Bayless

[mook]

I heard Nate say tonight that he was going to experiement with Rudy and Nic playing with the starting lineup.

That is great news. I think Nate is coming to the same conclusion I have--start Rudy, Roy, Batum, Aldridge and Przybilla. That lineup just seems to fit, and we'll have a nice size advantage at PG. We'll get burned by quick point guards, but we'll make up for it in so many other ways.

 

[Nikolokolus]

That is great news. I think Nate is coming to the same conclusion I have--start Rudy, Roy, Batum, Aldridge and Przybilla. That lineup just seems to fit, and we'll have a nice size advantage at PG. We'll get burned by quick point guards, but we'll make up for it in so many other ways.

Quite honestly I wouldn't be shocked to see Batum take on the opponent's 1 some of the time in that lineup at least part-time; he was pretty effective on Parker at times. In which case you might see Brandon guarding an opposing 3 part-time.

 

[talman]

FWIW on courtside tonight the guys mentioned that Bayless has been moving up the practice squad rotation in a big way....

 

[MrJayremmie]

LOL at this thread.

 

[BenDavis503x]

my thought - deron williams didn't really look like an NBA point guard his first year either.

bayless is 19. give him a chance.

+1

Deron didn't look like a pure PG. Now look at him. You people need to chill out and relax.

 

[STOMP]

That is great news. I think Nate is coming to the same conclusion I have--start Rudy, Roy, Batum, Aldridge and Przybilla. That lineup just seems to fit, and we'll have a nice size advantage at PG. We'll get burned by quick point guards, but we'll make up for it in so many other ways.

I've been predicting a Rudy Roy backcourt for some time. They are the two most talented guards on the roster and have more then enough skills between them to cover the positional needs.

If Rudy is starting then there would be even more reason for TO to provide scoring off the bench.

STOMP

 

[Ed O]

3. I too believe Portland was truly after Augustine.

Man, I hope not. He has looked terrible for Charlotte so far (and I've watched almost all of all of their games because I have Gerald Wallace on my fantasy team and lots of free time).

He looks like a right-handed Damon Stoudamire.

*shiver*

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Man, I hope not. He has looked terrible for Charlotte so far (and I've watched almost all of all of their games because I have Gerald Wallace on my fantasy team and lots of free time).

He looks like a right-handed Damon Stoudamire.

*shiver*

Stoudamire's only weakness was being left-handed. Clearly, had he been right-handed, he'd have been a Hall of Famer.

Charlotte got a steal!

 

[Ed O]

Bayless has been projected as a star for a long time.

...

Why are we excited about Bayless? Because he tore up Summer League.

Wrong. We are excited about Bayless because he's a teenager who's got great size and athleticism and work ethic and attitude.

We are excited about Bayless because he's been projected as a star for a long time (see your own post).

We are excited about Bayless because we got him late in the lottery, much later than he'd been projected to go for most of the couple of years before the draft.

Was it great that he dominated summer league? Sure. Was it shocking, given his history and the expectations he's had on him for years? No. Was it the basis for why we are excited about him? Not as far as I'm concerned... not at all.

I agree with Minstrel's post (and the points of others) that Bayless doesn't HAVE to be a PG to fit into the future--and even future starting lineup--of this team.

Ed O.

 

[anonymous gambler]

Man, I hope not. He has looked terrible for Charlotte so far (and I've watched almost all of all of their games because I have Gerald Wallace on my fantasy team and lots of free time).

He looks like a right-handed Damon Stoudamire.

*shiver*

Ed O.

I think we would have settled for Augustine, but were thrilled that we got Bayless. Anyway, not to sound like a parrot with this repetition, but it's way too early to tell how either will turn out.

 

[Ed O]

Stoudamire's only weakness was being left-handed. Clearly, had he been right-handed, he'd have been a Hall of Famer.

Charlotte got a steal!

Damn. You're right.

You win, one to nothing.

Ed O.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

Stoudamire's only weakness was being left-handed. Clearly, had he been right-handed, he'd have been a Hall of Famer.

Charlotte got a steal!

Gramps...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Wrong. We are excited about Bayless because he's a teenager who's got great size and athleticism and work ethic and attitude.

Is that the Royal We?

He could have all of those things and suck at basketball. He doesn't, but he isn't great at some aspects that I don't think you can teach.

We are excited about Bayless because he's been projected as a star for a long time (see your own post).

