Reply With Quote
If he were still here, I'd guess he'd be starting right now, taking over Finley's minutes.
If he had remained here, he would have remained on the bench behind Bowen or Manu. He believed, and rightly so, that he could become a starter on another less talented team.
So, he spurned the Spurs offer and when no team in the league offered him equal or more money, he played for less with another team.
Meanwhile, his gangsta image and ego took over, much moreso than when he played for the Spurs. Once you're a starter, the modest at ude of a bench player disappears and any ego or character flaws begin to appear.
Unless he get 'celebrity' treatment from an Indianapolis jury--and they have no reason to love him now-- his next place of employment will soon be settled. (HINT: They won't send him to the Spurs)
If he were still here, he'd either put Bowen on the bench or be disruptive. Which do you choose?
If he were still here, I'd guess he'd be starting right now, taking over Finley's minutes.
I'm not sure that's totally accurate, he would take time from the guys we've brought in to replace him since he departed, Finley and Barry.
I know I sure would have rather had him here than Hedo, we'd probably have at least one more ring than we have now.
Beat me to it...
Yeah, and he dribbled the ball of his leg, threw it away, and checked up bad shots...until the fourth quarter. Jack is Robert Horry, in miniature. Instead of not giving a for the first 3/4 of the season, he doesn't GAF for the first 3/4 of every game.
I wouldn't mind him on the team at all. Even though he steps out of bounds at least once a game. I hope SJax and the Warriors put it to the Mavs tomorrow.
He's would be an appropriate amount of edginess on the Spurs as he was when he was here. No problem fitting in. I love watching him on the 2003 DVD.
I agree. His entire game is about spotting up for a jump shot. And he's even streaky with that. His ball handling skills are atrocious.
he didn't play well last night, made some bonehead moves.
He may not have played well in your mind, but I'd love to have a guy that can put up 16 points, even though he only shot 33% (because he got to the line to the tune of 80%) and had 8 boards 6 assists 2 steals and 1 block.
Sure the four turnovers sucked, but if that's a bad game I'll take a bad game any day...
I'd take Jack over Barry or Finley right now (though Finley isn't doing that bad). Spurs need someone with some nuts on the perimeter who wants to take the big shot. They had that in '99 with Sean. In '03 with Jack and Kerr. In '05 with Horry. Today, that guy is Finley. The fault for Jack not being a Spur today lies with both sides, but it probably has cost the Spurs at least one more le, IMO.
Spurs still goin but if not, it would be classic to see Sjax and GS go to the finals against Detroit. They would probly try to get him arrested again. He would need a vest.
That's a good point to refute my post which wasn't worded too well. What I meant was if he'd remained, he would've wanted to be a starter. Being a starter--or not--is a big ego thing with most players.
Jackson would've wanted a starting job and put either Manu or Bowen on the bench. I question whether his penchant for being a ball-hog and the flaws in his other skills along with his growing character problems would have made him a good fit in the Spurs team concept.
Still, perhaps it would have worked out, but he chose to leave for greener pastures. I don't think there is a serious possibility of his return, do you?
Not enough strip clubs in San Antonio
Those of you who say Stephen Jackson didn't do anything for us need to go back and watch the 2003 DVD. That guy made huge shots for us in pretty much every series.
People are willing to build Steve Kerr a shrine for his Rain Of Threes, but people forget that it was Stephen Jackson who STARTED that storm with back-to-back treys. Sure, one was a bad shot chucked up in transition, but if that shot doesn't fall, Dallas doesn't call timeout, Kerr doesnt make it into the game on the following inbounds, and we more-than-like dont beat the Mavericks...or win a championship...that year.
The guy left because he got a big head and wanted a bigger wallet. He got his paycheck, and has bounced around the league since leaving, so it's really nothing worth ing over.
But to say Stephen Jackson did nothing for us is not giving that guy his due. And even HE deserves that much. He earned that 2003 ring as much as anybody.
If we're playing what ifs I'd take Josh Howard over Jack.
Um, who said Jack didn't do anything? He's a chucker and a horrible ball handler, but he's money in the fourth. It's just that watching him in Qs 1-3 is like watching a car wreck. Again, he's money, but he is very LIMITED in skills and probably more suited to a bench role, which he will not accept.
I wish the Spurs still had him
I'd take Jax for his defense, and ability to have the occasional outburst of scoring games. Finley and Barry very rarely will explode WHILE playing excellent defense at the 3. Jax was an above average defender in the Spurs system, and a mediocre offensive player who had the ability to have a handful of huge games in the playoffs. Erratic, but a valuable role player.
If the Spurs had SJax to defend Dirk last season, do the Mavs even win a game?
This is the sad thing about it. Any long SF with some scoring skills would have made the Spurs a superior team to the Mavs. To me the Big Three outplayed their Big Three, and were superior all of last season. Even this season I think the Spurs big three is superior (even with Howard's improvement, and the fact that Manu doesn't play huge minutes).
Even Hedo would matchup OK with Howard or Dirk -- but Hedo probably would choke offensively as a Spur. Jackson would have at least one game where he probably explodes from three.
I have to agree. If the Spurs had Jax, they would be a superior team to the Mavs. But without a long SF, their weaknesses are exposed even more, despite have superior players at the top then most teams.
no
*sheds tear*
Oh, the drama. We had Jax AND Drob in 2003 and they somehow managed to take TWO games.
I'll give you that. Jackson always had the tendency of chucking up some Francis-esque shots, except the key difference is he seemed to have the capability of MAKING them when they were really needed.
Sure, he was a loose cannon, and still is...but it's amazing how many times it took a loose cannon to wake up the Spurs offense in that championship run. I'll take an early three in the shot clock if it has the potential to be a haymaker blow...that is, as long as it's not Van Exel putting it up anymore.
Well for one, I think the Mavs would still win 2-3 games last year. But the Spurs would probably get Game 7.
But anyhow, the Spurs in 2003 did not have a prime Ginobili, and a prime? Tony Parker. Big difference in offense right there. They had more quality players 1-8 then today's Spurs -- the big three 2007 has a decent edge over Duncan TP Robinson in 2003.
Fixed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
