Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="RF2044, post: 5236882, member: 40"]
There's a lot of validity to your post.  Some kids peak earlier than others, but stagnate for any of a variety of reasons [skill development doesn't match early projections kid's don't "grow" to the expected height, some kids are more physically dominant at a younger age but tail off when others catch up, etc.].

Dior Johnson is a perfect example -- projected top 10 early, but didn't develop as expected and had a billion personal issues off the court that turned him into a hot potato.

But the one area I'll disagree with is that Jackson would still be a "take."  If he was a "take," we would have already taken him.  BUT we need a point guard, and Jackson ain't one.  And we already landed a better prospect in Fennel, who projects to the 1.

I know that sometimes the forum gets hung up on names that people recognize, and we've been linked to Jackson a long time -- so it's understandable that some posters want to see us land him.  But another way to view this is that Jackson is essentially a 6-1 155 shooting guard, with a subpar handle and negligible playmaking skills.  We have a similar player on the current roster -- Kyle Cuffe, who actually has a BETTER handle than Jackson.  Cuffe is glued to the bench; he has some skill, but his size / inability to spell the point guard position due to limited playmaking aptitude makes it difficult to find him PT.

Jackson is like a poor man's Cuffe.  So...
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?