Bayless Reminds Me Of...

[Minstrel]

but then they probably wouldn't have been the same player and may have had to develop those skills.

Developing passing and ball-handling skills aren't givens. And passing is valuable even at 6'5''-6'6'' and Miller and Hamilton never developed very good passing skills.

Whether or not Bayless will ever be a good NBA point guard is a different issue. I doubt he'll ever be a true point guard at the NBA level. He's definitely a combo guard, IMO, which means that he doesn't have the ability to be a pure point guard but he has better passing and ball-handling skills than the average shooting guard. And he has the ability to defend point guards, which is the key to playing the position alongside a distributor like Roy who can't defend point guards.

 

[Nikolokolus]

but then they probably wouldn't have been the same player and may have had to develop those skills. no they are long and lanky and had those skills. we can go round and round but flat out, imo, he's a SG in a PG body, he doesn't show the skills that most good PG's have.

I'll bet according to you neither does Mo Williams, Tony Parker, Jameer Nelson, Derek Fisher, Devin Harris and Gil Arenas (just to name a few); none of which fit the classic "pure point guard" mold, but all seem to be somewhat effective NBA players for their respective teams.

 

[Ed O]

I don't think that the Arenas comparison is at all bad... it's just (as HCP and others have said) too early. Arenas is one of the "best case" scenarios for Bayless.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Do you know how many hundreds of players had those same stats in college? This is beyond a stretch. Who knows what Bayless will turn into but your "rational" is bogus.

If you're going to quote a word to emphasize while you mock a position, you should make sure that you spell the word correctly.

Like, for example, "rationale".



Ed O.

 

[BalancedMan]

If you're going to quote a word to emphasize while you mock a position, you should make sure that you spell the word correctly.

Like, for example, "rationale".



Ed O.

I thought that looked funny. Must have been why.

 

[bigbailes]

do you really think gilbert arenas could play next to roy? roy dominates the ball, especially in the fourth quarter, and the hibachi also needs the ball to be effective.

 

[bigbailes]

nic, i've never said he couldn't be an effective NBA'er, don't know where you're getting that. you seem to like to nit pick posts on here. he could be a good/great player as most of the guys you listed are. i've never said a PG has to never shoot the ball but they have to be able to create for their teammates as well. i have yet to see bayless do even an adaquate job of this. and i like the comparison to Gilbert, a little pre-mature, but i think they have the same type of game, just not sure how it fits on this team.

 

[Minstrel]

i've never said a PG has to never shoot the ball but they have to be able to create for their teammates as well. i have yet to see bayless do even an adaquate job of this.

With Roy, he doesn't need to be a primary distributor. Being able to create for teammates a little would be quite useful, and he has shown that ability, IMO. Even in limited minutes, he's already shown and ability to drive and dish. That, alone, wouldn't be enough to be a pure point, but that's plenty of shot creation for others to play alongside Roy.

 

[BalancedMan]

do you really think gilbert arenas could play next to roy? roy dominates the ball, especially in the fourth quarter, and the hibachi also needs the ball to be effective.

But it's one of those things where the reason Roy, Gilbert, or any other good player dominates the ball is in fact, for that very reason...that they are so good. When in crunch time, Toronto will opt to go to Chris Bosh. Lakers will go to Kobe. Cleveland will defer to LBJ. Miami to Wade. You can go on and on for most of the teams in the league.

Most players don't "require" to dominate the ball to be effective, it's just that when the ball is in their hands they can be more effective because they have more opportunities to score, pass, etc. I think it's a mistake between causation and correlation. If Roy was on the same team as Chris Paul (like we say in the All-Star Game) who would dominate the ball, take the shots come crunch time. We have a clear #1 in Roy, at least as far as our roster is composed. If another player develops to become better, then maybe they will assume that role, though I find this unlikely.

So, on a talent basis there is no reason players of this type can't play together. They can shoot, penetrate and pass reasonably well right? The issue is if ego's get in the way, where a player wants to be "The Guy". We've seen that sometimes workout (Joe Johnson) and other times not so much (Shawn Marion). Kobe and O'Neal would have more rings if they could have dropped the ego issue and played together rather than caring about "whose team it is". That's why the Whitsett "get all the talent strategy" didn't work....not because of the talent but because of the egos involved. So as long as nothing in that vein happens, I think you can have a ton of talented players, regardless if they're skillsets overlap, playing next to each other.

Given the choice, wouldn't you want to field the best, most talented team available? I think so.

 

[STOMP]

He has also attempted nearly 1,700 three-pointers the last three healthy seasons, which is 7-8 a game. The guy just shoots a lot. He's still more of a stop on a dime, jump-shot type player though. I bet many of his FTAs come off getting defenders into the air.

he's been one of my favorite guys to watch since I heard Lute raving about him as possibly his best player before the first Zona game. I had to check him out! Injuries have had him pulling up more and more and he does shoot a lot of jumpers, but the guy has been taking it to the hole with regularity throughout his career.

STOMP

 

[bigbailes]

Given the choice, wouldn't you want to field the best, most talented team available? I think so.[/[/B]QUOTE]

yes of course i'd want the best TEAM put together but like you mentioned earlier in your post, that doesn't mean an all-star at every position. from what i've seen out of roy, he isn't nearly as good working off the ball as he is with the ball in his hand (please save the AS game stuff, that game doesn't count because no one plays D). i'm saying the type of player Arenas has been is with the ball in his hand, as has roy, but i don't think the two of them could be at their best when playing together. i think if you look through the history of the league, the dominating duos have usually been a guard/wing with a big man. it's rare when two guys dominate on a team playing roughly the same spot. that's why i don't think Bayless will ever be THE MAN on this team with Roy here, it is going to be Roy and LA/Oden.

