Why we already have our our Franchise PG...

[andalusian]

Kirk Hinrich. Couldn't you find a starting PG? Not only was he benched in favor of a rookie, the team actually contacted Jonny Flynn for a workout because they weren't even convinced that the guy who replaced Hinrich is a full-time PG! That makes Kirk Hinrich third string! I think you've proved my point.

KH was the starting PG of a 49 wins team... let's not get crazy here.

He is 2nd to Rose only because Rose is a faster version of Deron Williams (at least on paper).

As for looking for another PG in the draft - Chicago has to do it - it makes no sense to pay $10m/year for their backup PG especially when you need the cap space to pay for your hired gunner (Ben Gordon) - so they need someone behind Rose.

KH has his problems - but you are selling him way too short here...

 

[Nikolokolus]

Terry Porter I'll give you. But then again, he was probably only playing forward for his team because he was the tallest guy they had in whatever tiny division Steven's Point is in. I bet he always handled the ball.

Kirk Hinrich. Couldn't you find a starting PG? Not only was he benched in favor of a rookie, the team actually contacted Jonny Flynn for a workout because they weren't even convinced that the guy who replaced Hinrich is a full-time PG! That makes Kirk Hinrich third string! I think you've proved my point.

Good god you really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

[Minstrel]

I can think of one team (one coach, really) where you don't need a stereotypical PG. The coach is... Tex Winter, and the system is the triangle. If the Blazers start running the triangle, then we don't need a normal PG. Of course, it would help to have Scottie Pippen.



...and there's the example. But (as Scottie Pippen said when he was on the Blazers) Pippen was a PG. You just can't smear the passing ability around - it's not like scoring or rebounding. Even teams that have good ball movement still have a PG.

The Lakers I referenced didn't. Derek Fisher wasn't a distributor or play-maker. Kobe is like Roy...an excellent passer for a shooting guard, but not a pure point guard.

 

[LJ Ginger]

Kobe is not an excellent passer, that would be LBJ. Passing he has improved at late in his career but never has been excellent at it.

 

[Minstrel]

Kobe is not an excellent passer, that would be LBJ. Passing he has improved at late in his career but never has been excellent at it.

Despite those who dislike trying to tag him as selfish, he's been one of the best-passing wings in the game. His Assist Rate (which measures how many of his team's points he's assisted on, and is adjusted for pace) has been great for a non-point guard since he reached his prime.

 

[Reep]

Dude are you fucking high? Rondo is not a pass first PG.

Who is right? Last year Rondo took 759 attempts and only 659 assits--more attempts than assists. However, certainly not every one of his passes were assists. So, it would be hard to argue that Rondo shot more than he passed. Hence pass first.

Calderon was 644 attempts and 607 assists.

Deron Williams, CP3 and Steve Nash all have much higher attempt to assist ratios than Rondo.

J Kidd had more assists than attempts last year, but at the peak of his career had a much worse ratio than Rondo.

I want to give Bayless a shot because I like his attitude and I don't want Nash (or a Nash type) as our PG.

 

[Iwatas]

I wish Bayless had it in him to be that player. But he simply is not a distributor, and, as I have pointed out many times, if a player does not show a decent assist rate their first year or two, then they almost NEVER become very good at it.

Decision-making, shooting, defense, etc. all can improve with age. Delivering the ball into the hands of the player who is about to score is almost never learned at the NBA level.

JB can be backup PG, and play some backup 2G (with Ruy and Roy sometimes playing some SF). Ramon Sessions is our PG of the future.

iWatas

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Despite those who dislike trying to tag him as selfish, he's been one of the best-passing wings in the game. His Assist Rate (which measures how many of his team's points he's assisted on, and is adjusted for pace) has been great for a non-point guard since he reached his prime.

Is that measure relative to how much he has the ball? If you're a black hole then likely you get a fair amount of assists because the only time you give it up is when the defense collapses on you and someone's open, or you give it up at the end of the clock and somebody has to shoot.

Now I actually agree that Kobe has very good passing ability for a SG. But, as with Jordan, there's no way you'd make him your PG because the rest of the team would suffer. It's a tired old example, but the only time an Iverson team had success was when Larry Brown moved him off the ball.

Look, I'm not a hater: I like Bayless and it would be SWEET if he was Chauncey Billups II. I will promise to be his biggest booster if he makes it work. But I don't see it. Apart from anything else, he's a loner. He said in interview after interview that he doesn't actually play much pickup ball - he works by himself to get better. That's great if what you have to improve is your shot. It sucks if what you have to improve is your ability to run a team.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Good god you really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

Boy, the cogently reasoned responses are coming thick and fast today.

Go over to the Bulls board (or one that has actual posters) and ask if they think Hinrich is a starting-quality PG.

 

[Minstrel]

Is that measure relative to how much he has the ball? If you're a black hole then likely you get a fair amount of assists because the only time you give it up is when the defense collapses on you and someone's open, or you give it up at the end of the clock and somebody has to shoot.

Collapsing the defense and finding open teammates for opportunities that they can convert is not being a black hole. A black hole is someone who doesn't pass when the defense collapses on him. He forces up a bad shot.

Now I actually agree that Kobe has very good passing ability for a SG. But, as with Jordan, there's no way you'd make him your PG

How does this relate to my post? My point was exactly that. Kobe was not a point guard and Fisher, despite manning the position, was not a play-maker or distributor, yet those Lakers did just fine.

Apart from anything else, he's a loner. He said in interview after interview that he doesn't actually play much pickup ball - he works by himself to get better. That's great if what you have to improve is your shot. It sucks if what you have to improve is your ability to run a team.

Isn't the fact that he, on his own motivation, flew to Ohio to work with Oden contradicting that?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

How does this relate to my post? My point was exactly that. Kobe was not a point guard and Fisher, despite manning the position, was not a play-maker or distributor, yet those Lakers did just fine.

...because they play the triangle. A Tex Winter team is one of the few places it really DOESN'T pay to be a typical PG. It also makes players who are fringe players elsewhere look good (Shannon Brown being the latest example, Sasha Vujacic the most glaring, and while Trevor Ariza is a solid player, he's not the star this system makes him look like) so long as they know their roles. Meanwhile Jordan Farmar kind of languishes.

(And notice that even on a Tex Winter team, Bayless wouldn't necessarily do well because he needs the ball to be effective. If you pound the rock for a Winter/Jackson team you better be Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, otherwise move the ball, shoot, or sit down.)

Isn't the fact that he, on his own motivation, flew to Ohio to work with Oden contradicting that?

So you're saying he lied in his pre-draft interviews? Red flag! Red flag!

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

I wish Bayless had it in him to be that player. But he simply is not a distributor, and, as I have pointed out many times, if a player does not show a decent assist rate their first year or two, then they almost NEVER become very good at it.

Decision-making, shooting, defense, etc. all can improve with age. Delivering the ball into the hands of the player who is about to score is almost never learned at the NBA level.

JB can be backup PG, and play some backup 2G (with Ruy and Roy sometimes playing some SF). Ramon Sessions is our PG of the future.

iWatas

This.

+1. This is why, IMO, Bayless would be best utilized as a scoring punch in the mold of Ben Gordon.

If McMillan would let Fernandez have the ball in his hands more and let him create like he did for Spain, Bayless/Fernandez complement each other.

 

[Minstrel]

...because they play the triangle. A Tex Winter team is one of the few places it really DOESN'T pay to be a typical PG.

I think it's a question of fitting system to personnel. If the Lakers had a great point guard, I don't think they'd run a triangle offense and basically eliminate the point guard's talents. The Blazers don't play a triangle, but they also no longer run a classic offense where the point guard runs the show from the wing. Blake has been effectively turned into a spot-up shooter. That's because Roy is the best play-maker on the team and he runs the offense. I don't think it's as black-and-white as "Run the triangle or else run a classic point guard dictated offense." Every offense is tailored to the personnel. Right now (and for the foreseeable future, IMO), Portland lets Roy run the show, just as the Lakers let Kobe run the show, even though the two teams run different offensive schemes.

