Streeter Lecka/Getty Images
When the Rockets selected Nikola Mirotic 23rd for the Bulls, I couldn’t believe it. Jordan Hamilton, the player I thought was almost too perfect of a fit for Oklahoma City and a player I thought the Thunder would have to trade up to get, was available.
Waiting for the Thunder was a 6-9 swingman with awesome range, a great touch and the ability to play three positions. OKC was going to have a nice bench scoring threat fall into its lap.
And then David Stern called Reggie Jackson’s name.
Jackson, a point guard from Boston College, really doesn’t have a place on the roster right now. With Russell Westbrook, Eric Maynor and Nate Robinson, adding a fourth point guard didn’t strike me as all that necessary. There were rumblings earlier that this pick could be a preemptive move surrounding Maynor’s uncertain future, but I don’t buy that. Presti picked Jackson because he likes him.
(With Maynor, I understand that Maynor might not be here long term. I’ve written and talked about that before. But Maynor still has two years on his contact with the Thunder. That’s a lot of time. Cross that bridge when it comes. Maybe Maynor walks in two years, but I don’t think that necessarily had an affect on this pick. It was more about depth I presume and adding a versatile guy to help strengthen the bench. Don’t assume that just because OKC took Jackson that Maynor is out. Presti said last night that he “anticipates having him with us for a very long time.” If anything, it might have more of an effect on Daequan Cook’s upcoming contract. And Nate Robinson is long gone at some point, but we already knew that. )
I’m sort of talking myself into this pick though. Jackson is incredibly athletic, can shoot a little and has an insane wingspan (almost seven feet). It’s entirely possible the Thunder drafted him as a combo guard, with the idea that Jackson can evolve into a Westbrook-ish hybrid point-shooting guard.
Now keep in mind, this wasn’t a lottery pick. We’re talking about adding a piece to an already excellent team that has a pretty settled 10-man rotation. Whoever the Thunder took wasn’t going to impact things in a huge way. Still, good players are to be had in the late first round. Serge Ibaka was taken 24th.
At the same time, look at who the Thunder passed over for Jackson. The aforementioned Hamilton. Or Marshon Brooks, who if OKC wanted scoring punch, is probably a better solution. Jackson was seen as more of a fit and here’s where I say, who am I to doubt Presti? He has a pretty good record of doing his job well. And he went so far as to promise Jackson a spot? Hard to argue with that confidence in a guy.
Jackson doesn’t make a ton of sense because he doesn’t exactly alleviate any needs. But then again, what are the real “needs” for this team? The Thunder have a settled starting five (sort of, assuming James Harden starts) and a sturdy bench. No matter what, I preferred Hamilton because he’s got more talent and I think his scoring ability would’ve had more value in the long run, but nothing says Jackson can’t turn into a solid pick. Presti isn’t shy about reaching out on a potential guy. It worked for Serge Ibaka. It didn’t (so far) for Byron Mullens. Who knows where Jackson will fall in that world.
He’s got ability. He can play. Is he a fit? Not at all, especially within the current structure of the roster. But the Thunder can afford to reach on talent right now. Like I said, this pick wasn’t likely going to affect the win-loss column a whole lot next year. It’s about always keeping the cupboard full of talent. That’s been the Presti mindset since he took over the job in 2007 and he wants the Thunder program to stay stocked with good young players. And Jackson certainly fits in that regard.
It’s a bit confusing in the sense that now the Thunder have four point guards under contract and that maybe there were better fits on the board. But Presti values versatility like it’s gold and Jackson definitely has that.
Plus, as one commenter put it, at least it’s not Kyle Singler.
Draft Grade - B: Hard to hit a home run picking 24th, especially when you’re a team that’s not really in need of a specific thing. The Thunder went for talent and versatility and found it in Jackson. Not the most striking pick as now OKC as four points, but it’s one that might be worth the limited risk involved, especially if Jackson pans out and fulfills some of that potential.
@The Beard Knows
I agree. And we may have forgotten that, going into the playoffs, the Thunder had one of the best records in the NBA in winning close games.
@ justin
That's part of it too but Dirk and KD have big hands, not as limiting I think
Bigger hands make it more difficult to make free throws too and big men tend to have big hands.
@ drater
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Brooks is still a great coach, maybe he understands the team better than we do and realizes they are a much better come from behind team than a put teams away team. Has anyone ever looked at our players "in the clutch" on the nba.com stat cube? Their net ratings jump from average/good to "are you f'ing kidding me?" in the clutch. When I say that..that includes the likes of Thabo.
@ Daniel Plainview
Well the position he was in at Sac town made his play worse, but he's never been a good scorer, and always a very poor defender. I guess it wouldn't be badm he would do more good for the team then Mullens has. Thing is, if we get him is he ganna chuck up the first touch he gets, and he'll be a defensive liability. Who knows maybe by playing in a better system then the Kings, and practicing against KD every day could make his defense better.
DJ 7 :Off-Topic, i was thinking this mornign about Nazr Mohammed. Then i remember a game against Memphis in the regular season. The guy goes up to the line, and air balls the 1st free throw. I remember asking myself, “how are you 7 feet tall, your release point is about 9 feet in the air, and have hands big enough to grip two balls but you suck so bad at free throws?” My question is, why do alot of big fellas suck at free throws?
It's part physiological. The smaller your arm and rib cage the better you will be able to have a fluid, reproducible shooting motion with your elbow directly underneath the ball (look at Shaq's release). You would see that a small pudgy player would likely have similar difficulties...not many examples however. I am surprised more big guys didn't try to develop the Brent Barry approach, make fun of it all you want the man was a free throw machine.
So whats the actual story or Reggies charachter? Im under teh impression that Presti only drafts men with sterling personailities.
@DJ 7
Im not pushing for Casspi, Im trying to figure him out. Hes young, can hit 3's. Wondering if his defense is beyond remedy. Was he a victim of the system? Or is he not worth Mullens?
@ Daniel Plainview
Hell no, Casspi is trash. The guy doesn't shoot from 3 at an efficient rate either. There is a reason why the Kings much rather play Garcia then Casspi. His defense is atrocious even against back up forwards. No dribble penetration, no defense,poor shot selection, poor jump shot style, scores at an inefficient rate, and is a softy. Not to mention there were a few games that we played against the kIngs where i remember seeing Omri argue with the coach. That could be anything, but little things like that already say alot of things about him.
After reading more on him and watching some highlights I really like this pick.
He's a 6-3 combo guard with elite length and athleticism. He can shoot it some(still improving in that area), he can get to the rim, and he shows good play-making skils. He is a true combo guard in the sense that he can actually play both positions. He can play PG and be a distributor. He can play SG and score.
I know the immediate thoughts were "we have Maynor how does he fit." He can play off the ball. Didn't a team with a 6-2 scoring PG as their 6th man(and 2nd leading scorer) just win an NBA title? Did that same team play a combo of Kidd(6-4)/Terry(6-2)/Barea(6-0, yeah right) a lot?
As far as Hamilton goes, I like him. I don't want to get into all the extra stuff, supposed selfish play, whether or not he's coachable, etc). Athletically though, I don't think he can play the 2. He never played the 2 at Texas, even FR year. Laterally he's average at best and he's got some stiffness in his hips, something that plagued him a lot last year. He's a 3 fully and thats what I think the Thunder saw.
I d think Marshawn Brooks might have been a better fit but there were some character/head-case/coachability issues with him as well, at least according to some reports. There were other reports that he was a good kid in a bad situation at Providence b/c the coach there didn't recruit him and wasn't a fan of his.
Two polarizing mindsets make up the brunt of DT posters:
1. Brooks should get credit for turning around one of the worst franchises in the league into WCF participant in less than three years.
2. Brooks has held back the most talented young team ever assembled in the NBA from realizing their true potential with his 7th grade JV offensive "sets" and lack of ability to either adapt to in game situations or deviate from what he thinks is best choice (ie, Thabo over Harden when it became completely obvious to everyone not named Scotty Brooks that starting every game -10 wasn't really helping).
When I find myself questioning which of these lines of thinking is MORE correct, I remind myself: "How many offensive/defensive substitutions did Brooks make in the closing minutes of umpteen close games? Oh right..."
Back on topic, I think Jackson will allow us to move Maynor for a piece or picks, either at the next trade deadline or the following one. There's no way we can afford him longer if Presti deems keeping the KD/Russ/Beard/Ibaka quartet together is the best route to multiple titles.
And @whomever talks about giving up on Ibaka if he doesn't come back with Hakeem like post game by next year, a little patience please. He's 22, been playing organized ball for less than 6 years and is improving (both statistically and eyeball test) by leaps and bounds...not season by season but month by month. I don't know where his ceiling is but his right now is top 15 PF, top 5 on the nights when he changes the game from the defensive end.
Off-Topic, i was thinking this mornign about Nazr Mohammed. Then i remember a game against Memphis in the regular season. The guy goes up to the line, and air balls the 1st free throw. I remember asking myself, "how are you 7 feet tall, your release point is about 9 feet in the air, and have hands big enough to grip two balls but you suck so bad at free throws?" My question is, why do alot of big fellas suck at free throws?
Casspis being shopped. Hows his defense? He can drain three's. I feel like we need a back up SF at least. Mullens?
Kivman :Just throwing this out there, but do you think losing to the Mavs and then watching them win the championship made Presti decide he needs his own Terry/Barrea type player – and RJ was the closest thing he could find?
I felt like this contibuted to that. Perhaps not the overwhelming factor. Maybe he came to his senses and realized Thabo 2 years and 15 minutes are over with
Harden needs to start. No Excuses. I think that says enough.
Grolgar :I just want to hear you say that there is a situation where you would be okay with Thabo starting…
If KD, RW, JH got hurt
I'd be fine with Thabo starting if Russell Westbrook was a knock down 3pt shooter and we had a big guy who had more offensive skill than Ibaka or Perkins.
Grolgar :Question: Will people still be mad with Brooks if he keeps Thabo in the starting lineup, but reduces his playing time to 10-15 minutes a game? What if Ibaka comes back with a little more offensive game and makes the first unit good enough offensively to get by? It would be the same reason Carlisle stuck with Stevenson as the starter so long (even though he often only played 10-15 minutes) – to start the game with a defensive mindset. I guess you could rationalize that starting Thabo would allow the lineups to be staggered better. Thoughts?
Absoluteley. Ill probably have to see a psychiatrist if Thabo is a starter next year. the point is getting the starters use to Harden and he them. that dynamic, once they grow comfortable with one another will be top three in ball movemnet. Which, aside from late game decisions, is our biggest weakness. The addition of Harden alone will make a complete reversal of that. I can not compute any alternative opinion.
Under no circumstances would it be permissible for Thabo to continue to start.
justin :I think if he just starts Harden and throws that unit out there, cuts Thabo’s minutes, the half court offense improves a lot without doing anything else. Thabo is like a ghost limb on the court with the current starters.
He is a ghost without all teh advantages of your typical phantom: fright, selight of hand, practical magic. he is in the worst sense, a void
Check out whos getting the bump in fantasy rankings: Ibaka and Harden
http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/basketball/fba/story?page=11postdraftrankings
I agree with Grolgar. The Brooks hate gets to be a bit much when you think about the trajectory of the team over the last couple of years. No one thought they would make the WCF but once they did it was somehow despite Brooks's ineptitude.
And for the comment that the Thunder would have won the championship if not for Brooks, maybe they wouldn't have gotten out of the first round without Brooks.
Too much "micro-coaching" on this site and not enough "macro-coaching" perspective.
Just throwing this out there, but do you think losing to the Mavs and then watching them win the championship made Presti decide he needs his own Terry/Barrea type player - and RJ was the closest thing he could find?
Grolgar :I just want to hear you say that there is a situation where you would be okay with Thabo starting…
I would only be okay with Thabo starting if he improves his jump shot this offseason to the point where he can make defenses pay for leaving him open.
