Get Rid of Mullin

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32

All Star
Posts: 2885
» Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:17 pm
32 wrote:
sfsfsfgiants wrote:
RobDIKUM wrote:
The Coooach wrote: It can even be argued that Azu is a better all around player than Jackson.

you make some good points reggie, but this one [-X

Jackson is a stand-still three point shooter. He hardly ever leaves the line. Even when he does, he dribbles to much and turns it over.

You look at Azubuike on the other hand, and you see a guy that does everything for the team when they give him a chance. He rebounds, plays defense, scores, passes, and does it on limited playing time. Jackson may do those things at times.... but not all the time, like Azubuike does.

Azubuike makes the most with his talent. Jackson seems content on where he is, even though he could be better.

Doesn't matter. Stephen Jackson is still a better player than Azubuike for 3 reasons:

#1, he guards the toughest player on the opposing team, no matter if they play positions 1 through 4. How many players in the NBA can guard anything but a center? And not only that, but guard them well? Not many. Azubuike is a decent defender, occasionally above-average, but Jackson is a lock-down guy that can disrupt anyone, from Dirk Nowitski to Jason Kidd. There's no contest here.

#2, he takes the shots that matter in the clutch. When the game is on the line, Jackson steps up. He's an ice water player that Azubuike has yet to prove he can be. Guys with the killer instinct like that are rare. We all saw what he did to Dallas in 2007.

#3, he's playmaker. Stephen Jackson initiates offense for his teammates and not just himself. Azubuike is a decent enough perimeter passer that won't disrupt the overall flow of the game, but he's far from the distributer Jackson can be. It's not strange to see Jax leave a game with 5, 6, or 7 dimes. It's weird to see that from Azubuike.

I'll give you this: Azubuike is a better rebounder and a more consistent offensive player (and by that, I simply mean you know what you're gonna get more often with Kelenna. He is, by no means, nearly as effective as Stephen Jackson on offense). Other than that, Jackson is bigger, has more experience, has more of an impact on offense, and is the clear-cut superior on defense. I love Kelenna, too... but let's not start comparing him to our best swingman last season.

Great analysis.

Stephen Jackson also can drive inside, draw a second defender, and then make the perfect pass for an assist and basket.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests