Jason Quick and Jerryd Bayless: He Said, He Said
by Ben Golliver on Dec 13, 2009 11:21 AM PST
in News
Email
PrintIn his game recap last night, Jason Quick of The Oregonian couched some potentially explosive, potentially generic quotes from Jerryd Bayless into a typically fiery narrative.
Bayless, meanwhile, is doing his best not to explode. His sour face when he was pulled with 10:14 left in the fourth, despite having hit two key baskets near the end of the third quarter, told the story.
Bayless feels like he is not awarded the trust nor the freedom from the coaching staff, which often pulls him after a mistake, no matter how many positive plays he produced prior.
"I know every time I play I've helped this team. Every single time,'' Bayless said before Saturday's game. "It's tough. Especially since, and I hate saying this, seeing these other guys (Blake and Miller) doing what they are doing. I know I can help this team. I know I can.''
Late last night, within hours of the story being posted, Jerryd Bayless clarified the meaning of these quotes on his official twitter page, here and here.
Never would I question my teamates abilities... I was talking about other young guards helping theiir teams out around the league!!
I have way to much respect for them to ever do something like that... And they are way to good.. We will bounce back from tonight.. BELIEVE
It should be noted that this isn't the first time Jerryd Bayless has had troubles with writers covering the team. This past summer, there was a week-long confusion regarding whether Bayless had or hadn't worked out with Greg Oden in Ohio, prompted by contradictions between multiple sources close to the situation and Bayless himself.
With that said, we're looking at a tricky ethical situation here because the words "(Blake and Miller)" are in print but weren't actually spoken by Bayless himself.
How did those words get there? Did Bayless indicate nonverbally to the writer -- as regularly happens in the locker room setting -- that he was speaking about his fellow point guards? Did he motion towards his teammates? Point at them? Use nicknames for them? Refer to them by their uniform numbers? Call them profanities that couldn't be printed? There are many ways for bracketed words to find their way into pieces.
Generally speaking, the writer holds an extra degree of responsibility over those words and must be absolutely sure that they accurately represent what the player meant at the time. Otherwise, everyone -- writer, player, readers -- is left with a quintessential case of "he put words in my mouth" without any audio tape to help clear things up. When in doubt in these situations, seeking clarification is essential.
In this case, given the consequences of a statement resulting from the words that appear in brackets, the burden falls on the writer to explain how he arrived at "(Blake and Miller)." With such an obvious alternative present (the one Bayless put on twitter, which is consistent with statements made in the past) one would hope there is reasonable justification for entering his teammates' names into the quote. What was it?
Can you blame Jerryd Bayless for harboring some frustration after watching young point guards like Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Jonny Flynn, Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, Tyreke Evans and Darren Collison receive significant run? After seeing former Blazers Jarrett Jack, Channing Frye and Sergio Rodriguez enjoy success almost as soon as they left Portland?
That seems to mirror Bayless's explanation on twitter pretty closely, doesn't it? On a night when he watched fellow young stud Brandon Jennings (18/11/4) give his team fits and when he was able to make positive contributions in limited minutes himself, you would expect that grass-is-greener frustration to be at full simmer.
One thing is clear: calling out his teammates is totally out of character for the public Jerryd Bayless of the last 18 months. Given that track record, in this case of he said/he said I believe Bayless deserves the full benefit of the doubt.
And we all deserve a fuller explanation of what was said and unsaid in that Milwaukee locker room.
-- Ben Golliver | (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com) | Twitter
199 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Quick generally reports "accurately"
but with a twist and emphasis that stirs things up.
I’m not into over the top accusations against him, but I certainly don’t trust his slant on a story.
#52
+1
Quick is good, but he can be a bit of a controversy hound.
by upper left corner on Dec 13, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
Quick is awful
His stuff reads more like People or National Enquirer than sports journalism.
woo hoo
here comes another “blame the media” for the lousy play of the team barrage.
fire away!!
by colinmarsh on Dec 13, 2009 11:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
What?
