Some stupid stuff about Bayless

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
UKRAINEFAN

UKRAINEFAN

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
14,915
Likes
12,081
Points
113
http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/9/2...-play-by-play-broadcaster-rips-jerryd-bayless

"In the second part of a two-part Jazz.com podcast with former Portland Trail Blazers beat writer and current Utah Jazz beat writer Brian T. Smith, Jazz play-by-play announcer David Locke rips into Blazers guard Jerryd Bayless.

Here's a transcript of the exchange...

--------------------------------------

David Locke: "I have to share, I have to share, I just don't like Jerryd Bayless... I have a great Jerryd Bayless story...

"Jerryd Bayless is sitting with a coach and they are one on one watching film. The coach says to him, 'Jerryd, there are four things that can happen in a game. You can play well and the team plays well. You can play well and the team plays badly. You can play badly and the team plays well. You can play badly and the team plays badly. The only two that matter, Jerryd, are when the team is playing well.'

"And Bayless looks at him and says, 'Coach I don't understand how I can play well and the team doesn't play well.'"

Brian T. Smith: "Wow, did you hear that first hand or was that kind of related to you."

David Locke: "That question I can't answer."

Is Brian Smith desperate to make a splash in his new city? Even if this was true, what does it mean? If I'm Bayless, first I'm probably confused about what point this coach is trying to make; there must be some more effective ways to say that the team always comes first. And the response by Bayless could simply mean that he thinks that if he is playing well (distributing well and shooting well and being a good leader) that the team is gonna be doing well also.
 
Sounds like sour grapes. I'm not sure why, outside of his T-Rex arms, that another p-b-p man would not like Jerryd. It's not like he's dirty or known as being a jack-hole.
 
I listened to the podcast this afternoon. The guy sounded pissed that BTS was so pro-Blazers and felt the need to put down POR at least once.

It's hilarious that this is the most significant shit he could dig up to diss the Blazers.
 
Zuh? That was a damning story? That Bayless doesn't think the team can play well if he doesn't? I mean, sure, you could say that that's self-absorption or self-confidence to the point of delusion...which means his attitude is right in line with most professional athletes. From what I've read, a delusional self-confidence is what athletes need in order to make it in such a competitive environment.

That was a pretty disappointing effort to make an athlete seem evil.
 
David Locke is a former Seattle guy who has deep connections with Nate, Cho and Roy. There is a poster from O-Live that knows him personally and has dropped serious scoop on that forum coming directly from DL. Locke is completely credible.
 
Minstrel said:
Zuh? That was a damning story? That Bayless doesn't think the team can play well if he doesn't?
Click to expand...

Except that he didn't even say that. He didn't question how the team could play well if he played poorly--he questioned how the team could perform poorly if he was doing well. And like Ukrainefan says, by virtue of the position he plays, it's very difficult for the team to play poorly if he is actually doing his job well, unless the team is just short on talent (like what happened in New Orleans this year).
 
Sounds to me like something Bayless would say. Maybe people need to be reminded of Monta Ellis on why that thinking can be damaging.
 
JB via Twitter..."I just got an email saying the Utah reporter was saying some things about me?? It's all good though. Everyone can have there own opinion of me. Even though I don't remember that happening"
http://twitter.com/JBay_4
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Except that he didn't even say that. He didn't question how the team could play well if he played poorly--he questioned how the team could perform poorly if he was doing well..
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point. I misread it. It's even less damning.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/9/2...-play-by-play-broadcaster-rips-jerryd-bayless

"And Bayless looks at him and says, 'Coach I don't understand how I can play well and the team doesn't play well.'"
Click to expand...

Exhibit 1:

zach_randolph-thumb.gif
 
In this case, Bayless is right. While the coach may have been referring to getting individual stats when he said "playing well", they are two separate things.

In the PG role you're not playing well if you haven't been able to get your team playing well.

Getting your team to play well is pretty much the whole job description for a PG.

It's pretty much a given that if a team's PG plays well, the team will play well.

No PG worth his salt would feel he played well if his team didn't.
 
MARIS61 said:
In this case, Bayless is right. While the coach may have been referring to getting individual stats when he said "playing well", they are two separate things.

In the PG role you're not playing well if you haven't been able to get your team playing well.

Getting your team to play well is pretty much the whole job description for a PG.

It's pretty much a given that if a team's PG plays well, the team will play well.

