No offense sex offender, but jumping into a post where the only "negative" thing I said about Bayless was question why posters annoit him the PG of the future after a good game gets an assumption from you that all posters who don't see his definte place as a starting PG haven't seen him play in college and are ignorant for posting about him . . . tends to make me want to . . . kidnap children (we're joking right?)
Maybe you felt like I was projecting thoughts onto you by my first comment in this thread. But my point about those who I felt ignorant was independent from your comments that I was replying to. I should've mentioned it as an aside that reflected my general feelings towards posters who like to discredit the play of 20-year-olds. After giving you a valid reason why it's not really that peculier as to why people would crown him the next starting PG, I simply took the time to state the generality that I so stated. Nowhere did I directly call you ignorant, so it was your implication that I was referring to you and your thoughts.
So if I get you're logic: any negative posts about Bayless are ignorant because posters need to factor in "variables" such as pedigree and age. But posters annoiting Bayless as the future PG are forward thinkers . . . because only forward thinkers would truly understand Bayless and that he is going to be a starting PG? And anyone else with a different opinion must be ignorant. (The ignorant opinion being it's too early to tell if Bayless can transition to an NBA PG)
I already told you what I found to be ignorant. Here you are misunderstanding the whole of my logic with your conclusion. I never stated myself that Bayless is going to be the future PG. I told you why people would make that statement. But for the record,yes, I do believe those who state right now that Bayless will never be a PG are absolutely ignorant to logic much moreso than those who state that Bayless will be the future PG. Simple reasons such as draft position, age, displayed potential, and past performance all would point towards Bayless being the prime candidate to be the future starter. To think otherwise is rather ignorant to logic if you are accounting for all of that. Your conclusion is actually what I would agree with. The sage opinion is one of not knowing and nowhere did I state that I know what will happen in the future.
This PG debate is so old. Posters were saying the same thing about Sergio 3 years ago . . . and I was saying the same thing, PG postion in the NBA is the hardest postion, IMO, and it's hard to determine if he is the future PG based on one year. But I know, Sergio didn't have the "pedigree" and I was probably ignorant back then too.
So let me try your style: I hope Bayless is the PG of the future, but declaring him as the future starting PG on a playoff team is an ignorant thought that lack any observation of his play this year.
bet you love me too after that . . .
My main point is that any observation of Bayless' play this year should be taken with forward thinking. Criticizing a 20-year-old player for what I would call "growing pains" is very short-sighted. You can observe him and have an opinion about how he might progress, but it's beyond stupid to be down on him when all factors are accounted for. When posters see his potential(good games) and they anoint him as a future starter it's because logical factors are working in their favor. When people use this year's performance as the most meaningful gauge of future performance, they are running against logical factors. It's that simple and I'm truly sorry if you can't see the clarity in it.
