START BAYLESS!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
yuyuza1 said:
One of the most fundamental goals of this season now should be to integrate Bayless in as PG with Roy, so they'll both be ready to go as permanent back court mates next year when we get back into contention.
Click to expand...

This is my feeling too. I want the team to play as hard as it can, but I think it's worth sacrificing a little time to see if Bayless can be a part of the next contending Portland team (which will hopefully be next season).
 
RR7 said:
We know what we have in Blake, so there isn't really more there to analyze.
Click to expand...

And it won't be hard for Jerryd to pass that <10 PER, so playing him extended minutes might not even hurt us.
 
We should play whomever brings it. I thought playing time was earned. Looks like some were just going through the motions in NY. Win or lose, I would like to see everyone bring their A game.:drumroll:
 
"THE" HCP said:
Rewind 2 weeks ago and I assumed we were a team that was bound for the 2nd round of the playoffs. I wanted our two vets PG's to run the show. Now..................... I could care less if he starts, but play the kid 40 minutes a game. He creates problems for the opposing team. He attacks. Look at the last couple games. With our offense as stagnant as it is, it can't hurt to give him some run.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree. This team is not contending without Greg. This year is again a development/figure what you have year. JB needs all the time in the world - so they can figure out where they are with him - and if he can be the PG of the future or not. Since we are not going all the way, it's the perfect time to do it.

Free JB.
 
andalusian said:
I mostly agree. This team is not contending without Greg. This year is again a development/figure what you have year. JB needs all the time in the world - so they can figure out where they are with him - and if he can be the PG of the future or not. Since we are not going all the way, it's the perfect time to do it.

Free JB.
Click to expand...

Exactly and so obvious it's hard to believe some can't understand it.
 
bring It..Jb could use the playing time and god knows he deserves it at this point. We need fire out there and this guy could be REALLY REALLY good we have not given him the shots or the minutes to show his stuff properly. What the hell is going on in mcmuffins head:crazy: Play JB

:pimp:
 
ABM said:
Yeah, Playless needs some more burn.
Click to expand...

hahaha.. Jerryd Playless. I like it. I remember them trying to figure out a nickname for Jerryd on the Fifth Quarter after one of these games. Playless sounds about right.
 
alex42083 said:
hahaha.. Jerryd Playless. I like it. I remember them trying to figure out a nickname for Jerryd on the Fifth Quarter after one of these games. Playless sounds about right.
Click to expand...

i thought his nickname was Jayless for his lack of jump shot?
 
maxiep said:
Of course not. That's a silly proposition. He can lay the ball up as well.
Click to expand...

Well you can keep on telling yourself he isn't hitting shots, but he is. You don't shoot that clip without hitting jumpers too. One of the biggest problems in the NBA is players who do not know their limitations and do what they are weak at. The fact that he recognizes his strengths and weakness and tailors his game to that end, is a good thing.
 
hasoos said:
Well you can keep on telling yourself he isn't hitting shots, but he is. You don't shoot that clip without hitting jumpers too. One of the biggest problems in the NBA is players who do not know their limitations and do what they are weak at. The fact that he recognizes his strengths and weakness and tailors his game to that end, is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Jesus. Lighten up, Francis. It was a joke.
 
So tell me pro-Bayless crowd. If we go to JB and he underperforms, how long before the "experiment" is ended? Suppose he goes 5 games and does poorly, do we then say "Well, he needs more time." Suppose he goes 50 games and sucks ass. Do we go "Well, he just needs an off-season". Do we go three or four seasons? What happens if we draft another PG in the meantime who, crap, seems like he can actually ball! I'm not saying Bayless is a bad player but everybody's favorite player always seems to be on the bench.

Why don't we just start five new guys every night and see who do the best? Better yet, let's see if we can sign 10 NBDL guys and just rotate them through and see who performs best?

The season ain't over. Some of you would have been perfect in France in WWII, laying down on the street before the Germans were even spotted on the horizon.
 
yakbladder said:
So tell me pro-Bayless crowd. If we go to JB and he underperforms, how long before the "experiment" is ended? Suppose he goes 5 games and does poorly, do we then say "Well, he needs more time." Suppose he goes 50 games and sucks ass. Do we go "Well, he just needs an off-season". Do we go three or four seasons? What happens if we draft another PG in the meantime who, crap, seems like he can actually ball! I'm not saying Bayless is a bad player but everybody's favorite player always seems to be on the bench.

Why don't we just start five new guys every night and see who do the best? Better yet, let's see if we can sign 10 NBDL guys and just rotate them through and see who performs best?

The season ain't over. Some of you would have been perfect in France in WWII, laying down on the street before the Germans were even spotted on the horizon.
Click to expand...


So is your suggestion to neevr start Bayless? Continue to start Blake?
 
yakbladder said:
So tell me pro-Bayless crowd. If we go to JB and he underperforms, how long before the "experiment" is ended? Suppose he goes 5 games and does poorly, do we then say "Well, he needs more time." Suppose he goes 50 games and sucks ass. Do we go "Well, he just needs an off-season". Do we go three or four seasons? What happens if we draft another PG in the meantime who, crap, seems like he can actually ball! I'm not saying Bayless is a bad player but everybody's favorite player always seems to be on the bench.
Click to expand...

Well.. then we find out whether or not Bayless can play and if he fits into our plans. I think we pretty much know what we're going to get out of Blake every night but we don't know about Jerryd because he hasn't been given a chance to play consistent minutes every night.

At this point with only nine guys, it wouldn't hurt to see how much Jerryd can give us.
 
alex42083 said:
Well.. then we find out whether or not Bayless can play and if he fits into our plans. I think we pretty much know what we're going to get out of Blake every night but we don't know about Jerryd because he hasn't been given a chance to play consistent minutes every night.

At this point with only nine guys, it wouldn't hurt to see how much Jerryd can give us.
Click to expand...

Although I agree and would love to see Bayless get major minutes it just makes too much sense to do that now. Its the perfect time to give him a shot and see what he's got. And unfortunately we are working off a coach that doesnt always do things just cuz they makes sense.

I will hope but not hold my breath. If we dont play him now I think it seal the deal on him being gone.
 
yuyuza1 said:
One of the most fundamental goals of this season now should be to integrate Bayless in as PG with Roy, so they'll both be ready to go as permanent back court mates next year when we get back into contention.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. The only thing I'd change is:

yuyuza1 said:
One of the most fundamental goals of this season now should be to integrate Bayless in as PG with Roy, so either:
A. They'll both be ready to go as permanent back court mates next year when we get back into contention.
or
B. If he can't be made to fit with Roy we can move on to other options.
Click to expand...
 
Minstrel said:
And he can even lay the ball up from 15-20 feet.
Click to expand...

Bayless has an eFG% of .357 on "jump" shots (54% of his shots are "jump" vs. 46$ close/dunk). He's .625 from "close". He clearly needs to be shooting more from "close".

http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR3.HTM

For the sake of comparison, BLANKY is at .504 (93% jump, 7% close, and Miller is at .304 (60% jump, 40% close).

The stats seem to say that Bayless should take Miller's minutes, and not BLANKY's, due to the similarities in Bayless and Miller and where they take their shots.
 
yakbladder said:
So tell me pro-Bayless crowd. If we go to JB and he underperforms, how long before the "experiment" is ended? Suppose he goes 5 games and does poorly, do we then say "Well, he needs more time." Suppose he goes 50 games and sucks ass. Do we go "Well, he just needs an off-season". Do we go three or four seasons? What happens if we draft another PG in the meantime who, crap, seems like he can actually ball! I'm not saying Bayless is a bad player but everybody's favorite player always seems to be on the bench.

Why don't we just start five new guys every night and see who do the best? Better yet, let's see if we can sign 10 NBDL guys and just rotate them through and see who performs best?

The season ain't over. Some of you would have been perfect in France in WWII, laying down on the street before the Germans were even spotted on the horizon.
Click to expand...