Your comment doesn’t make any sense to me. What connection do you see?
by upper left corner on Dec 13, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
No
Quick quoted Bayless, apparently incorrectly, as saying that Blake and Miller were playing poorly and NOT helping the Blazers where he (Bayless) could.
According to Jerryd’s twitter comments, it sounds like, and also makes more sense, that Jerryd was referring to other rookie/sophomores in similar situations who ARE helping their teams but are being allowed to play meaningful minutes.
Looks like Quick is a Steve Blake fan.
yes hours later...
bayless tweeted that he didn’t mean his teammates. clearly this proves he wasn’t implying it was his teammates hours earlier.
none of use were there and could know but i suspect bayless was calling out miller and blake and really, who can blame him. he’s 21 and rotting on the bench while guys in front of him don’t play any better.
I seriously doubt that.
He’s called Blake underrated. He’s had nothing but high praise for Miller.
Bayless is too smart to call out his teammates to the media. Coaches and General managers hate that stuff, so he would basically just be hurting his chances of getting a contract with another team.
I’m sure he was just talking about his peers, which is a subject he has talked about before. I’ve never heard him criticize anyone on his team. You would have to be a complete idiot to knock Andre Miller to the media, and I don’t think Bayless is an idiot.
by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 13, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
Both makes some sense, which is why it's tricky
As a projected top 5 pick and ultimately still lottery pick, in the past he was more frustrated with his lack of playing time and success compared to players he had played all his teenage and college life against: Rose, Westbrook, Gordon, Augustin, etc. Guys he knew he was about as good (you can argue how close, but still he must feel that way). They were going to the All-Star weekend for the rookie game and got mentions for ROY, and he was guarding the Gatorade in Portland.
I doubt he’s pissed that he isn’t the clear starter yet. He is angry because no matter how well he plays it doesn’t seem to result in a real increase in playing time. That he can also see that he can score just as easily as at least 1 guy around him surely doesn’t help. But the bigger frustration can easily be when he compares himself to his true peers, not to veterans – especially one that can be gone in a year.
Miller - Roy - Webster - Aldridge - Przybilla. Is that so hard?
So it comes down to this
You are accusing him of lying, without any shred of evidence.
#52
Just like many here are of Quick
Honestly, I don’t see why either guy should get the benefit of the doubt here. It’s not like there’s any evidence that Quick is lying here, other than a couple tweets from Jerryd, who has a lot of incentive to back off any comments he might have made.
#52
And that's true
As I said elsewhere, Jerryd could indeed have been calling out his teammates. We don’t know.
There’s three choices, I suppose.
1. Jerryd is lying.
2. Quick was dishonest, knowing Jerryd wasn’t talking about Blake and Miller.
3. Jerryd is telling the truth, and Quick thought he meant Blake and Miller, and without verifying it, he ran with it. It made a good, controversial story, hot news that must be reported! And Quick does like to take the controversial slant on a story.
I’m not prepared to assume that any of the three is reality, but I am inclined to think the third is more likely.
#52
When you;re using identical language, i.e. "I suspect"
why throw out additional rhetoric about colin “accusing him of lying without a shred of evidence”?
Regardless of what was said, Jerryd has every incentive to back off the comments. If he didn’t say them, better to clarify, and if he did, he’s smart enough to know he made a mistake telling that to Quick on the record and that he has to pre-emptively put out any fires with Steve and Andre. This wouldn’t be the first time an athlete was caught on record in a moment of frustration and said something he backed off of later (see: Kobe and Andrew Bynum, circa 2007 offseason).
Unlike most people here, I don’t think of Jerryd as some sort of master of creating the “public Bayless Image”, as witnessed by the stupidity of the offseason workouts with Greg Oden “controversy”, which Ben seems to be blaming on the media in this piece for some reason despite Jerryd straight up lying to the media about it.
