NBA Draft 2012: The Indiana Pacers Should Select John Jenkins at Pick 26
The end of last season was an eye-opener for many people—the Indiana Pacers are for real.
They gave the star-studded Miami Heat team all they could handle before the Heat took control and won the series in six games. One thing was painfully obvious as the series came to a close, however.
They need a go-to scorer, someone who can take the game over when they're down by six points with five minutes to go.
With the Hornets winning the draft lottery, it seems very unlikely that they will part ways with star guard Eric Gordon, and OJ Mayo seems fated not to come to Indianapolis.
The Pacers need to look to the draft. At a very awkward position at pick 26, it will be likely that all the big-name talent will be taken. But stand-out guard John Jenkins should be available.
Jenkins is exactly what the Pacers need. The Vanderbilt star averaged more than 10 points in every season that he played in college, and he shot an average of over 40 percent from three-point field goal range.
Even though it seems like depth at the forward and center position are the most prevalent need for the Pacers, that could be addressed in this draft, and John Jenkins is the type of player that we could look back on in five years wondering why he wasn't drafted earlier.
It could also allow the Pacers to trade away some players that are just now being exposed to the national spotlight. Players like Danny Granger, who has yet to perform when they needed him most in the playoffs, are expendable. That could lead to solutions in solving the depth problems that Indiana has at the forward and center positions.
The pick would be a bit of a reach with most people having Jenkins as a second round pick, so they could even turn their first round pick into some more second round talent. This pick could change the face of the organization and Larry Bird and company should take a long, hard look at talented scorer John Jenkins.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?