So the ball is really in his court. If he can't do that, then he cannot start.
We simply can't have 2.5 (Serge gets 0.5) scorers in our starting 5 and expect to compete for a championship.
Too early to say with much backing as to whether Houston or Phoenix helped themselves enough to compete better for a playoff spot next season, but they probably feel they helped themselves meaningfully. I am not sure if it was enough yet but I don't think they botched their drafts.
I just want to hear you say that there is a situation where you would be okay with Thabo starting...
Alright, @justin. How about this hypothetical... Would you be okay with Brooks starting Thabo if when Thabo and James were peeing into a public fountain they wished they had each others lifes and then they woke up the next morning and they had switched bodies? Would you mind Thabo starting if James Harden was in his body?
@ Grolgar
To that I would say it would depend upon how Serge's hypothetical improvement affected the rest of the defensive spacing. If Ibaka started being able to really do some things in the low post area where you could just dump in to him I imagine it is conceivable that it could open things up enough that no change would be necessary. But I think Serge would have to make a quantum leap for that to come to fruition. More than just spot up jumpers, like an honest set of reliable back to the basket post moves.
@ Grolgar
No, it's not the same as Dallas because Dallas runs a real offense and has shooters (Stevenson, Kidd, Dirk can all shoot). Even if Ibaka comes back as a beast we'd still have zero floor spacing which is the issue with the starting five.
Question: Will people still be mad with Brooks if he keeps Thabo in the starting lineup, but reduces his playing time to 10-15 minutes a game? What if Ibaka comes back with a little more offensive game and makes the first unit good enough offensively to get by? It would be the same reason Carlisle stuck with Stevenson as the starter so long (even though he often only played 10-15 minutes) - to start the game with a defensive mindset. I guess you could rationalize that starting Thabo would allow the lineups to be staggered better. Thoughts?
Brooks has the ability. Hes played in the league at the PG position. He just needs to take the pacifiers away and let his kids grow up.
I guess I just wanted people to recognize that Brooks could be responsible in some way for the success of the last two years. I get frustrated with him also, but the non-stop bashing of him bothers me every once and a while...
I think if he just starts Harden and throws that unit out there, cuts Thabo's minutes, the half court offense improves a lot without doing anything else. Thabo is like a ghost limb on the court with the current starters.
Brooks has earned another year but just that. The offense has to improve and be less predictable/one dimensional. And for anyone who wants to point to his accomplishments as proof he won't be fired tell that to Larry Brown. He got forced out of Detroit after winning the championship.
Brooks might be a good player development coach; it's not really something we're privy to first hand other than the results we see on the court (which would indicate that's true.)
I don't think Brooks has a good feel for the moment (how to deal with offensive/defensive breakdowns during a game, momentum shifts, etc.) This could be part of the reason he relies so heavily on set rotations, and why his decisions to deviate from that set rotation have been so hit and miss.
I dunno. I don't think he's a bad coach; I'd put him in the top 15 in the league. He helps more than he hurts as far as I can tell. His stubbornness with the lineups leave me chagrined more often than not, but it is what it is.
I'll cut Brooks some slack for the lack of an offensive system, but it's go time for that now. If the offense doesn't improve in the halfcourt this season, he simply doesn't have the chops to make it happen.
@ justin
I agree. Brooks had a fantastic keep-it-simple-stupid approach that helped KD and RW develop early on when there weren't quality veterans to learn from, but I think that most would agree that he has been overly conservative with his alterations to rotations and his introduction of offensive schemes. It is not to say that Brooks is a bad coach but he needs to be more adaptable for the team's sake.
Is there a way to run a statistical analysis of Thabo and Daequan against primary back-up rotations? Daequan even has a higher defensive rating than Thabo, which just doesn't "feel" accurate.
I thought the backup perimeter trio of Maynor-Jackson-Thabo might have a better +/- compared to Maynor-Jackson-Cook next year due to a stronger defense. That doesn't appear to be true.