I honestly have no clue and I really couldn’t care less, but if people are going to jump on people for accusing Bayless of lying without a shred of evidence, then Quick shouldn’t get held to a double standard.
#52
If you read down the thread
Colin doesn’t limit himself to saying “I suspect”.
But even taking that context away, there are two big differences.
1) I’ve stated other scenarios as possibilities, and that I can make no assumptions. Colin isn’t acknowledging other scenarios as possible, and further down the thread he mocks the idea that his take on this could be wrong.
2) The thing that I’m inclined to believe does not impugn anyone’s character to the same degree as Colin’s suspicion. I’m not accusing either Quick or Bayless of fabricating something. I’m saying it is most likely that Quick thought he was reporting the truth, was too lazy to verify, and it fit his own desire to be the cutting edge reporter to go with it. That’s not good, but it isn’t saying he’s lying.
#52
And people do worse to Quick here, too
I don’t see you jumping on them like Colin, considering your example is him replying in a rhetorically parallel manner to a guy accusing Quick of lying.
Like I said, it comes down to who you believe, Jerryd or Quick. Quick may have taken controversial angles on some stories, but that’s a long way from straight up changing the meaning of direct quotes. Jerryd gets some benefit of the doubt given that he’s generally been truthful, but it’s not like he hasn’t lied and contradicted stupid stuff to the media before if he felt it necessary.
It’s not like we’re talking about the National Enquirer quoting Mother Teresa here.
#52
Well, perhaps
I see him responding to a guy who said “Quick quoted Bayless (apparently incorrectly)”. First, it is much less uncertain than Colin gets further down — “apparently”. Second, it makes no accusation of dishonesty.
Sure, he says Quick must be a Blake fan (which I actually doubt was a motivation at all), but that doesn’t constitute an accusation of dishonesty, just of reading Jerryd’s comments a certain way because of bias. There’s nothing wrong with being biased.
Perhaps someone has accused Quick of dishonesty in this thread, and I missed it. I’ve come to Quick’s defense before when someone made silly accusations against him (the whole thing got deleted).
I don’t think anyone should be accusing anyone of intentional dishonesty (in this or anything) without some evidence.
#52
Like
“Jason Quick literally put words in his mouth …. Quick is talented, but he has lowered himself to muckraking…” -hurryup09 (I don’t see how you can interpret saying someone is “muckraking” without saying the attribution was intentional)
“Quick made it up
NEWSFLASH: He has an agenda.” -blazingjim
And of course, 50% of this thread is accusing him of intentionally poor journalistic practices (altering the intent of a direct quote), which is semantically pretty much the same as calling someone a liar in journalism circles.
#52
OK, good examples
Hurryup’s comment is literally true, he did put words in his mouth. He also put them in parenthesis to show he was doing it.
Hurryup got called on his comments, too. I don’t know if blazingjim got called on his or not.
I don’t know why anyone would find it necessary to assume either is lying. Bayless has strong incentive to not say stupid things in the press, the intelligence to recognize what would be stupid, and has been taught all his life to exercise self-control. The likelihood that he is lying on this is pretty low.
Quick has strong incentive to not intentionally misrepresent what the players say — he’ll get banned from the locker room, and he’s done. The likelihood that he intentionally misrepresented Jerryd is even lower than the likelihood that Jerryd is lying about what he meant.
I don’t like the way Quick dramatizes things. I do think he stirs up muck, in that he finds that which could be interpreted as controversial and reports it that way. I think he comes from the school of journalism that thinks that is his job, to find the dirt and the press holds people accountable.
I think that is a good philosophy for coverage of politics and business. Sports? To an extent, maybe.
But my dislike for some of Quick’s stuff (and not all of it by any means) is not a question of his integrity, but a disagreement with the journalistic philosophy by which he operates.
#52
Well, actually, I might know
I don’t know why anyone would find it necessary to assume either is lying.
I think I do know some of the reasons why some people want to assume that:
1. Some people want to assume Jerryd is lying because of confirmation bias — they don’t like Jerryd.
2. Others want to assume Jerryd is lying because they agree with Quick’s take on it. They’ve been saying how bad Blake (especially) is, and they are desperate for someone who “counts” to say it. Finally someone did, and now he backtracks. “Why won’t someone call out Blake for his horrible play?” “Yes! Jerryd did it.” They want to believe he is now lying because they want the original call out of Blake to stand.
3. Others want to believe Quick is lying because they object to the same thing I mentioned, and if you don’t like someone, or the way they do things, demonizing them by calling them a liar is much more comforting.
I am sure there are other reasons as well, and I’m not going to assume that any of these apply to any one person. For all I know, people have personal knowledge of the integrity of one or both people involved, and that factors into their comments.
#52
It comes down to people believing the interpretation that they want to be true
Most posters here hate Quick for some reason and so prefer to blame him, or else thay really like Jerryd and will take his side because he’s a Blazer and they want to believe that no Blazer would do anything that would do anything not conducive to being a good teammate. Or that the Jerryd they have built up in their heads, is an honest, hardworking, “Nose to the grindstone” guy who will diligently do whatever’s asked of him without complaint (unlike that cancer, Sergio).
Same as with the negative comments, although that’s hardly represented here.
Regardless, this is just needlessly overblown. We’d have to be incredibly naive to think that Jerryd isn’t frustrated on some level with the opportunities he’s getting based on Blake and Miller’s play. The guy’s human, after all, and I know I’d feel the same way (and I’m nowhere near as competitive as Bayless). Feeling that way doesn’t make him a cancer any more than Jennings’ offseason dustup with getting caught on tape dogging Ridnour and Sessions.
So it just comes down to an issue of media interaction and then so what? Guys make mistakes (especially young players). They learn from them. Unless people are going to take the position that Quick is maliciously falsifying quotes in a best-case for Jerryd, part of any misunderstanding would be on him as well. But really, what does it matter? He’s frustrated, probably apologized to Steve Blake and Andre Miller regardless of what he meant, and everyone will move on. The way people discuss this you’d think that the team only speaks to each other through quotes in the Oregonian. Non-story in my book.
#52
Largely accurate
If Jerryd intentionally bashes his teammates to the media, or does it on a regular basis, it’s definitely a story. But I don’t think this is that at all.
And you are correct that it is entirely understandable for Quick to think he was talking about Steve and Andre, because he has to be drawing those comparisons mentally. But I still would be very surprised if he were to say that to the press, unless he’s already said it multiple times to coaches, etc.
#52
Who else would he be talking about?
Surely Bayless doesn’t mean he would be taking minutes away from Roy, Aldridge or Przybilla. Maybe, just maybe he means Juwon Howard or Martell Webster? It’s not like those guys are playing that much more than him, and obviously at different positions. I think the implication is pretty clear: Who are the guys who are ahead of Jerryd at his position(s)? Roy, Blake and Miller. Who is Jerryd playing better than? Blake and Miller.
Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, there can really be no doubt as to who he was talking about. And he’s right. He can do more for the team than those two at this point.
My point I guess is that this post misses the forest for the trees
It’s not who Bayless is calling out or not, it’s that based on performance, it’s ludicrous that he is playing less than 20 minutes while Blake gets 36 on a regular basis.
Not true
This question matters very much. You don’t go calling out your teammates in the press if you are the youngest guy on the team. Even if it is true.
You go to the coach, you go to the GM, you say it in a team meeting to other players if you are desperate, you cry it to your pillow at night, but you don’t do it in the media.
And he could very well have been talking about guys like Darren Collison and Brandon Jennings and Westbrook and Rose, etc. His play has easily been as productive as most of the rookie and second year PGs who are getting a lot more minutes than he has — so he wants the same chance they are getting. That would make perfect sense in context.
Now, maybe he was talking about Blake and Miller. That would also make perfect sense in context. But if that is what he meant, it was a very bad move on his part, a locker room and PR disaster.
