Why did Bayless slide so far in the draft?

[STOMP]

? Why did Bayless slide so far in the draft?

It seems to be a pretty great draft class. There are only a few guys drafted ahead of him that aren't currently producing and looking like they'll be at least quality starters for years. Several look to be All Star type talents.

it was a good year to be at the top of the lotto

STOMP

 

[Natebishop3]

Here is my list of players who are true point guards that are currently playing: Nash, Kidd, Williams, Billups and Paul. No one else is even close.

I agree with everything you said except Billups. Billups really isn't a true point guard. Throughout his career he has been a scorer, and a decent playmaker. If anything, I think Bayless could be very much like Billups with a little work.

 

[LittleAlex]

I agree with everything you said except Billups. Billups really isn't a true point guard. Throughout his career he has been a scorer, and a decent playmaker. If anything, I think Bayless could be very much like Billups with a little work.

Yeah, I hesitated to put him in that list. Probably doesn't belong there.

As far as Bayless falling to 11th in the draft, perhaps other GM's just screwed up. It has been known to happen.

 

[LittleAlex]

I don't think the idea is really that first proposition. The idea is more along the second line of yours I quoted. Roy won't be "the real point guard." Roy has above average court vision and passing for a shooting guard. Bayless may have below average court vision and passing for a point guard. I'm not convinced that each player needs to be the platonic version of their position, so long as the "right amounts" of passing, scoring, rebounding and defense are there. In terms of court vision and passing, if Roy's above-average-ness at his position makes up for Bayless' below-average-ness at his, that seems like a fine model to work with.

I think distribution of "point guard" duties over both guards can work fine. Neither Bayless or Roy may be ideal point guards, but if they can both play-make to some extent, I'm willing to believe that that will be equivalent to the "traditional" model of a point guard who largely handles all the play-making duties and a shooting guard who doesn't do much distribution.

I don't think who specifically does what is the key. I think the key is that the team, overall, has all the things it needs. In an extreme case, if the team gets 10 RPG from its shooting guard and its power forward gets 4 RPG, I don't think that's a problem--all that matters is that the team gets all the rebounding it needs. In the case of the Blazers, I think the team will get all the passing it needs, as Bayless and Roy are probably at least average for NBA backcourts in terms of passing and Aldridge and Oden are probably above average for NBA front courts in terms of passing. Not having a classic point guard doesn't seem like a major issue.

I completely agree, though it would be nice to have a small forward with some play-making skills to go along with Roy and Bayless.

To paraphrase Rick Patino, John Stockton isn't walking through that door.

 

[Natebishop3]

I completely agree, though it would be nice to have a small forward with some play-making skills to go along with Roy and Bayless.

To paraphrase Rick Patino, John Stockton isn't walking through that door.

Unless you're a fan of Sergio

 

[JDC]

Rondo would be on my "true" point guard lists as well. He's more of a point guard then Billups imo.

 

[STOMP]

Here is my list of players who are true point guards that are currently playing: Nash, Kidd, Williams, Billups and Paul. No one else is even close.

I'm not sure what you mean by pure PG... it seems everyone has their own definition. Certainly you aren't eliminating scoring PGs as you've got Billups and Paul included.

by what I consider to be a pure PG (a pass first playmaker who directs the action) you're omitting several including Sergio Augustin and Ridenour.

STOMP

 

[Da_O]

What has a pure point guard gotten for any team to be even discussed so much? Nash, Kidd, Williams, and Paul so far all have shown to be chokers in the playoffs.

If you look at the last 10 teams to win the title. None of them have what many of you describe as a "true" point guard nor are any of them the focal point of their team. Bayless is exactly the type of guard to put next to Roy.

 

[ehizzy3]

bayless reminds me alot of tony parker but cant finish as good, and has better defense. worked well for san antonio no?

 

[number 10]

I completely agree, though it would be nice to have a small forward with some play-making skills to go along with Roy and Bayless.

