Comments about ‘Utah Jazz: Golden State coach Mark Jackson causes stir with comments about John Stockton’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 6 2014 9:20 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tuffy Parker
Salem, UT

I am as big of a John Stockton fan as there is but Jackson is right to some extent. Stockton's FG percentage is among the best but there were many times a great shooter would have taken a shot that John passed up. Credit to Stockton for always taking the high percentage shot but I still remember often thinking as I watched him play, "Shoot it. Come on, just shoot it." That said, Stockton's game was never really about shooting and perhaps his overall play is why he remains one of the all-time best point guards ever in the NBA.

Denver to Portland
Portland, OR

Jackson is right. Curry and Klay are on their way to being the best backcourt.

As for Stockton, he would not last a single game in today's NBA. So it's a good thing he played when he did. Honestly can you see Stockton guarding and keeping up with guys like Westbrook, Lillard, Rose, Curry, Paul, and Rondo game after game? Didn't think so.

Stockton isn't even the best PG of all time, that obviously goes to Magic.

FT
salt lake city, UT

The DN news trying to create news instead of report it. Coach Jackson is right, Stockton was not a great shooter and definetly not in the same class as Curry.

localblue
Sandy, UT

I think if you asked anybody who has not seen these numbers, including any Jazz fan, whether STockton was a great shooter, they would all say the same thing Jackson did. They would all say Hornaceck was better as well. Part of it may be that Stockton just had an ugly shot. Part of it is his free throw percentage is average and his 3 pt avg is not stellar. The numbers are interesting though.

DraperUteFan
Draper, UT

@ Denver to Portland, I couldn't disagree with you more. Apparently you forgot about Gary Payton, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, Allen Iverson, Isaiah Thomas, and a few other quality Hall of Fame point guards during Stockton's era. Stock was never a great defender and never claimed to be, but as the all-time steals leader, he was crafty and made up for his deficiencies on D with extraordinary efficiency as an offensive player.

Ask any GM in the league if their team wouldn't benefit from the steady, low turnover, and pass-first leadership of a John Stockton (who could hit the open shot when called on), and you would get a very high percentage who would take Stock in a heartbeat. He was intelligent, an iron man of physical toughness and endurance, and his teams made the playoffs every one of his 19 years in the league.

Rondo is the only one of those you mentioned who has won a championship. Rose's injuries will diminish his career greatly. Nobody who truly knows the history of the game would say Lillard and Paul were better than Payton, Iverson, KJ, or Isaiah, let alone Stockton.

DraperUteFan
Draper, UT

@ FT, if you can name one point guard who had over 19,000 points in their career and shot over 54% from the field, please come back with that information and continue to maintain that John Stockton was not a great shooter.

It is all a matter of definition, but the numbers don't lie. Could Stockton shoot better than Reggie Miller or Steph Curry in a game of HORSE...probably not, but great shooting is a matter of both technical ability and the intelligence to take high percentage shots (something most point guards in the league today have little concept of).

A 19-year career with only a handful of games missed due to injury and a 54% field goal percentage is statistically unmatched in the history of NBA point guards.

RichardB
Murray, UT

Come back in 15 years and tell us Curry is still putting up those percentages.

Jackson always was jealous of Stockton's talent.

David King
Layton, UT

@Denver to Portland "As for Stockton, he would not last a single game..."

I know you are just trying to rile people up, but if we look at this more closely, it just shows what made John Stockton so great. You say that Stockton "would not last a single game" and then compare him with some of today's players. Interestingly enough, the man you said "would not last" missed less games due to injury in 19 seasons than any of the players you mentioned (and who haven't been in the league nearly as long). It wouldn't be hard for Stockton to match up against guys like Rose, Curry, or Paul when he's on the floor for all 82 games and they're on the bench the majority of the season. Go ahead and search YouTube for videos of what John Stockton was still able to do to younger players when he was forty. If that doesn't convince you, remember that Gary Payton (widely considered the best defender of all time) said it was more difficult for him to guard John Stockton than Michael Jordan.

The only real question is if players today could keep up with Stockton.

RonBergundy
SANDY, UT

@Denver to Portland.

Your right. And people didn't think that Stockton could keep up with Isaiah Thomas, Gary Payton, Kevin Johnson, Terry Porter, Maurice Cheeks, Magic Johnson. Yet for some reason, he had more thousands more assists than any of them and is all-time leader in assists.

I guess the Olympic coaches thought he was bad too since only one other guy on that list was on the dream team...

If he played today, he too would have been slightly faster and quicker because of the advances in technology and training. One thing that doesn't change is VISION and PRECISION PASSING. I've yet to see someone quarterback his team like that. He knew he didn't need to score to influence the game.

oldschool
Farmington, UT

Stockton was a better defender than any of today's top point guards and would compete with any of them. At 40 he guarded Iverson so well that AI was frustrated and had to go to the bench to cool off. Stockton at one time had the best shooting percentage of any point guard in history with 500 or more games except for Magic Johnson. Nash has since beaten him out. Amazingly Stock shot over 50% even though he usually shot only under pressure when the shot clock was about to run out. Many of his trey attempts were last-second desperation heaves. When open, he was one of the deadliest shooters ever. He also could create his own shot and was better in the paint than 99% of point guards, probably second only to Parker. Stockton also became a better shooter and during his prime shot unbelievably well from the outside. He wasn't flashy and was pasty white and humble, so people who are not observant basketball aficionados will fail to recognize or remember his greatness. What a shame. Probably the greatest point guard under 6'9" of all time. Guess who said Stockton was the only player he would pay to watch.