Bayless can succeed as the other guard in a Roy-driven offense, in my opinion. Bayless will provide another player who can handle the ball, break the defense down and deliver the ball to an open teammate. That doesn't take distributing genius, it takes passing competence, which I think Bayless has.

So you're saying he lied in his pre-draft interviews? Red flag! Red flag!

It's the nature of a basketball player to be deceptive. What do you think a head fake is?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Minstrel, you may be right. I guess my objection then boils down to this:

I don't want Roy to be effectively our PG. I don't like that style of play. I think that would mean that our game stays slow as molasses half-court. Plus Greg Oden has been criminally underused so far and would that change without an effective post-feeder (of all our players, Rudy seems to be the best at getting the ball to Greg in a position to score). I don't want a system where Roy AND Bayless play together. Their talents (drive hard to the hoop looking to score) are a bit too similar. That can work, of course - the Spurs do something very similar with a non-typical scoring PG and a PG-in-a-SG's body (Ginobili) and great post play. If we could do that and win 4 titles, then fine, I guess. But I don't think Bayless is Parker, and I don't think Roy, great as he is, has Ginobili's PG skills. (And he certainly doesn't push the ball up the court like Ginobili. I'm not even sure if Roy CAN run with the ball, and I'm not sure he's in a hurry to prove it.)

We shall see, I guess.

 

[MAS RipCity]

For the BILIONITH time, our PG doesn't have to distribute like JKidd!!!!!?!?!?!
Roy is pretty much half pg and all JB has to do is feed the post and score, he can and will.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, you may be right. I guess my objection then boils down to this:

I don't want Roy to be effectively our PG. I don't like that style of play. I think that would mean that our game stays slow as molasses half-court. Plus Greg Oden has been criminally underused so far and would that change without an effective post-feeder (of all our players, Rudy seems to be the best at getting the ball to Greg in a position to score). I don't want a system where Roy AND Bayless play together. Their talents (drive hard to the hoop looking to score) are a bit too similar. That can work, of course - the Spurs do something very similar with a non-typical scoring PG and a PG-in-a-SG's body (Ginobili) and great post play. If we could do that and win 4 titles, then fine, I guess. But I don't think Bayless is Parker, and I don't think Roy, great as he is, has Ginobili's PG skills. (And he certainly doesn't push the ball up the court like Ginobili. I'm not even sure if Roy CAN run with the ball, and I'm not sure he's in a hurry to prove it.)

Roy may not be good at pushing the tempo, but Portland's offense was quite efficient with him running the show this season. They were, as I recall, #2 in efficiency. Offense isn't why Portland didn't make the Finals, IMO, defense is. When you also factor in that Oden, Bayless, Rudy, Batum and Aldridge are likely to improve (at least as a group), I wouldn't worry much about the offense.

My worry would be about whether the defense is going to improve. I think Bayless actually has three big effects there:

1. He has both the tools (other than a large wingspan) and the mindset to be a good defender. Lots of players have the tools, but many don't have the desire to play defense. From all accounts and from observation, Bayless puts a lot of effort into his defense. He wasn't a great defender this season, but he was a 20 year old rookie playing sporadic minutes. I think he's likely to be a major improvement on the defense of Portland point guards of recent vintage.

2. Bayless, as a someone who can be an on-the-ball play-maker, will take some touches and pressure off Roy. Roy won't have to expend as much energy being the sole play-maker, which will hopefully allow him to put more energy into active defense.

3. Less penetration by opposing point guards means less fouls by the big men. The fouls mean points for the other team and they mean more bench time for Portland's big men, especially Oden. Oden being on the bench is not a positive development for the defense.

Ultimately, then, I think Bayless can do a lot to push Portland toward title contention. I think he can function as a dangerous component in what is already a highly efficient Roy-led offense and he can make a defensive contribution that could have several positive impacts.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

We are all just guessing what will become of Bayless. But just as there ase signs showing some potential, there are also signs that say he might not be a NBA PG.