I'm a bit (ok more than a bit) biased towards Batum, but he seems pretty good leading the fast break, he's capable of making some nice, quick entry passes to LMA or Oden, and he knows how to swing the ball around to find the open man for the 3. His biggest weakness as a playmaker is driving and dish to the open man, though I get the sense that the driving is the bigger problem. Also, steals and blocks create easy buckets just as well as a nice pass. I think he'll end up being the perfect fit, just hope we can keep all these guys.

 

[LittleAlex]

I'm not sure what you mean by pure PG... it seems everyone has their own definition. Certainly you aren't eliminating scoring PGs as you've got Billups and Paul included.

by what I consider to be a pure PG (a pass first playmaker who directs the action) you're omitting several including Sergio Augustin and Ridenour.

STOMP

I would say that a "true" point guard can do both, but is most effective when distributing the ball. In addition, they have that rare ability to put other players on their teams in a position to succeed. They also are a coach on the floor, able to create plays out of nothing. They also see the floor in a way most players never will, seeing things unfold before they actually happen. How many times during Kidd's career did you see him make a play and wonder how in the hell he knew it would work? I would say that a true point guard is one who can force their will on a game via passing alone.

In all honesty, Sergio can really only pass and his assists seem incidental so he is out. I haven't seen Augustine play since his freshman year at Texas, so I can't really say anything about him. Ridenour can pass ok, and score a bit, but his teams (outside of one year in Seattle) haven't ever been very successful. He just doesn't impose his will on the game in any way. At least, I haven't ever seen him do so.

I have certainly seen Kidd, Nash and Paul completely dominate a game without scoring. I saw Stockton and Magic do the same. In fact, according to this criteria, I would say LeBron is a true point guard, since he has dominated games without scoring much.

 

[LittleAlex]

I'm a bit (ok more than a bit) biased towards Batum, but he seems pretty good leading the fast break, he's capable of making some nice, quick entry passes to LMA or Oden, and he knows how to swing the ball around to find the open man for the 3. His biggest weakness as a playmaker is driving and dish to the open man, though I get the sense that the driving is the bigger problem. Also, steals and blocks create easy buckets just as well as a nice pass. I think he'll end up being the perfect fit, just hope we can keep all these guys.

I don't disagree, and think he might grow into such a player. He certainly isn't there yet. I see Batum right now as a homeless man's Tayshawn Prince. If he manages to get to the same level a Prince, Portland will be very, very happy.

 

[LittleAlex]

Unless you're a fan of Sergio

Well, that counts me out then. I have given up on Sergio and believe the team needs to go in a different direction, ala Bayless.

 

[MARIS61]

I've read that he will be a top 5-10 PG next season and that he'd start for quite a few teams right now. Rice and Barrett sound like they are going to be having his children at any point now. And he seems like the man crush of most of the posters on here.

so why did he slide? i really hope he turns out to be as good as everyone thinks he is and can be.

He slid because people who understand the game watched him play and recognized his shortcomings and limitations, and drafted better players who were available. Had we not pre-arranged a trade, he would have slid to 13 where we could have had him for free.

I cannot imagine what team(s) anyone thinks he would be starting on now, but he may eventually find a starting SG position in another year or 2.

 

[Reep]

I cannot imagine what team(s) anyone thinks he would be starting on now, but he may eventually find a starting SG position in another year or 2.

Seriously, do you believe that if OKC drafted Bayless instead of Westbrook, he would not have been afforded the same opportunities they gave Westbrook? Really?

Insert Clippers, Grizzlies and Bobcats as needed.

 

[Tortimer]

He slid because people who understand the game watched him play and recognized his shortcomings and limitations, and drafted better players who were available. Had we not pre-arranged a trade, he would have slid to 13 where we could have had him for free.

I cannot imagine what team(s) anyone thinks he would be starting on now, but he may eventually find a starting SG position in another year or 2.

I think very soon he will be starting for the Portland Trailblazers.

 

[Natebishop3]

What has a pure point guard gotten for any team to be even discussed so much? Nash, Kidd, Williams, and Paul so far all have shown to be chokers in the playoffs.

If you look at the last 10 teams to win the title. None of them have what many of you describe as a "true" point guard nor are any of them the focal point of their team. Bayless is exactly the type of guard to put next to Roy.