As poorly as Blake and Miller are playing, what is the downside to giving Bayless more minutes? You make it sound as if the "pro-Bayless crowd" is advocating disrupting a winning team just for the sake of their favorite player. In fact, it's hard to imagine how playing Bayless could make matters worse - and there is always the slim chance it will make things better. :dunno:
 
PapaG said:
The stats seem to say that Bayless should take Miller's minutes, and not BLANKY's, due to the similarities in Bayless and Miller and where they take their shots.
Click to expand...

I don't really follow that logic. Why do "similarities in game" determine who gets minutes? If we had a prime Jordan, Drexler and BLANKY, would we have Jordan take Drexler's minutes, instead of BLANKY's, because Jordan's game is more similar to Drexler's?

I think Miller is better than BLANKY, so should get more minutes. If Bayless has to take minutes from either (and I think he should, because he's shown promise and it would be nice to see what the team has in him), it should be from BLANKY. I'd rather play better players, rather than go for the contrast in play styles.
 
Minstrel said:
I don't really follow that logic. Why do "similarities in game" determine who gets minutes? If we had a prime Jordan, Drexler and BLANKY, would we have Jordan take Drexler's minutes, instead of BLANKY's, because Jordan's game is more similar to Drexler's?

I think Miller is better than BLANKY, so should get more minutes. If Bayless has to take minutes from either (and I think he should, because he's shown promise and it would be nice to see what the team has in him), it should be from BLANKY. I'd rather play better players, rather than go for the contrast in play styles.
Click to expand...

Neither Miller nor Bayless are putting up Drexler/Jordan numbers. I feel that BLANKY is the only outside threat this team has right now, and I don't see how having Roy, Miller, and Bayless on the court at the same time improves the team.
 
PapaG said:
Neither Miller nor Bayless are putting up Drexler/Jordan numbers. I feel that BLANKY is the only outside threat this team has right now, and I don't see how having Roy, Miller, and Bayless on the court at the same time improves the team.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA...Have you been watching the games this year? Blake is shooting into the sides of backboards.

In addition to the fact that a high school PG could run a fast break better than him. He doesn't play any defense and dribbles the shot clock out.
 
yakbladder said:
So tell me pro-Bayless crowd. If we go to JB and he underperforms, how long before the "experiment" is ended? Suppose he goes 5 games and does poorly, do we then say "Well, he needs more time." Suppose he goes 50 games and sucks ass. Do we go "Well, he just needs an off-season". Do we go three or four seasons? What happens if we draft another PG in the meantime who, crap, seems like he can actually ball! I'm not saying Bayless is a bad player but everybody's favorite player always seems to be on the bench.

Why don't we just start five new guys every night and see who do the best? Better yet, let's see if we can sign 10 NBDL guys and just rotate them through and see who performs best?

The season ain't over. Some of you would have been perfect in France in WWII, laying down on the street before the Germans were even spotted on the horizon.
Click to expand...

If a guys is obviously on a hot streak, leave him in is all I'm saying. I don't care who starts.
 
OneSport3 said:
HAHAHAHAHA...Have you been watching the games this year? Blake is shooting into the sides of backboards.

In addition to the fact that a high school PG could run a fast break better than him. He doesn't play any defense and dribbles the shot clock out.
Click to expand...

But what do you feel are his negatives?
 
PapaG said:
Neither Miller nor Bayless are putting up Drexler/Jordan numbers.
Click to expand...

Certainly true, it was merely an example to show that I think ability is more important than style of play.

I feel that BLANKY is the only outside threat this team has right now, and I don't see how having Roy, Miller, and Bayless on the court at the same time improves the team.
Click to expand...

I don't think I want all three on the court together. I'd rather see them in a three-guard rotation. Two of the three on the court at a time.

Also, while I'm not 100% certain it improves the team today (how Bayless will play over a stretch of games is still uncertain), I think that it's a worthwhile risk in order to both let Bayless develop and allow Portland to evaluate how much value he can bring to the team next season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top