 

[MARIS61]

One difference is, Daniels is a scrub.

There's no reason to believe Bayless can't work his way up to the scrub level too, with a few years on the bench watching.

 

[BalancedMan]

Anyone want to change their tune?

 

[Tortimer]

Bayless is our PG of the future. He will be a perfect fit next to Roy. He can shot, play great defense, drive to hoop and is fearless. The of the best things is he always hustles.

 

[Further]

Bayless tonight was THE reason the Blazers closed the deficit against Detroit. Of course, Nate then decided to take Bayless out and all the intensity that was spearheaded by Bayless was out the window. His D is pretty amazing for a rook. He has a chance of being the best defensive PG in the league if he is ever able to be considered a PG.

 

[BalancedMan]

Bayless tonight was THE reason the Blazers closed the deficit against Detroit. Of course, Nate then decided to take Bayless out and all the intensity that was spearheaded by Bayless was out the window. His D is pretty amazing for a rook. He has a chance of being the best defensive PG in the league if he is ever able to be considered a PG.

I don't know, some other guys are pretty good too (Rondo specifically).

 

[Further]

I don't know, some other guys are pretty good too (Rondo specifically).

I am not saying he is as good as Rondo or a few others, I am saying that he has a legit shot at becoming the best, or one of the best defensive players. You don't see too many rooks able to completely discombobulate great players like AI and Stuckey.

Bayless still has a long way to go on the offensive end, especially as a distributor, but if nothing else, Bayless will make a name for himself in the NBA as one of the best defenders.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Bayless tonight was THE reason the Blazers closed the deficit against Detroit. Of course, Nate then decided to take Bayless out and all the intensity that was spearheaded by Bayless was out the window. His D is pretty amazing for a rook. He has a chance of being the best defensive PG in the league if he is ever able to be considered a PG.

Maybe not the best, but damn does he get up in a guy's grill. It was no accident that Stuckey had 6 turnovers tonight; even when Bayless wasn't stealing the ball he was right on his hip hassling him and forcing him into a help defender (like the jump ball between Stuckey and Joel).

Bayless was THE reason we even got back into it with the Pistons tonight, good for him.

 

[bigbailes]

Anyone want to change their tune?

nope, still don't think he's a PG and can only work well in a backcourt with Roy or another bigger guard that can handle the ball. luckily we may have that with rudy.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

you could really tell by Bayless' emotions that it was like getting the monkey off his back by finally being able to contribute

 

[Further]

It's games like this that make me excited about the future. So far this year, we have seen sporadic, but excellent play, from all Oden, Rudy, Batum and Bayless. Most nights, only one of them is doing anything too useful, but it's these flashes that give me hope. We have Roy and LMA who are proven and are part of the future core, and now it's just a search for which of the others are going to solidify the core of the Blazers in the future.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I think it was also quite apparent that he has the skills to distribute the ball as well. He is coming along just fine. His talent is obvious.

 

[BalancedMan]

nope, still don't think he's a PG and can only work well in a backcourt with Roy or another bigger guard that can handle the ball. luckily we may have that with rudy.

The same type of criticisms were made of Rodney Stuckey about a year ago too if I remember right. Wonder how that turned out.

 

[Nikolokolus]

nope, still don't think he's a PG and can only work well in a backcourt with Roy or another bigger guard that can handle the ball. luckily we may have that with rudy.

so what you're saying is that you don't think he can be successful unless we have two other guards like Roy or Rudy? And this is a problem how?

 

[noknobs]

It's games like this that make me excited about the future. So far this year, we have seen sporadic, but excellent play, from all Oden, Rudy, Batum and Bayless. Most nights, only one of them is doing anything too useful, but it's these flashes that give me hope. We have Roy and LMA who are proven and are part of the future core, and now it's just a search for which of the others are going to solidify the core of the Blazers in the future.

... Uh... hahaha... what?

 

[Pinwheel1]

... Uh... hahaha... what?

God finally made sense to me

 

[noknobs]

God finally made sense to me

EDIT: Wow... totally misread his post... I'm gonna leave now.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Oh, I must have watched a different game then. The one I saw had Greg Oden playing just over 12 minutes, getting 4 points, 1 rebound, 0 blocks, committing dumb foul after dumb foul, not boxing out, and giving up 3 points plays.

I wish I saw the game you saw.

He said "so far this year," not tonight we saw

He's talking about this year, he has seen sporadic amazing play from all of our rookies. As in they have had their ups and downs, good and bad games, but you can see the talent, and it's exciting. Hopefully they fulfill their potential and become more of the good than bad

 

[Pinwheel1]

Oh, I must have watched a different game then. The one I saw had Greg Oden playing just over 12 minutes, getting 4 points, 1 rebound, 0 blocks, committing dumb foul after dumb foul, not boxing out, and giving up 3 points plays.

I wish I saw the game you saw.

If you saw the game with Bayless taking over stretches of the game than you saw the same game. God was simply implying that tonight yet one more young player stepped up and gave him hope for another core player to be added to the mix. That was fun to see,

 

[alex42083]

It seemed like Bayless making that 17-foot jumper in the first half really just relaxed him and got him going. That's the first jumper I think I've ever seen him make, and then we got to see the energy he can bring to this team.

The guy was actually willing to fast break, and take it to the hole against the big guys. I am pleading for this team to run more than it should, and tonight they showed they can a bit. It got the team going and it got the crowd going. I loved it.