Leaving it up to the experts, Bayless was not the top PG or even the second PG to be drafted (so I don't think the scouts quite had such an optomistic view as Bayless being a can't miss PG selection). Bayless then went to summer league where his strengths (driving and scoring) were shown along with his weaknesses (passing and creating for others). He then came to a team that had the door open to at least moving into the back up PG spot (if not higher) and he did not accomplish that his first year. Also his shooting stroke is not conventional and wasn't effective his first year in the NBA.

Again, maybe he develops into the PG the Blazers need. . . I hope so (he is young and raw) . . . but I also hope the Blazers are looking at other options at the PG position.

 

[oldmangrouch]

There are 3 ways to spin this situation.

1) Nate was peeved the team traded Jack and replaced him with Bayless. Letting him rot on the bench was his "up your's" to KP.

2) Bayless did something in practice that cost him any chance to play meaningful minutes in games.

3) Bayless isn't a PG, and wasn't good enough to beat out Rudy as back-up SG.

If we trade Bayless, there is a very real chance he becomes a good player somewhere else. That doesn't mean he will become a contributor in Portland. His best bet (with the Blazers) might be for Rudy to get traded so he can settle into the 3rd guard role.

BTW, there is no shame in any of this. Many good, even great, players can't play PG!

 

[Nikolokolus]

Boy, the cogently reasoned responses are coming thick and fast today.

Go over to the Bulls board (or one that has actual posters) and ask if they think Hinrich is a starting-quality PG.

I read Blog-a-bull quite a bit, thanks. And the consensus I've read is that they feel Kirk is a starting quality guard, but there's no room to fully utilize him on the Bulls' roster, especially since he makes starters money -- Bull's fans see him as a highly valuable trade piece because they feel (probably rightly) that he'll be able to help bring back a starting quality big if the right trade came along.

Hinrich moved to the bench the same way Joel Przybilla moved to the bench to make way for another number 1 pick. If KH hadn't torn the ligament in his thumb early in the season there's a pretty strong argument that even though he would have been Rose's backup, he'd still be a 28-32 minute a night guy with Rose, Gordon and he splitting time at the guard spots.

Is that cogent or reasonable enough for you?

 

[Denny Crane]

Hinrich is a combo guard. Jack of all trades, master of none. He excels at no part of the game, but he has a fine all around game from every perspective.

He certainly can be a full time PG, but he's never been a 7 APG guy. He's not a prolific scorer or even a great shooter, but manages to get you 15 PPG given starter's minutes. The best aspect of his game is his defense. One time 2nd team All-NBA defensive team. He does the PG shouldn't lose his dribble to a fault.

If the Bulls didn't have Rose, he'd be the full time PG.

You don't trade big for small.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Hinrich is a combo guard. Jack of all trades, master of none. He excels at no part of the game, but he has a fine all around game from every perspective.

He certainly can be a full time PG, but he's never been a 7 APG guy. He's not a prolific scorer or even a great shooter, but manages to get you 15 PPG given starter's minutes. The best aspect of his game is his defense. One time 2nd team All-NBA defensive team. He does the PG shouldn't lose his dribble to a fault.

If the Bulls didn't have Rose, he'd be the full time PG.

You don't trade big for small.

No, but I've heard more than a few rumors of using him in a package deal to try and get a guy like Amar'e -- whether or not that deal is doable remains to be seen, but he is a pretty valuable trade asset.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, but I've heard more than a few rumors of using him in a package deal to try and get a guy like Amar'e -- whether or not that deal is doable remains to be seen, but he is a pretty valuable trade asset.

The rumor was Tyrus Thomas and filler for Amare, FWIW.

In Thomas, the Suns would have at least a big guy with some potential to take Amare's place.

The big rumor involving Hinrich was with Minnesota for the #6 pick:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/2009/05/hinrich-to-be-traded.html

He was rumored to go to Minnesota at the trade deadline too. Probably for Mike Miller.

 

[Idog1976]

Roy may not be good at pushing the tempo, but Portland's offense was quite efficient with him running the show this season. They were, as I recall, #2 in efficiency. Offense isn't why Portland didn't make the Finals, IMO, defense is. When you also factor in that Oden, Bayless, Rudy, Batum and Aldridge are likely to improve (at least as a group), I wouldn't worry much about the offense.

My worry would be about whether the defense is going to improve. I think Bayless actually has three big effects there:

1. He has both the tools (other than a large wingspan) and the mindset to be a good defender. Lots of players have the tools, but many don't have the desire to play defense. From all accounts and from observation, Bayless puts a lot of effort into his defense. He wasn't a great defender this season, but he was a 20 year old rookie playing sporadic minutes. I think he's likely to be a major improvement on the defense of Portland point guards of recent vintage.

2. Bayless, as a someone who can be an on-the-ball play-maker, will take some touches and pressure off Roy. Roy won't have to expend as much energy being the sole play-maker, which will hopefully allow him to put more energy into active defense.

3. Less penetration by opposing point guards means less fouls by the big men. The fouls mean points for the other team and they mean more bench time for Portland's big men, especially Oden. Oden being on the bench is not a positive development for the defense.

Ultimately, then, I think Bayless can do a lot to push Portland toward title contention. I think he can function as a dangerous component in what is already a highly efficient Roy-led offense and he can make a defensive contribution that could have several positive impacts.
__________________

Totally agree on every point Minstrel and well said. I'm not convinced Bayless is the answer but I know it ain't Blake. If we can't get Conley, Sessions or Rubio then I want to see a serious investment in Bayless even if it costs us a game or two in the early season it will be more then made up for in the second half down the stretch. Homecourt didn't save us with Houston and I'd rather have the complete package then an extra win or two at the expense of not developing Bayless.

 

[Da_O]

Offense isn't why Portland didn't make the Finals, IMO, defense is. When you also factor in that Oden, Bayless, Rudy, Batum and Aldridge are likely to improve (at least as a group), I wouldn't worry much about the offense.

Defense was a big problem and in order to win a title we must improve in this area. However, it was apparent in the Houston series that when they hedged our shooters, and we forced everything through Roy, our offense stagnated. This is where I also agree with Bayless being able to be the off-guard in a Roy driven offense. He can get to the rim and draw fouls, that in itself will alleviate pressure from Roy and the rest of team, who when play gets physical, turn into jumpshooters.

Minstrel, you may be right. I guess my objection then boils down to this:

If we could do that and win 4 titles, then fine, I guess.

We shall see, I guess.

I guess, huh? I guess you would be expecting six then?

When has a pass first - true point guard last took a team to a title, let alone the finals? Sans Jason Kidd you have to go back pretty far back until Isiah Thomas. And even he had great scoring ability.

Admittedly, you've said Billups and Parker are not "true" PG's. I fail to see how Bayless can't imitate their mold of play. All Bayless has to do, is recognize when the defense collapses in on him, then pass to the cutter to the hoop or shooter on the corner. This is not outside the realm of possibility

 

[LittleAlex]

You're hilarious, hasoos. Once again you don't seem to know what you're talking about (Rondo), yet you're so willingly ready to attack Rastapopoulos, who actually does seem like he knows what he's talking about (regarding Rondo).

Rondo attempted about the same number of shots per game (9.5) as Blake did (9.3) last season in slightly more minutes while playing for a team that played at a faster pace than the Blazers. He also averaged 8.2 assist/game. Dude is an absolutely terrible shooter beyond the basket area. If he was ACTUALLY a shoot-first PG, he would look pretty bad offensively (not that he looks great now). But he's smart and picks his spots of when and where to shoot the ball, which is why his FG% is great and his offensive efficiency numbers look quite good.

Rondo is far from being a shoot-first PG. Dude looks the closest thing to a young Jason Kidd.

I believe hasoos may be talking about his first couple of years in the league when he was known as a defensive specialist.

btw, this isn't really an either/or type deal. Just because Rondo is not a pass-first guard doesn't make him a shoot first guard.

I wonder if his assist numbers are helped by the fact he has three hall of fame players out there with him? I would think it might have some impact.

This is opposed to Kidd, who has managed to make marginal players look like hall of famers. We haven't the slightest idea if Rondo is capable of that yet.