Bayless Falling Out Of Favor With The Coaching Staff?

[ABM]

Thought I just heard that on The Game.

Anyone else have anything on that?

 

[e_blazer]

It wouldn't be too surprising given the way the second unit has given up big leads when Bayless tries to run the team.

 

[MIXUM]

really? hmm i said the same thing saturday night.

you guys obviously have blinders on not to realize how bad what happened on saturday was. they had to put miller in up 20 with 8 minutes left cause bayless was so bad. AGAINST THE TWOLVES?????? Blazers will sign a PG vet with that last roster spot.


WARNING TO HOMERs..... WARNING TO HOMERs.... RED ALERT RED ALERT... DO NOT READ BELOW.....

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...d-bayless-isnt-your-point-guard-of-the-future

 

[MIXUM]

and we miss blake ...

 

[Nikolokolus]

really? hmm i said the same thing saturday night.

you guys obviously have blinders on not to realize how bad what happened on saturday was. they had to put miller in up 20 with 8 minutes left cause bayless was so bad. AGAINST THE TWOLVES?????? Blazers will sign a PG vet with that last roster spot.


WARNING TO HOMERs..... WARNING TO HOMERs.... RED ALERT RED ALERT... DO NOT READ BELOW.....

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...d-bayless-isnt-your-point-guard-of-the-future

WARNING TO DUMBASSES .... WARNING TO DUMBASSES ... WARNING TO DUMBASSES ... WARNING TO DUMBASSES ...

The Bleacher report does not use real journalists, these are everyday shlubs just like us posting their frequently incoherent, always amateur opinions, masquerading as "news"

 

[Mediocre Man]

Bayless is a combo guard that can pass well. He is not a floor leader, and needs to play with a guy like Roy, who is.

 

[e_blazer]

Thanks, MIXUM, you're a hoot. Always good for a Monday morning laugh with your schtick.

BTW, I don't disagree with you or the Bleacher Report piece (not exactly the most reputable source, however) that Bayless is not likely to be the Blazers' point guard of the future. He just doesn't seem to have much court awareness.

 

[ABM]

Bayless is a combo guard that can pass well. He is not a floor leader, and needs to play with a guy like Roy, who is.

IIRC, Bayless doesn't do badly when paired with Miller, either.

That said, you are entirely correct: Bayless is a combo guard. Nothing more, nothing less. Always has been, always will be.

I believe I heard that the knock on him these days has been in regards to his somewhat dreadful outside shooting percentages.

 

[BlazersBlood]

It's obvious Bayless is not a true point and shouldn't be playing as one. He's a SG with PG size. He's supposed to be the offensive spark plug for us off the bench. It's gonna take time for him to develop.

 

[MIXUM]

this is gonna be a sobering lasnt month and a half for bayless lovers lol

and yes i know what bleacher report is, but they hit the nail on the head.

 

[MIXUM]

its become clear roy or miller have to be out there at All times... 1 or the other

 

[ABM]

its become clear roy or miller have to be out there at All times... 1 or the other

You mean, you wouldn't like the Patty/Bayless show at times?

 

[Nikolokolus]

this is gonna be a sobering lasnt month and a half for bayless lovers lol

and yes i know what bleacher report is, but they hit the nail on the head.

I tend to agree that Bayless is more likely to disappoint than impress (who knows?) during this stretch run, but I just thought it was funny how you propped up that BR story like it was going to be some kind of devestating piece written by a nationally respected columnist.

 

[Mediocre Man]

IIRC, Bayless doesn't do badly when paired with Miller, either.

That said, you are entirely correct: Bayless is a combo guard. Nothing more, nothing less. Always has been, always will be.

I believe I heard that the knock on him these days has been in regards to his somewhat dreadful outside shooting percentages.

He was a very good shooter in college, so I would assume he will be good here at some point.


THIS NEXT STATEMENT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SLAM ON NATE......

I think part of his problem is that he is not a "Nate guy". I think Nate tries too hard sometimes to try to mold PG's into his image. Bayless is not that guy, nor was Sergio. I don't really think Miller is either, but he is a vet, and is already established. Sometimes I think it causes our young PG's to think too much on the floor, and that might be part of the problem.

 

[STOMP]

Bayless is a combo guard that can pass well. He is not a floor leader, and needs to play with a guy like Roy, who is.

Pretty much. The ball movement really bogs down when he is combined with Webster who has the worst handle of all the guards/wings.

STOMP

 

[SpanishFly]

and we miss blake ...

no we don't, he was only in the way of the process of evaluating Bayless and the entire PG question for the next several years.

 

[blue32]

He was a very good shooter in college, so I would assume he will be good here at some point.


THIS NEXT STATEMENT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SLAM ON NATE......

I think part of his problem is that he is not a "Nate guy". I think Nate tries too hard sometimes to try to mold PG's into his image. Bayless is not that guy, nor was Sergio. I don't really think Miller is either, but he is a vet, and is already established. Sometimes I think it causes our young PG's to think too much on the floor, and that might be part of the problem.

+1, winner.

This is the result of McMillan's crappy offense , and how HE runs the team. Not Brex's abilities..

 

[LOTBfan]

Making posts on Bleacher Report, and then linking to them here to lend credibility to your nonsense isn't going to get you anywhere. That is like making wiki posts and then referencing them for term papers.