No PG worth his salt would feel he played well if his team didn't.
Click to expand...
Think of the best point guard to ever play the game. Doesn't matter who it is just whoever you think is best. Now do you think its possible that that guy had a great game and played well but his team lost.
 
Tom Cruise said:
Think of the best point guard to ever play the game. Doesn't matter who it is just whoever you think is best. Now do you think its possible that that guy had a great game and played well but his team lost.
Click to expand...

Magic Johnson.

And no.

Great stats, sure, but not a great game and not playing well.

He'd tell you the same thing.
 
JB via Twitter..."I just got an email saying the Utah reporter was saying some things about me?? It's all good though. Everyone can have there own opinion of me. Even though I don't remember that happening"
Click to expand...


This is why I love Bayless. I don't think I have ever heard of him taking nothing but the high road. I also believe that Bayless is one of the smartest guys on the team, and have a hard time believing he said that. Locke is totally credible, but I'm not sure the story he heard was relayed correctly
 
There's two ways to interpret Bayless' alleged comment:
1. (The way Locke is interpreting it) "I AM the team. All that matters is if I look good. Me play good therefore means team play good"
2. (The more charitable way to interpret it): "As a PG, the only way I could have been correctly judged to play well is if the team succeeds. Therefore, if the team plays poorly then I by definition have played poorly."

I think Locke doesn't even get that 2 is a possibility, whereas, even though I am no fan of Bayless's game (see "Trade Bayless" thread) I think it pretty obvious that if he did say that, that's what he would have meant.
 
MARIS61 said:
In this case, Bayless is right. While the coach may have been referring to getting individual stats when he said "playing well", they are two separate things.

In the PG role you're not playing well if you haven't been able to get your team playing well.

Getting your team to play well is pretty much the whole job description for a PG.

It's pretty much a given that if a team's PG plays well, the team will play well.

No PG worth his salt would feel he played well if his team didn't.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Of course he could play well, make great passes while his teammates miss shots and so the team not do well. I don't think this is what the coach was trying to say, but that's a possibility too..
 
Why does anybody give a shit what Briant T Smith says anymore? He works for the enemy.
 
Man, that's a stupid story, and a really lame attempt to smear someone. I'd bet money Locke fucked up the exact wording of whatever Bayless may or may not have said. I agree with those who opine that what Bayless was most likely saying was: if the team didn't play well it means that he as the point guard did not play well (regardless of personal stats).

But then again, I'm sure I know as little about it as Locke, so what the hell do I know?

:cheers:
 
maxiep said:
David Locke is a former Seattle guy who has deep connections with Nate, Cho and Roy. There is a poster from O-Live that knows him personally and has dropped serious scoop on that forum coming directly from DL. Locke is completely credible.
Click to expand...

Except no poster was questioning the credibility of the story.

Only its relevance and meaning.

Count me in that group that fails to understand how this attempted trashing of Bayless and/or the Blazers hit the bullseye - or even the target at all. Much ado about very little.
 
David Locke can be annoying and an ass at times about the Blazers. A huge Jazz homer.

But his show is excellent for NBA junkies. I often disagree with him but compared to Canzano the guy is a NBA genius. But I guess that is not saying much.
 
BGrantFan said:
I sure hope so, considering he is employed by the Jazz and is their play-by-play voice.
Click to expand...

He has only been their play by play guy for one year. Before that he was like most other radio guys, moving from one city to the next. But he has known more about the NBA than Canzano has for...................well everyone knows more than Canzano.
 
BGrantFan said:
I sure hope so, considering he is employed by the Jazz and is their play-by-play voice.
Click to expand...

You would hope that a "play-by-play voice" thoroughly out-classed a supposed sports journalist in terms of NBA knowledge? I would hope that the guy employed to analyze sports (and especially the NBA, since that's the lone major professional sports league represented in his area) for his articles knew more.
 
I always place my trust in baritone blowhards. This life strategy has never failed me.
 
MARIS61 said:
In this case, Bayless is right. While the coach may have been referring to getting individual stats when he said "playing well", they are two separate things.

In the PG role you're not playing well if you haven't been able to get your team playing well.

Getting your team to play well is pretty much the whole job description for a PG.

It's pretty much a given that if a team's PG plays well, the team will play well.

No PG worth his salt would feel he played well if his team didn't.
Click to expand...

All good points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top