No - I never said he was projected as a star for a long time. I said he WAS a star - in high school. You know, like Sebastian Telfair? Difference was, Telfair won city championships IN NEW YORK. Did Bayless win in Arizona?

We are excited about Bayless because we got him late in the lottery, much later than he'd been projected to go for most of the couple of years before the draft.

That's silly. By that reasoning we should have been wetting ourselves over Josh McRoberts. Perhaps there's a reason he dropped? You know, like DeAndre Jordan? What was it you said about Jordan before the draft, Ed? Can you find the quote? You know, now I come to think of it, he's young and athletic too...

[snip]

I agree with Minstrel's post (and the points of others) that Bayless doesn't HAVE to be a PG to fit into the future--and even future starting lineup--of this team.

So... where's Rudy in all this? If Bayless could be starting, then couldn't someone taller, with better all-round basketball skills be doing the same?

Bayless could be a good Vinnie Johnson clone (with Roy and Rudy as Thomas and Dumars) but I'm not sure he'd be happy with that (and isn't Outlaw our designated high-volume shooter off the bench?), and I can think of players I'd like to have more, and I'd still worry about his attitude. Perhaps the one area of strength for him that is a weakness for us is his defense at the guard position. But he's sort of a pint-sized poor man's Ron Artest: you pay for the defense with selfish offense and a prickly personality.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but as things stand, I'd trade him for Rajon Rondo in a nanosecond (were there any chance in hell that Boston would go for that) and throw in Steve Blake as a bonus.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think it's hilarious how people have started to say Jerryd has a bad attitude, show me an example of bad behavior or of being a poor teammate. Is it his steely demeanor that is putting you off? And how exactly is 6-3 pint sized for a point guard?

Jerryd may end up being all of the things you say he is, but let's at least see what the kid can do on the court before we say what he is or isn't.

 

[rocketeer]

That's silly. By that reasoning we should have been wetting ourselves over Josh McRoberts. Perhaps there's a reason he dropped? You know, like DeAndre Jordan? What was it you said about Jordan before the draft, Ed? Can you find the quote? You know, now I come to think of it, he's young and athletic too...

bad comparisons. mcroberts was a guy who dropped long before the draft. deandre jordan had dropped to a late teens or early 20s pick at best by the time the draft rolled around.

He could have all of those things and suck at basketball. He doesn't, but he isn't great at some aspects that I don't think you can teach.

i assume ed o meant to include that he actually was a very good basketball player at arizona along with all those other things. which is another thing that would seperate him from deandre jordan and mcroberts(specifically jordan who was having trouble even getting of the bench for a&m).

 

[Ed O]

Is that the Royal We?

It's the same "we" you used. I was using it ironically, since I don't think you speak for very many on this board. Neither do I, but I don't tend to tell "us" what "we" think.

No - I never said he was projected as a star for a long time. I said he WAS a star - in high school.

You didn't?

Actually, I think it's a fair reading of this: "Bayless has been projected as a star for a long time." Is it not?

So... where's Rudy in all this? If Bayless could be starting, then couldn't someone taller, with better all-round basketball skills be doing the same?

First of all, I am not sure that he has better basketball skills. He doesn't get to the free throw line, for example, and (more importantly) I don't see much evidence that he can guard point guards.

Bayless could be a good Vinnie Johnson clone (with Roy and Rudy as Thomas and Dumars) but I'm not sure he'd be happy with that (and isn't Outlaw our designated high-volume shooter off the bench?), and I can think of players I'd like to have more, and I'd still worry about his attitude. Perhaps the one area of strength for him that is a weakness for us is his defense at the guard position.

In what world is Outlaw still going to be the instant offense on the bench when Bayless is a Vinnie Johnson clone? Bayless is nineteen. He's a year or two or four away from being what he will be. Outlaw might be here years from now, but I don't think we need to get rid of recent lottery picks on that possibility.

But he's sort of a pint-sized poor man's Ron Artest: you pay for the defense with selfish offense and a prickly personality.

Where is this coming from? A "prickly personality"? A Ron Artest-like attitude?

What are you talking about?

I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but as things stand, I'd trade him for Rajon Rondo in a nanosecond (were there any chance in hell that Boston would go for that) and throw in Steve Blake as a bonus.

I don't know that I would or not. The Celtics wouldn't, so I don't really care that we cannot get the starting PG on the current world champs' team for a low lottery pick. And I certainly don't consider it any sort of indictment on Bayless.

Ed O.