Plus I think it is funny that your last name is Virgin, that made me giggle.

 

[hasoos]

and we miss blake ...

Fuck Blake.

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

Thought I just heard that on The Game.

I stopped reading after that part.

 

[Wheels]

its become clear roy or miller have to be out there at All times... 1 or the other

Imagine that.. its better to have at least 1 of your 2 best backcourt players on the court at all times.

 

[noknobs]

Personally, I would have rather traded Bayless than Blake (probably not a popular opinion) but I doubt the trade would have worked contract wise, and I'm glad they made the trade.

I've never been as high on Bayless as many here, but I'm hardly going to hate on him for a few bad games. He's better than he's played the last week.

 

[Wheels]

He was a very good shooter in college, so I would assume he will be good here at some point.


THIS NEXT STATEMENT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SLAM ON NATE......

I think part of his problem is that he is not a "Nate guy". I think Nate tries too hard sometimes to try to mold PG's into his image. Bayless is not that guy, nor was Sergio. I don't really think Miller is either, but he is a vet, and is already established. Sometimes I think it causes our young PG's to think too much on the floor, and that might be part of the problem.

well said

 

[LittleAlex]

Thought I just heard that on The Game.

Anyone else have anything on that?

This would be pretty odd considering Nate played with Gary Payton who took a good 3 years to really get going and that was with substantial playing time.


I am not saying Bayless will ever be half the player the Glove was but some point guards take awhile before they get a handle on the NBA game.

If Nate is thinking Bayless will somehow transform into a floor leader while getting inconsistent minutes in only his second year then Nate is fooling himself.

 

[MARIS61]

no we don't, he was only in the way of the process of evaluating Bayless and the entire PG question for the next several years.

Been there, done that, traded our best 2 PGs.

 

[mook]

I think part of his problem is that he is not a "Nate guy". I think Nate tries too hard sometimes to try to mold PG's into his image. Bayless is not that guy, nor was Sergio. I don't really think Miller is either, but he is a vet, and is already established. Sometimes I think it causes our young PG's to think too much on the floor, and that might be part of the problem.

Not that I'm much in the habit of defending Nate, but really, how would you really have Bayless play differently? Bayless' strong suit is:
1. Finishing on the fast break
2. In the half court, driving into the middle and drawing fouls/finishing at the rim

We definitely could run more, but I think the team is doing a better job now (since Blake left) of getting it to him quickly on the rebound. After that, it's up to him.

As for #2, well, there's only so many opportunities in a game to take your man off the dribble and drive the hole. (Those opportunities are fewer if you haven't demonstrated a consistent outside shot.) I don't think Nate has done anything to change this aspect of Bayless' game. Teams have just scouted him and are playing him for that more.

I'm happy with how Bayless is playing. He's inconsistent, but he's also really young and lots of young guys are that way. Given that he's nearly doubled his PER over last year, I'd say that if anything Nate's been a positive influence over him.

As for Nate forcing point guards to play "his way," I'm not really sure that's such a bad thing, especially when dealing with mediocre-to-bad point guards. Blake, Telfair, Jack, Rodriguez and Ridnour all had their best or near-best PER's under Nate. That's pretty much every point guard he's coached in the NBA.

Right now, Bayless is a mediocre-to-bad point guard. I like him, and I think he has a very bright future. But for all the problems I have with Nate, how he develops point guards really isn't one of them.

 

[mook]

My own diagnosis is that Bayless needs:
1. A LOT of practice at running pick-and-rolls.
2. To figure out what the hell happened to his perimeter shot.

He's got a nice handle and he doesn't mind playing in traffic, so you'd think it's really a matter of getting the timing and passing accuracy down to make #1 happen. As for #2, well, I keep telling myself he'll get there. I don't know how or when, but it will.

 

[hasoos]

Some folks on this board need to learn to have patience. Here is the problem as I see it:

1. When players are drafted to Portland, a certain amount of the fan base tends to immediately put unreal expectations out there because now they are "Blazers".

2. When those guards receive almost no playing time, and then when they finally play and aren't up to what some Blazer fans dreams were, they turn on them.

This is all IMO, because a lot of the fans don't take a look around the league and pay attention. Young guards need time to learn the game. Many of the young guards we are watching flourish around the league, all had their stinker year a year or two ago.

It was mentioned above Payton took years to develope. There were times in his first 2 years where fans in Seattle were screaming to trade him.
So did Billups. He was traded ever year for his first few years in the league because folks had no patience.
Westbrook-Have you ever looked up the stats from his first year of playing time? They flat out stink. He is kicking ass now.


None of those things means Bayless will become a good player. But the fact are, it wasn't going to happen with Blake here. Blake stinks, and will always stink. Bayless may or may not become a good player. But we had to find out, so that we can either commit, or move on and find somebody who does fit. The only way we find out if by letting him play and watching the results.

Basically we went from a team that was playing a guy who stink and was never, ever going to get better, to a team that has a chance to get better.

 

[yenniedn]

^^^repped, Hasoos.

 

[andalusian]

Blake did not stink - but I agree with the idea, at large. Bayless is green. He is going to take time to develop - and it is beyond stupid to give up on him when he has shown great progress from year one and has shown that he can be an explosive scorer.

It will take time - and it might fail - but generally speaking JB has the athletic ability, work ethic and scoring ability to be a good player in this league. It's just going to take time - both calendar and play time.