If memory recalls, most of this forum was convinced Brooklyn would drop from being a 38 win playoff team to the worst team in the league simply because they were giving Deron Williams' minutes to Jarret Jack. I was told Jarret Jack was so incomprehensibly bad that Brooklyn would be hopeless.
So who knows... maybe swapping out Jarret Jack for Shane Larkin will not really matter.
I still think Brooklyn is a threat to dig out of the bottom 5 as long as Brook Lopez is there.
Others have made a couple of points I agree with debunking your logic here, mainly that it's not that Jack is terrible, but that they moved Jack to replace Williams in the starting lineup and didn't acquire a single legitimate player to be his backup. One thing that I haven't really seen though, is pointing out the absurdity of your entire argument in the above post. The people who said that losing Williams and not bringing in at least a backup would make Brooklyn a terrible team weren't wrong, as you insanely seem to suggest. As others have said, the majority of those who suggested losing Williams would significantly impact the Nets generally predicted a bottom 3-10 record for the Nets. Even in cherry picking of reporters and analysts who predicted the Nets' struggles, you couldn't find a single pro journo that predicted the Nets would finish last, not even those at CSNNE. It's honestly laughable that you included a prediction that said the Nets would be 11th worst in the East as if that supported your argument. That prediction is only wrong, thus far, because it predicted that the Nets would be
better than they have been thus far.
Considering the Nets are 3rd worst in the whole league through 30+ games
without an injury to Jack, Young, nor Lopez, even if you compared the anti-Nets extremists' preseason argument (worst team in the league) to your argument (12-16th worst team in the league), you are still far, far more incorrect than the extremists have been thus far. And if you compare it to the argument of most - that the Nets would be a bottom 10 team at least - and yours, you couldn't, realistically (because even you would never have said something like the Nets are going to be a contender) have been more wrong at this point in the season. I suspect you are wrong that losing Jack doesn't still mean the Nets can't make the playoffs, too. You might be one of the only people in NBA history who has argued that a bottom 3 team that lost its starting PG and third best player could still make the playoffs with about 45 games left in a conference better than it was the year before.
Back to the OP, losing Jack will hurt the Nets. They will still be bottom 5. They definitely won't be worse than Philly. They almost definitely won't be worse than LAL. There's a 50/50 chance that they will be worse than PHX, and I think it's unlikely that NOP tanks hard enough to rack up more losses than NOP. So, they're still in that 3-5 range. But I think this Jack injury makes it nearly impossible that they climb out of that bottom 5 hole. Jack was playing 32 minutes a game, allowing them to only need Larkin and Sloan for 16 mpg. That was bad enough. Now they need them for 48 mpg. Only a team with a top 10 player - and likely more - could manage to be better than atrocious with those two manning PG duties.