC. That part sounds like sour grapes. Agreed that the officiating was bad in the title game, but UNC was the better team regardless IMO. That's precisely why they were in that game 2 years in a row. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I could go on and on for days how the Sacramento Kings should have beaten the Lakers back in 2002 and likely won a title if not for some of the worst officiating we've ever seen. However, it didn't happen and they don't have a title. Gotta live with that. Same applies to UNC in 2017. They are the champs and always will be.

Circling back to Justin Jackson, I agree with you that he should be safely within the top 20 -- unless he has some really bad workouts, which I've not heard of to this point. My guess is that he goes somewhere between 10 and 18.

 

[Ozymandias]

I liked your post, but not for your comments on UNC. That part sounds like sour grapes. Agreed that the officiating was bad in the title game, but UNC was the better team regardless IMO. That's precisely why they were in that game 2 years in a row. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I could go on and on for days how the Sacramento Kings should have beaten the Lakers back in 2002 and likely won a title if not for some of the worst officiating we've ever seen. However, it didn't happen and they don't have a title. Gotta live with that. Same applies to UNC in 2017. They are the champs and always will be.

Circling back to Justin Jackson, I agree with you that he should be safely within the top 20 -- unless he has some really bad workouts, which I've not heard of to this point. My guess is that he goes somewhere between 10 and 18.

What about at the end of the Arkansas game? and the fouls called on De'Aaron Fox in the Kentucky game (The ref got death threats over those calls)... The truth is they got a string of fortuitous calls, it was a pattern. The calls in the championship game on Gonzaga's best player were completely outrageous, let the kids play.

I agree with what you said about the champs being the champs. I'd also cite what happened in the NFC Championship game Brett Farve's Vikings squad was railroaded by the refs. It does happen, to me what happened to UNC in the tournament was a pattern. I understand thats how the cookie crumbles sometime, doesn't mean I need to pretend like that didn't happen.

Now one caveat to this is that simply the rule should be 6 fouls, not 5.. which will be changed within a few years IMO.

Yes there is some sour grapes btw, I'm a huge De'Aaron Fox and UK fan and for their season to end like that was an atrocity. Same for Zach Collins and Gonzaga.

Justin Jackson played like crap in the big game, 0-9 from 3, he scored 16 points on 19 shots, but the refs gave them all the help they needed, thats the truth.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

What about at the end of the Arkansas game? and the fouls called on De'Aaron Fox in the Kentucky game (The ref got death threats over those calls)... The truth is they got a string of fortuitous calls, it was a pattern. The calls in the championship game on Gonzaga's best player were completely outrageous, let the kids play.

I agree with what you said about the champs being the champs. I'd also cite what happened in the NFC Championship game Brett Farve's Vikings squad was railroaded by the refs. It does happen, to me what happened to UNC in the tournament was a pattern. I understand thats how the cookie crumbles sometime, doesn't mean I need to pretend like that didn't happen.

Now one caveat to this is that simply the rule should be 6 fouls, not 5.. which will be changed within a few years IMO.

You could pick any championship team in any sport and point to something similar along their path to the title. There have been a ton of teams that lucked out due to officiating and countless other factors. It happens all the time. Being on the right side of things has always played a large factor in winning a championship, unfortunately. We could devote an entire thread to this topic, including listing teams and how they benefited unfairly.

But in the spirit of getting things back on topic, I'll just say again that Justin Jackson is not only an impressive player at a position of need for the Kings -- he was one of the key pieces on an elite team that made back-to-back title game appearances and hoisted the trophy once. I like those types of players, even if they don't always pan out.

 

[Ozymandias]

You could pick any championship team in any sport and point to something similar along their path to the title. There have been a ton of teams that lucked out due to officiating and countless other factors. It happens all the time. Being on the right side of things has always played a large factor in winning a championship, unfortunately. We could devote an entire thread to this topic, including listing teams and how they benefited unfairly.

But in the spirit of getting things back on topic, I'll just say again that Justin Jackson is not only an impressive player at a position of need for the Kings -- he was one of the key pieces on an elite team that made back-to-back title game appearances and hoisted the trophy once. I like those types of players, even if they don't always pan out.

Sure but I just wanna tell you why I see things that way, It's because I watch a lot of Boxing, and in that sport the judges domost certainly, act maliciously... I understand there's human error but sometimes there's just too much evidence for me to deny, especially if there's a vested interest in a certain fighter who's signed with a promoter thats setup the event as a tune-up... it happens often, I can start listing tons of examples... and it has really left a sour taste in my mouth. You'll notice I'm not really the type to complain about the refs either so I'm a bit embarrassed to have this convo.

Back on topic. I just don't think Justin Jackson has much star power, he projects as a plus (efficient) offensive player and a bit of a defensive sieve, thats why I think 10 is too high. Jonathan Isaac is echelons above him as a prospect.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

But Isaac won't be around @ 10 either. So it's moot. Even then, "echelons" is a gross over-exaggeration. Sure, he's the higher rated prospect by most, but Isaac certainly has his question marks too.

 

[upinsmoke]

As we come down the stretch I can see the Kings picking Jackson at 10. He was among the very first players that were brought in to workout and interview and overall he's a sound player. Of course it depends on what happens at #5 but if Fox is there and is picked I think Justin has a good chance to be a King.