Red Headed Stranger
Billy Bobs, TX

This is the problem of the 24 hour news cycle. Somebody is asked for their opinion. They respond candidly. Somebody takes offense. Outrage ensues. Apologies are offered. I remember when sports reporting was about sports, not news about people talking about sports.

Just report on the game, not who said what about what happened 15 years ago.

The same problem is with the news in general. Rather than reporting about what is going on, it is about who said what to offend somebody. It is like a huge middle school with people saying things about other people, people's feelings getting hurt, and a swirl of he said she said. Please stop reporting on what amounts to gossip.

md
Cache, UT

Stockton was better. Look at the stats.

There is no way to prove he wouldn't last in today's NBA. Perhaps most of todays players wouldn't have lasted with the more physical nature of the game in the 80's and 90's? Can you imagine anyone really taking a shot at Durrant or Evans or Rondo? They would break like glass.

Anyway, there is no reason to argue about opinions.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

Well, there are three modern NBA fans. They fall for flash instead of substance. Even though the stats prove them wrong, they insist they are right.

I've seen several games with the Warriors backcourt firing away against the Jazz and I welcomed it because they were missing and shooting their team out of the game. Sure, they got their points because they are volume shooters but they weren't very efficient in those games. Also, since they were shooting from long range, the Jazz were getting great transition opportunities.

Unfortunately, the modern uneducated NBA fan doesn't grasp the subtleties of the game. All they want is glitz and glamour. Like monkeys and other animals, they become enamored with shiny objects and lose all sense of perspective. David Stern made this travesty of a sport when he decided team ball is not an important as marketable stars. He actually oversaw rule changes to eliminate team aspects of the game in favor of individuals.

In the 1960s, a team like Boston would always beat an individual like Chamberlain. Now everyone realizes that a team has little chance against someone with an LBJ, Kobe, or Durrant.

I-am-I
South Jordan, UT

@Denver to Portland, I never considered Stockton a shooter. Shooters tend to be on and off all the time. Stock was pretty solid night in and night out. To say he wouldn't survive in the NBA is out there. The guy leads the league in two statistical categories. I don't think there is anyone else that does. He also played against your Magic, your proclaimed best PG. Sure he wasn't flashy but his no nonsense approach to the game was a force to be reckoned with during the age of the Dream Team, which he was on. Maybe you should rethink your statement.

Spokane Ute
Spokane, WA

Mark Jackson is spot on, nothing wrong with his take. As far as Stockton goes, he would do just fine in today's NBA. His drive and work ethic over came in short comings in athletic ability that he may have had. Just finished reading his autobiography, Assisted. A great read; quite a player and a person.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

This is a silly argument. It's like saying who was a better wrestler Bruno Samartino or Hulk Hogan. When the outcome is scripted all stats become mute.

JParkerfan
St. George, UT

Stockton is an all-time great who would have better numbers in today's NBA than he did when he played. The game and the players were so much better. Today, you don't even have 1 center who would compete in the 80-90's. Whoever said his shot was "ugly" doesn't know anything about shooting.
Curry isn't even in the same league as Stockton and will probably have a relatively short career because of his small frame. Also, he can't guard his own shadow.
Thompson is an awesome shooter with the best jump shot I've ever seen. Perfect form, and I would pay money to watch that guy shoot.

Little Andy
Tremonton, UT

Everyone knows Jackson is cancer to a team. His back court is good but they have many years to prove themselves.That is the proof in the pudding. And as for our troller the guys you mentioned couldn't tie their shoes compared to Stockton...

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

I have no problem with the comments of Mark Jackson who played well for St. John's. Stockton had the intangibles that the Warrior guards do not have. Basically, they have the right to shoot from half court when they have Bogut and Lee underneath who are playing lights out with their rebounding skills. The Jazz worked like a clock with John Stockton. The Mailman could not have delivered without the logistics of Stockton. The issue is kind of a moot point. These are two different offenses. Unless, the Warriors can figure a way to get Bogut and Lee into the offense instead of on the periphery, they will be just "shooting stars" who will be blown out early in the playoffs. As soon as Curry crosses midcourt, he is already cranking up a shot. This is silly when Bogut is playing at the highest level of his career after finally recovering from injuries suffered when he was undercut by Amare Stoudamire.

Cougar Passion
Salt Lake City, UT

oldschool: The person who said Stockton was the only player he would pay to watch was none other than John Wooden. A supreme compliment indeed.

It's true that Marc Jackson was jealous; he didn't like backing up Stockton. Oh well. Coach Sloan once said something to the effect that Stockton could readily score 30 a game if that's what they asked him to do, but they didn't. But we did see that once in a while, on the very rare occasions when Malone and Hornacek were so well defended that a third needed to step up. The definition of "great shooter" is debatable, but when Stockton was asked to score, he was as unstoppable as any of the best offensive point guards in the league. By the way, one of my favorite things to see in a Jazz game was Stockton, the passer extraordinaire, leading yet another frenetic fast break and, instead of penetrating the lane and dishing, stopping on a dime outside the three-point line and draining it. And, let's see--who was it that was called upon to take that shot to beat Houston and send the Jazz to the finals?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments