Why did Bayless slide so far in the draft?

[BalancedMan]

Everyone assumed he was a top-4 pick, and the Heat were considering him at #2. He didn't work out for most of the teams underneath. Given how most of those lottery players have played this season, it is hard to knock any of the teams for the players they took (except maybe Milwaukee with Alexander).

Sacramento probably would have taken him at 12, which is why we made the Indiana trade. I was ecstatic to see that trade. When I saw where he went, I assumed we might have had a trade (due to them just acquiring TJ Ford).

Remember, Bayless was pick #11,not pick #13.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Bayless is gettin' 11, 3 and 2 on a winning team with great scoring options in 22mpg. If he was on OKC, NY, Memphis, LAC (with their injuries right now) I think he would be gettin' around 16 4 and 3 as a rookie if he was gettin' around 30mpg and the ball more.

One of the guards were going to slide (Westbrook, Augestin, Gordon or Bayless) and KP was waiting to see which one it was going to be, and before the draft he had a good idea that it was going to be Bayless (apparent when he asked Barrett what he thought of Bayless right before the draft) and he snatched him up. I think KP wanted Westbrook the most, but he said he had Bayless rated #4 overall. He could have gone... 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 or 13, but we ended up striking a deal to get him at 11 because he wasn't going to last past 12.

Also, I have a question. Rasta, are you "meru" from BBF?

 

[Natebishop3]

Bayless is gettin' 11, 3 and 2 on a winning team with great scoring options in 22mpg. If he was on OKC, NY, Memphis, LAC (with their injuries right now) I think he would be gettin' around 16 4 and 3 as a rookie if he was gettin' around 30mpg and the ball more.

I think he would at least be neck and neck with Westbrook right now, in terms of success.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Who needs Maris when you have Rasta

Don't tell me you're going to be MY stalker now? I'm not worthy.

What I don't get is why people want Bayless to be a PG. I guess it sort of follows from his greatness: Bayless is great, but we have Roy and Rudy at SG, so therefore Bayless must be a PG.

Now, he could play the "PG role" on a Phil Jackson-coached team, because if Ron Harper and Steve Kerr can... (But even then, I think PJ would be pulling him pretty quickly for not moving the ball enough.) But could he play the PG role on a D'Antoni team? Not in a million years. Could he replace Chris Paul? He'd be little better than Antonio Daniels.

His talent is scoring. He's good at that. He is below average (or if not, has been giving a very good impression of being) at "seeing the floor". It just doesn't appear to be in his nature. I just don't understand why people can't see that when they watch him play. Are these the same people who complained about Jarrett Jack? Because, remember, Bayless is Jarrett Jack on steroids.

Haven't you guys played pickup ball with a guy like Bayless? It's horrible! Your team might win, but you might just as well be a spectator. (And that's only if there aren't better scorers on the other team, and there will be when it comes to Bayless.)

Let him be what he is: scoring punch off the bench. He's good at that. It's a good thing to have. But if he's our starting PG, then we're in trouble. He couldn't even do that in Summer League.

 

[Tortimer]

Don't tell me you're going to be MY stalker now? I'm not worthy.

What I don't get is why people want Bayless to be a PG. I guess it sort of follows from his greatness: Bayless is great, but we have Roy and Rudy at SG, so therefore Bayless must be a PG.

Now, he could play the "PG role" on a Phil Jackson-coached team, because if Ron Harper and Steve Kerr can... (But even then, I think PJ would be pulling him pretty quickly for not moving the ball enough.) But could he play the PG role on a D'Antoni team? Not in a million years. Could he replace Chris Paul? He'd be little better than Antonio Daniels.

His talent is scoring. He's good at that. He is below average (or if not, has been giving a very good impression of being) at "seeing the floor". It just doesn't appear to be in his nature. I just don't understand why people can't see that when they watch him play. Are these the same people who complained about Jarrett Jack? Because, remember, Bayless is Jarrett Jack on steroids.

Haven't you guys played pickup ball with a guy like Bayless? It's horrible! Your team might win, but you might just as well be a spectator. (And that's only if there aren't better scorers on the other team, and there will be when it comes to Bayless.)

Let him be what he is: scoring punch off the bench. He's good at that. It's a good thing to have. But if he's our starting PG, then we're in trouble. He couldn't even do that in Summer League.

Nope your 100% wrong IMO and we will just have to wait and see who is right. Maybe it is you that can't see what PG skills Bayless has and not most other people that can. Like I already said he is our starting PG of the future. I wouldn't even be surpised if he is starting for us in the playoffs this year and doing well.

 

[Reep]

What I don't get is why people want Bayless to be a PG. I guess it sort of follows from his greatness: Bayless is great, but we have Roy and Rudy at SG, so therefore Bayless must be a PG.

Question: Do you think Rose is a PG?

Request: Really do compare their freshman stats. Rose had about 3 assists/game. Bayless had about 6 (as a PG).

That doesn't tell the whole story, but I don't think any of the players in that draft are pure PGs, but many are still PGs. Augustin is probably the only one on the list that is close to a "pure" PG. It is really unfair to call Rose, Westbrook or Gordon PGs, and not put Bayless in the same list.

 

[Natebishop3]

Don't tell me you're going to be MY stalker now? I'm not worthy.

Hard to stalk someone when they're blocked, wouldn't you say?

What I don't get is why people want Bayless to be a PG. I guess it sort of follows from his greatness: Bayless is great, but we have Roy and Rudy at SG, so therefore Bayless must be a PG.

By your definition of a shooting guard, we currently have Roy, Rudy, Bayless and Blake on our team. We only have one "point guard" and that's Sergio. If HE'S our starting point guard, we're in trouble.

Now, he could play the "PG role" on a Phil Jackson-coached team, because if Ron Harper and Steve Kerr can... (But even then, I think PJ would be pulling him pretty quickly for not moving the ball enough.) But could he play the PG role on a D'Antoni team? Not in a million years. Could he replace Chris Paul? He'd be little better than Antonio Daniels.

Isn't Antonio Daniels the guy he torched? Do you realize how many players are on Chris Paul's level? I haven't seen a point guard like Paul in years. He's on the same level as Stockton, Magic, and Kidd. They don't exactly grow on trees.

His talent is scoring. He's good at that. He is below average (or if not, has been giving a very good impression of being) at "seeing the floor". It just doesn't appear to be in his nature. I just don't understand why people can't see that when they watch him play. Are these the same people who complained about Jarrett Jack? Because, remember, Bayless is Jarrett Jack on steroids.

People hated Jarrett Jack because he would constantly make stupid mistakes. It's hard to justify a guy at the point guard spot who can't take care of the ball. While Bayless makes mistakes, he is still in his rookie year. If he's still making these mistakes in his third or fourth season, come see me.

Haven't you guys played pickup ball with a guy like Bayless? It's horrible! Your team might win, but you might just as well be a spectator. (And that's only if there aren't better scorers on the other team, and there will be when it comes to Bayless.) Let him be what he is: scoring punch off the bench. He's good at that. It's a good thing to have. But if he's our starting PG, then we're in trouble. He couldn't even do that in Summer League.

Yeah, except I've seen Bayless defer. I've seen him defer to Roy, I've seen him defer to Aldridge, and I've even seen him defer to Sergio. He isn't afraid to pass the ball, and at times I wish he wouldn't. He's still figuring out when to pass and when to attack. It's not like Jerryd comes in the game and becomes a black hole. He drives and kicks, which is something Steve Blake NEVER does.

Face it, there are only a few point guards out there who fit your "true point guard" mold. The rest are scorers with moderate passing abilities. Bayless brings something else though. He has a killer instinct, which is something a lot of guys on our team are lacking. He plays good defense, and he gets out and runs. You, and others like you, hate on Jerryd because he doesn't fit your ridiculous stereotype of what a point guard is, or is not.

And you're right, he couldn't do it in Summer League, but that's because he was playing with a bunch of scrubs and no-names.

 

[andalusian]

What I don't get is why people want Bayless to be a PG. I guess it sort of follows from his greatness: Bayless is great, but we have Roy and Rudy at SG, so therefore Bayless must be a PG.

Bayless can be a PG on Defense. That's all we really need him to be on this team and to play some PG on offense next to Roy. If you look at his assist% - he already is higher than OJ Mayo and Gordon in this regard.

I agree with you that if we did not have a SG that can create as much as Roy does - he would be insufficient as a PG - but - given the fact that we do have Roy - Bayless and his ability to guard the opposing PG seems like a match made in heaven.

What are the requirements for a PG given Portland's current make-up?

1. Guard opposing PGs. Check.
2. Attack the rim and draw free-throws. Check.
3. Shoot the long-ball somewhat efficiently. Not at this point - but given that he was able to do it in college and the sample size is so small - I would argue that it is inconclusive and we need to give him some more time before we can conclude that he can not do it.
4. Bring the ball up-court and create some when he initiates the offense. Check.
5. Lead the offense on the break. Check.

The kid seems to be a Jarret Jack on steroids - and this is a good thing - because Jack did good things for Portland and we were clearly missing his ability to get to the rim and draw FT before JB started to get minutes.

BTW - If you look at JB - he gets to the FT line at a much higher rate than JJ did and seems to be a better PG defender than JJ was - so I think that KP, as usual, hit the nail on the head when he described him as JJ on steroids.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Let me just add that I have no beef with Bayless, and I loved watching him at work both in Summer League and most recently in the comeback at New Orleans. And to be fair, he does really work at pressuring his man, and nobody could ever call him lazy or say that he doesn't care, which is also very good. But I do not think he will ever be a truly intuitive PG, and, while it may be possible to win without such a thing, it certainly is hard (and it's particularly hard on players who need the guards to give them the ball - you know, like Greg Oden?)

In terms of court vision, I would say he comes last out of ALL of our guards. That doesn't necessarily mean he gets fewer assists - he's assigned to bring the ball up the floor, and often just getting rid of it will lead to an assist, but he certainly can't see the available play even as well as Rudy (who has exceptional court vision, but isn't the penetrator or ballhandler Bayless is) or Roy.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Don't tell me you're going to be MY stalker now? I'm not worthy.

What I don't get is why people want Bayless to be a PG. I guess it sort of follows from his greatness: Bayless is great, but we have Roy and Rudy at SG, so therefore Bayless must be a PG.

Now, he could play the "PG role" on a Phil Jackson-coached team, because if Ron Harper and Steve Kerr can... (But even then, I think PJ would be pulling him pretty quickly for not moving the ball enough.) But could he play the PG role on a D'Antoni team? Not in a million years. Could he replace Chris Paul? He'd be little better than Antonio Daniels.

His talent is scoring. He's good at that. He is below average (or if not, has been giving a very good impression of being) at "seeing the floor". It just doesn't appear to be in his nature. I just don't understand why people can't see that when they watch him play. Are these the same people who complained about Jarrett Jack? Because, remember, Bayless is Jarrett Jack on steroids.

Haven't you guys played pickup ball with a guy like Bayless? It's horrible! Your team might win, but you might just as well be a spectator. (And that's only if there aren't better scorers on the other team, and there will be when it comes to Bayless.)

Let him be what he is: scoring punch off the bench. He's good at that. It's a good thing to have. But if he's our starting PG, then we're in trouble. He couldn't even do that in Summer League.

You do realize that he is going out there and doing exactly what the coaches are telling him to do right? Harlowe reported on this a few games back during one of the timeouts; the coaches want him to build his confidence and get comfortable and part of building your confidence and getting comfortable as a rookie is to go out and do the things that you are best at, once you've got that down then you can start trying to integrate whatever facets a player might not be as strong at.

I think it's fairly obvious from watching this season that all of the team's rookies are operating under this model of development, each according to the level of rawness or completeness of each player's game.

Nate to Nic: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls, play some defense and take the open shot from the corner if you get it."

Nate to Greg: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls, try to occupy the paint and keep your arms up when playing defense."

Nate to Rudy: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls, make some pretty passes, sit on the wing and hit the open three or go for that nasty alley-oop off of the baseline when it's open."

Nate to Jerryd: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls wink, stay in front of your man the best you can, and if you steal the ball or Brandon passes to you lower your head and put their guard/forward/center in foul trouble; wash, rinse, repeat."

I see Nate using a pretty tried and true principle, KISS (keep it simple stupid). Adding more responsibility and expecting more from these guys with only about 40-45 games under their belts (at best) is probably too much and would likely lead to more breakdowns, frustration and failure than success -- this is the Mr. Miyagi approach, "wax on, wax off, wax on, wax off ..."

 

[hasoos]

Actually if you have listened to most of the courtside shows this season, I would say Rice has been way out in front of the Bayless "surge" he loves his hustle and passion and his A++ work ethic -- not surprising since the Wild One used to be a coach.

As for why his stock dropped, it was a very guard heavy lottery this year and there are/were legitimate concerns about his ability to be plugged in and run the point right away (if ever) it probably didn't help that he got saddled with being played at the two when he got moved there to fill in for their injured shooting guard his lone year at U of A, also with Lute out of the picture I wonder if his development didn't suffer because of it (getting bounced out of the tournament early probably didn't help much either).

I still think Jerryd has a lot of work to do before you can say that he is going to be comfortable running the point as a starter and I see many more bumps in the road, but there's no denying he has elite athleticism, oozes confidence and swagger, already has an elite ability to finish or draw a foul and probably has the self awareness to honestly critique his weaknesses and enough determination to make himself better.

Yea I never listen to courtside. I just get the wrap up here. Mike Rice is pretty smart about basketball when he wants to be. Most folks don't realize he is just joking around most of the time, and have a hard time telling between when he is cracking a joke and dead pan serious.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Don't get caught up in the trap of defining a certain role the PG plays. The NBA has evolved... I totally agreed with KP when he talked about that. Its about players and about fit and chemistry and how the compliment each other. Jerryd does what Roy needs, and Roy does what Jerryd needs.

Those true PGs are a dying breed. Even the amazing PGs like Paul and Williams score a lot, and the ones like Devin Harris, Tony Parker, Derrick Rose, etc... that is exactly the type Bayless is going to turn into. Damn, it would be funny to see how angry you'd get after watching Devin Harris on our team for a week... you'd be saying the same thing... "He is a short SG!... we need to trade for Chris Paul!" Jerryd is averaging like 5apg over the last 4 if i remember correctly.

 

[Natebishop3]

You do realize that he is going out there and doing exactly what the coaches are telling him to do right? Harlowe reported on this a few games back during one of the timeouts; the coaches want him to build his confidence and get comfortable and part of building your confidence and getting comfortable as a rookie is to go out and do the things that you are best at, once you've got that down then you can start trying to integrate whatever facets a player might not be as strong at.

I think it's fairly obvious from watching this season that all of the team's rookies are operating under this model of development, each according to the level of rawness or completeness of each player's game.

Nate to Nic: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls, play some defense and take the open shot from the corner if you get it."

Nate to Greg: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls, try to occupy the paint and keep your arms up when playing defense."

Nate to Rudy: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls, make some pretty passes, sit on the wing and hit the open three or go for that nasty alley-oop off of the baseline when it's open."

Nate to Jerryd: "Just go out and hustle for loose balls wink, stay in front of your man the best you can, and if you steal the ball or Brandon passes to you lower your head and put their guard/forward/center in foul trouble; wash, rinse, repeat."

I see Nate using a pretty tried and true principle, KISS (keep it simple stupid). Adding more responsibility and expecting more from these guys with only about 40-45 games under their belts (at best) is probably too much and would likely lead to more breakdowns, frustration and failure than success -- this is the Mr. Miyagi approach, "wax on, wax off, wax on, wax off ..."

Hmm... that's an interesting tidbit... It would explain a lot.

 

[andalusian]

People hated Jarrett Jack because he would constantly make stupid mistakes. It's hard to justify a guy at the point guard spot who can't take care of the ball. While Bayless makes mistakes, he is still in his rookie year. If he's still making these mistakes in his third or fourth season, come see me.

I really hate this argument, btw - if people hated JJ because he made mistakes they should loath Sergio - whose best TOV% (19.9) was worst than JJ's worst (19.6) - both last year, btw. Of course, there was the argument that with more minutes Sergio would be better - which was proven to be wrong - Sergio is currently at a mind-boggling bad 23.2% TOV%. JB, btw - is only at 17.2% - he takes care of the ball much better than our esteemed "true" PG.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Bayless can be a PG on Defense. That's all we really need him to be on this team and to play some PG on offense next to Roy. If you look at his assist% - he already is higher than OJ Mayo and Gordon in this regard.

I agree with you that if we did not have a SG that can create as much as Roy does - he would be insufficient as a PG - but - given the fact that we do have Roy - Bayless and his ability to guard the opposing PG seems like a match made in heaven.

This does seem to be a popular view - that Roy will be our REAL PG. But really? Not to sound like a broken record, but everybody thinks they're a PG and very few people actually are. Michael Jordan averaged a triple double when Doug Collins made him the PG. But there's a reason he junked that idea. Tons of tall guards have started out as PGs but only flourished when moved to 2G (Steve Smith, Penny Hardaway, Dwyane Wade et. al. The Clippers were "grooming" Brent Barry to be their PG of the future, or so it was said when he was a rookie). Roy is an exceptional scorer, but only has good court vision by the standards of SGs. Of course he wants the ball in his hands, and we want him to be of the mindset that he's the best player to have it. He said he didn't really enjoy playing alongside Chris Paul because he was "off the ball". Well, I'm sure Iverson said the same thing when Larry Brown moved him off the ball, but it was exactly the best thing to do.

Roy is a great SG. Let him be an SG. Bayless is a great "microwave" player off the bench. Let him be that. He's the guard equivalent of Outlaw - it just doesn't work when they start Outlaw, because no matter how well-meaning he is and however much he wants to stay within the team concept, it just doesn't come as naturally to him as scoring.

If you want to start one of our guards currently on the bench, I say start Rudy. He's got more PG instincts than either Roy or Bayless. It's just a shame his ball handling isn't that great.

 

[Natebishop3]

I really hate this argument, btw - if people hated JJ because he made mistakes they should loath Sergio - whose best TOV% (19.9) was worst than JJ's worst (19.6) - both last year, btw. Of course, there was the argument that with more minutes Sergio would be better - which was proven to be wrong - Sergio is currently at a mind-boggling bad 23.2% TOV%. JB, btw - is only at 17.2% - he takes care of the ball much better than our esteemed "true" PG.

What's your point Andalusian? I do loathe Sergio, so the argument stands

 

[MrJayremmie]

Roy is a great SG. Let him be an SG. Bayless is a great "microwave" player off the bench. Let him be that. He's the guard equivalent of Outlaw - it just doesn't work when they start Outlaw, because no matter how well-meaning he is and however much he wants to stay within the team concept, it just doesn't come as naturally to him as scoring.

If Outlaw was as good of a scorer as he is now as a rookie, and a defender in the mold of Bayless as a rookie, then wow... that would be awesome in my opinion.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Jerryd does what Roy needs, and Roy does what Jerryd needs.

In THEORY. Marxism works IN THEORY. Got any stats to back that up? I'm sure 82games.com could help.

 

[MrJayremmie]

In THEORY. Marxism works IN THEORY. Got any stats to back that up? I'm sure 82games.com could help.

Well it has worked well, imo. Roy seems to enjoy it also. Jerryd seems to be the guy finishing games recently with Roy.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I really hate this argument, btw - if people hated JJ because he made mistakes they should loath Sergio - whose best TOV% (19.9) was worst than JJ's worst (19.6) - both last year, btw. Of course, there was the argument that with more minutes Sergio would be better - which was proven to be wrong - Sergio is currently at a mind-boggling bad 23.2% TOV%. JB, btw - is only at 17.2% - he takes care of the ball much better than our esteemed "true" PG.

In Sergio's defense (look out MARIS) I think a more generally valuable statistic is A/TO ratio ... now if you can get both a high A/TO ratio and a low TOV% you are gold. However on this team that plays a slow pace and with Nate who seems to value taking care of the ball above all else (hard to argue with that, since turnovers usually lead to easy transition buckets the other way) TOV% is probably much more important than it would be otherwise.

Bottom line: I think Sergio's gambling, high risk, high reward style of play is just a god awful fit with Nate and with the style of our lone all-star. Put him in the right system (Dallas, New York, etc.) and he'd probably be a decent backup.

 

[B-Roy]

Roy is a great SG. Let him be an SG. Bayless is a great "microwave" player off the bench. Let him be that. He's the guard equivalent of Outlaw - it just doesn't work when they start Outlaw, because no matter how well-meaning he is and however much he wants to stay within the team concept, it just doesn't come as naturally to him as scoring.

Well that's your problem, you're stuck in the player position mindset, that a point guard must have court vision, and must be a great passer. A certain skill set that is essential to being labeled a PG or a sG. It's a distorted view that is not true at all, especially if you want to look at the rest of the NBA.

According to your definition:

Is Derek Fisher a "point" guard? No.

Is Devin Harris a "point" guard? No.

Is Russell Westbrook a "point" guard? No.

Is Jameer Nelson a "point" guard? No.

Is Mo Williams a "point" guard? No.

Is Rodney Stuckey a "point" guard? No.

Is Tony Parker a "point" guard? No.

Is Derrick Rose a "point" guard? No.
The list goes on and on. The best way to construct a team, like someone said before, is to just get players who have skillsets that compliment one another, and I feel Bayless complements our SL very well.

 

[Natebishop3]

Well that's your problem, you're stuck in the player position mindset, that a point guard must have court vision, and must be a great passer. A certain skill set that is essential to being labeled a PG or a sG. It's a distorted view that is not true at all, especially if you want to look at the rest of the NBA.

According to your definition:

Is Derek Fisher a "point" guard? No.

Is Devin Harris a "point" guard? No.

Is Russell Westbrook a "point" guard? No.

Is Jameer Nelson a "point" guard? No.

Is Mo Williams a "point" guard? No.

Is Rodney Stuckey a "point" guard? No.

Is Tony Parker a "point" guard? No.

Is Derrick Rose a "point" guard? No.
The list goes on and on. The best way to construct a team, like someone said before, is to just get players who have skillsets that compliment one another, and I feel Bayless complements our SL very well.

There has only been like five point guards in the history of the game B-Roy, didn't you know???

 

[MrJayremmie]

Hey Rasta, can you answer my question if you are "meru" from BBF?

 

[Nikolokolus]

This does seem to be a popular view - that Roy will be our REAL PG. But really? Not to sound like a broken record, but everybody thinks they're a PG and very few people actually are. Michael Jordan averaged a triple double when Doug Collins made him the PG. But there's a reason he junked that idea. Tons of tall guards have started out as PGs but only flourished when moved to 2G (Steve Smith, Penny Hardaway, Dwyane Wade et. al. The Clippers were "grooming" Brent Barry to be their PG of the future, or so it was said when he was a rookie). Roy is an exceptional scorer, but only has good court vision by the standards of SGs. Of course he wants the ball in his hands, and we want him to be of the mindset that he's the best player to have it. He said he didn't really enjoy playing alongside Chris Paul because he was "off the ball". Well, I'm sure Iverson said the same thing when Larry Brown moved him off the ball, but it was exactly the best thing to do.

Roy is a great SG. Let him be an SG. Bayless is a great "microwave" player off the bench. Let him be that. He's the guard equivalent of Outlaw - it just doesn't work when they start Outlaw, because no matter how well-meaning he is and however much he wants to stay within the team concept, it just doesn't come as naturally to him as scoring.

If you want to start one of our guards currently on the bench, I say start Rudy. He's got more PG instincts than either Roy or Bayless. It's just a shame his ball handling isn't that great.

Roy isn't this, Bayless isn't that ... for all of the comments about what our players are or aren't it's pretty hard to argue with the second highest offensive efficiency in the league -- this team is not struggling to be productive on offense and that is the ONLY thing that matters to me, not whether or not we have a true pass first point, or a true off-ball shooting guard.

Right now I'd say we're on pace to have a 6'6" "guard" who can defend wings, and a 6'3" "guard" who can defend the point, how the offense flows or works is pretty irrelevant as long as the job is getting done ... not to say that there aren't areas that need improvement (better ball movement, less iso stuff, and more scoring from the low block would be nice) but I'm all about the result and not so much the process if it's actually producing a positive outcome.

Our defense on the other hand ...

 

[andalusian]

If you want to start one of our guards currently on the bench, I say start Rudy. He's got more PG instincts than either Roy or Bayless. It's just a shame his ball handling isn't that great.

I would agree with you on offense - but JB is a much better PG defender than Rudy - and that's why it would not work.

I still maintain that if you look at Portland's offensive efficiency - having Roy and Blake as your starters is not a problem - even if Blake plays a lot like a SG when Roy initiates the offense. This team is scary efficient on offense - and would probably be just as much with two people that can break down the defense and attack the rim from the dribble.

The problem this team has is on PG defense - and JB is more than sufficient in this role - and he is the best of the PG prospects we have on the roster.

 

[andalusian]

In Sergio's defense (look out MARIS) I think a more generally valuable statistic is A/TO ratio ...

I disagree. A/TO is worthless if a team plays you right and forces you to shoot when you are a bad shooter/scorer.

I would agree if you would do (Assists+FGA:Made)/(TOV+FGA:Missed)

But since Sergio is not a high percent shooter (or if we want to look at getting to the FT and scoring from there - as shown by TS%) - he fails in this regard when a team plays him right - Steve Nash also has a bad TOV% - but his TS% is high - so overall - he is a great offensive player. Sergio's high-TOV% and high assists would be a great thing if he could score efficiently by himself - since he can not - his high TOV% is an issue. He would have the same issues in other teams, not just Portland.

However on this team that plays a slow pace and with Nate who seems to value taking care of the ball above all else (hard to argue with that, since turnovers usually lead to easy transition buckets the other way) TOV% is probably much more important than it would be otherwise.

Probably a valid point - but I still argue that if his TS% was high - his high TOV% would have been less of an issue if he could score efficiently.

Bottom line: I think Sergio's gambling, high risk, high reward style of play is just a god awful fit with Nate and with the style of our lone all-star. Put him in the right system (Dallas, New York, etc.) and he'd probably be a decent backup.

He is probably a decent backup here as well (I still think that a Bayless/Blake PG line-up is better than Bayless/Sergio - but Sergio is a decent backup - it's just that Blake would be a great back-up) - my only point was that the claim that people hated JJ was because of his turn-overs is questionable - because Sergio got a free pass from everyone while having more turn-overs even last year.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

Because Larry Brown wanted the player we really wanted, DJ Augustin. Who actually IS a point guard.

Kevin Pritchard is on record saying Charlotte drafted D.J. because they thought that's who Portland wanted and tried to force a trade, but KP told them he wasn't interested. He also said that Bayless was the teams #1 A target in the draft (obviously Rose and Beasley were unattainable).

One of the major reasons Bayless fell is because he refused to work out for teams out of the top 4.

 

[Natebishop3]

One of the major reasons Bayless fell is because he refused to work out for teams out of the top 4.

That's what I remember as well.

 

[LittleAlex]

The "true" point guard is a rare breed of player that doesn't come around often. There really aren't many in the league currently. That being the case, the chance of a team having one is small, so they have to make due with what they have available. Of Portland's current options, I believe Bayless to be the best. This is on the basis of attacking the rim and on the ball defense. Is it optimal? Of course not. We wouldn't even be having this discussion of we had a young Nash or Kidd on our team. But we don't, and chances are very, very good we aren't ever going to.

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. That doesn't mean that teams without these players can't be successful or that there haven't been awesome point guards that are not "true" points. Isiah Thomas was amazing, but not really a true point guard. Neither was Earl Monroe, Tiny Archibald, Dennis Johnson, or Gary Payton. Rose isn't a true point guard, but he sure kicks ass. Parker is a load to handle, but isn't a true point.

It is on the coach and gm to build teams and systems around the players available. And I think Bayless fits what Nate and KP are trying to build. Further, I think he fits as the starter.

 

[Minstrel]

This does seem to be a popular view - that Roy will be our REAL PG.
...
Roy is an exceptional scorer, but only has good court vision by the standards of SGs.

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.