I like Thabo a lot (admittedly influenced by off-court stuff) but unless he improves (heals his plantar fasciitis?) I don't see a reason to keep him in the rotation anymore. He helped to change the defensive culture of the team. I think the problem is that the culture has changed and Thabo is not a substantial defensive upgrade over any of the wings anymore.
@ Grolgar
Without significantly changing players? How many players are left over from Scott Brooks' first season coaching the team? Only Westbrook (rookie), Durant (2nd year), and Collison. Thabo and Krstic were acquired later on in the year when the team started playing better. The Thunder's big turnaround the next year coincided with Durant's blow up, 2nd year improvement from Westbrook, additions of rotation players Ibaka, Maynor and Harden.
This season the Thunder were on track for a similar season as the year before until they made a deadline trade that brought in Perkins, but more importantly, relieved them of Jeff Green (and Brooks' stupid decision to start him with Krsitc) and forced Brooks to give Harden more minutes. Not coincidentally, the team ended up winning more games and made a playoff run.
Brooks is not a bad coach but the development of this team has way more to do with the natural talent growth, the addition of role players every year, and Presti's management of the roster.
It's amazing how the groupthink, armchair quarterbacks have all decided Scott Brooks is the worst coach in NBA history. Maybe you don't like his game decisions, but have you ever thought that maybe we wouldn't have made it to the Western Conference Finals without him? Everyone always says anyone can win with that talent, but when he took over KD and RW were the worst team in the league. The Thunder have proceeded to have one of the greatest turn arounds in NBA history without significantly changing players and he won coach of the year. Then he followed that up by exceeding incredibly high expectations and taking the youngest team in over 30 years to the conference finals... And what does Brooks get for it? A bunch of unappreciative fans that could have led this team to be the youngest NBA champions in history! Thunder fans have pretty much turned into spoiled OU know-it-all OU football fans already. I'm saying this as an OU football fan. Geeze.
@ okc baby
I kind have to agree. Another year of seasoning for our players and Brooks and next season looks pretty bright.
Daniel Plainview :KD, RW, and JH are off limits. that is teh future of ball movement.
I understand what you are saying but as the boys over at hoopdata have shown time and again, the easiest buckets win championships. I think we need a post presence more than a perimeter dream team.
If they want an even longer rotation they could take some minutes from Jackson and / or Maynor and give them to Cook. Or shift Durant to PF a bit more and Thabo to SF a bit more and / or give more PF minutes to Collison and / or Ibaka and thus eliminate my thought of a new F in the rotation. Any additional minute shift of Durant to PF could spread additional minutes amongst the perimeter players.
Of course it will be a long time before they get to real games again.
Sorry dudes... We just are not getting Dwight... Took me awhile to come to terms with that but I've put aside even creating "what if" high lights in my head
Jimbo Slice :Although Howard being available would make me at least do a double take, I’m not high on trading anybody out of our top 7 to be honest (starters minus thabo plus harden, maynor, and collison). we have something good there. better coach and we’re still celebrating our first ring right now possibly
I agree we should have a ring with a different more experienced coach. For example vs. the Mavs as soon as Chandler came back in at the end of game 5. maynor or Westbrook should have came out and a big man replace. Hopefully that experience helped brooks to be come a seasoned coach. We ll see.
Another quick preliminary average minute distribution for a larger rotation and for the season (not necessarily this level for every game):
C Perkins 24 / Collison 10 / Aldrich 6 / Ibaka 8
PF Ibaka 20 / Collison 12 / Durant 6 / New F 10
Durant 30 / Harden 10 / Thabo 8
Harden 22 / Jackson 16 / Thabo 10
Westbrook 32 / Maynor 16
KD, RW, and JH are off limits. that is teh future of ball movement.
Although Howard being available would make me at least do a double take, I'm not high on trading anybody out of our top 7 to be honest (starters minus thabo plus harden, maynor, and collison). we have something good there. better coach and we're still celebrating our first ring right now possibly
Not*
Iam counting Ibaka out. I like his game. Id give him even 2 years to really notice his potential offensively
@ okc baby
I think we need to give Ibaka at least one more year to show some sort of progress towards a post-game before we look for another.
We need someone we can throw the ball downlow 2