Stockton never won anything either.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

Had we not pre-arranged a trade, he would have slid to 13 where we could have had him for free.

The prearranged trade you're talking about was dependent on Bayless or DJ being available. If Bayless wasn't available at 11 the trade was void. I'm not sure how you could know about the prearranged trade without knowing that fact.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

All I know is I'm glad Bayless did fall. The Roy/Bayless combo has been incredible so far (in their very limited time together) and looks like they'll be a top 3 NBA backcourt, with a very good chance at being the best.

 

[Natebishop3]

The prearranged trade you're talking about was dependent on Bayless or DJ being available. If Bayless wasn't available at 11 the trade was void. I'm not sure how you could know about the prearranged trade without knowing that fact.

Well, and the fact that the Kings were going to pick Bayless at #12, so he would NOT have been available at 13. The Kings STILL want him.

 

[Ed O]

All I know is I'm glad Bayless did fall. The Roy/Bayless combo has been incredible so far (in their very limited time together) and looks like they'll be a top 3 NBA backcourt, with a very good chance at being the best.

Yep. I don't know why he fell, and while I'd love to hear the reasoning for every team who passed on him and why they did from each of those teams, I doubt that will ever happen. I'm just about a million times happier with Bayless than I would be with Jack and Rush.

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

The prearranged trade you're talking about was dependent on Bayless or DJ being available. If Bayless wasn't available at 11 the trade was void. I'm not sure how you could know about the prearranged trade without knowing that fact.

Had they not been guaranteed to get Rush and Jack for Bayless, they would have simply drafted the better player (Rush) and Bayless would have slid to us, or at least to 12.

Indiana never wanted him at all, and KP had to find someone to take JJ off our hands anyway, so 11th pick comes with an asterisk (ironic I would use that word).

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

Had they not been guaranteed to get Rush and Jack for Bayless, they would have simply drafted the better player (Rush) and Bayless would have slid to us, or at least to 12.

Indiana never wanted him at all, and KP had to find someone to take JJ off our hands anyway, so 11th pick comes with an asterisk (ironic I would use that word).

I don't see why it matters that Portland traded up. They were a better team because of the trade. If Indiana didn't want Bayless and Portland didn't make the trade they could have stood pat (an opinion you claim as factual), but they could have just as easily traded the pick to another team leaving Portland with nothing.

Portland might have been able to get Bayless at 13, but you don't know that as your post claims.

 

[Ed O]

Had they not been guaranteed to get Rush and Jack for Bayless, they would have simply drafted the better player (Rush) and Bayless would have slid to us, or at least to 12.

Indiana never wanted him at all, and KP had to find someone to take JJ off our hands anyway, so 11th pick comes with an asterisk (ironic I would use that word).

Rush is the better player?

Pull your head out of your ass, man.

The guy is coming off of the bench for a really bad team. He's 23 (actually closer to his 24th birthday than his 23rd). His PER is horrific (7.3).

The dude might turn it around, but he's not a better prospect than Bayless and he's CERTAINLY not a better player right now.

Ed O.

 

[STOMP]

I would say that a "true" point guard can do both, but is most effective when distributing the ball. In addition, they have that rare ability to put other players on their teams in a position to succeed. They also are a coach on the floor, able to create plays out of nothing. They also see the floor in a way most players never will, seeing things unfold before they actually happen. How many times during Kidd's career did you see him make a play and wonder how in the hell he knew it would work? I would say that a true point guard is one who can force their will on a game via passing alone.

In all honesty, Sergio can really only pass and his assists seem incidental so he is out. I haven't seen Augustine play since his freshman year at Texas, so I can't really say anything about him. Ridenour can pass ok, and score a bit, but his teams (outside of one year in Seattle) haven't ever been very successful. He just doesn't impose his will on the game in any way. At least, I haven't ever seen him do so.

I have certainly seen Kidd, Nash and Paul completely dominate a game without scoring. I saw Stockton and Magic do the same. In fact, according to this criteria, I would say LeBron is a true point guard, since he has dominated games without scoring much.

What about Dikembe?

like I said, everyone seems to have their own definition

STOMP