#52
I absolutely believe Bayless on this
Jason Quick literally put words in his mouth. I’m certain Bayless was talking about his contemporaries around the league.
I’ve said it again & again: Quick is talented, but has lowered himself to muckraking in an effort to boost circulation. Shameful stuff.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
I'm inclined to agree
We’ll probably never know with certainty. Deep down, Jerryd is undoubtedly thinking he can play better than Blake (especially) and Miller have been. I certainly hope he’s thinking that.
And if he’s thinking it, it’s possible in a moment of unhappiness he could have said it. But it seems much more likely he’d be more careful than that.
#52
Yep, I'm glad this post cleared that up. I can see Bayless stating "I hate to say this"
about young point guards who are playing more and doing well, because it may come across as petty. Bayless is the consumate upstanding professional. Very respectful. Hard working etc….Will make me think twice when reading a Jason Quick article in the future. Not a very “upstanding journalist” move. Maybe Jason and (sp?) Conzano can co-host a column.
No need to question your spelling
“Con-zano” is perfect!
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
No chance Bayless intended to call Blake and Miller out
It was a misunderstanding. I believe that Quick thought Jerryd meant that, but Jerryd’s explanation was not only completely reasonable, it was almost identical to what Ben heard and published a few days before.
For Jerryd to go from not saying anything at all to expressly calling out Blake AND Miller would be like starting an argument with a nuclear bomb. It just wouldn’t make any sense. Jerryd is not stupid. He knows what the reaction (both internal and external) to that would be.
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
That being said
It’s preposterous that Blake is getting minutes at the two while Jerryd sits the bench. I am hoping that it’s simply a result of Nate being out of commission and Dean not wanting to rock the boat. Reasonable minds can disagree about many things, but whether Steve Blake should be getting minutes at the shooting guard spot ahead of Bayless ain’t one of them. It’s one of the more amazingly mindless coaching decisions I’ve ever (and I’m not exaggerating – I mean ever in my entire life on any level of basketball) witnessed.
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
at age 21 in a moment of extreme frustation...
you never said anything you wished you didn’t?
be real.
Not something totally out of character, no.
Bashing other players, coaches, or management has never been something Bayless has even alluded to. Is it POSSIBLE? Sure, he might have gone dumb for a split second— but what makes more sense? That Quick is filling in the blanks with something incorrectly (we know at least that it isn’t a direct quote about Andre and Blake, because Quick filled in their names in parentheses), or Bayless suddenly went from quietly frustrated to locker room cancer?
It would be different if this was alleged to be a direct quote, but it clearly isn’t.
I don’t think Quick necessarily trumped it up to ‘sell papers’ and whatnot, though I do think he made a big jump in his mind that wasn’t intended by what Bayless was saying.
HOWEVER, I would like to hear what Quick says, and perhaps right before this quote, he and Bayless were specifically discussing Blake and Andre’s play.
I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt Bayless was calling out Blake and Dre so blatantly. Just doesn’t make sense.
Mortimer
#52
So what should he do in this case?
Pretty clear that he will not get the playing time that he needs here in Portland, also pretty clear that Blake is not really justifying the PT that he is getting. Sounds like other general managers are also showing interest in him, can anyone one blame him for being frustrated and wanting out of here? Look at the last several PG’s that we had stuck behind Blake, as soon as they leave their stats generally get significantly better.
The situation could change overnight
If Bayless continues to play as well as he has, Nate will either play him or be fired for not playing him.
by upper left corner on Dec 13, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
Damn straight
like i said on twitter, talent cannot be denied forever. Either Bayless will continue to play awesome and get some run, or we’ll have to get a new coach. Just an aside, it seems KP is a Bayless fan.
This does make me wonder about Nate not extending his contract and if there really is a disconnect between the front office and the coaching staff. At the moment, all this stuff is fairly explainable, however, if the current status quo (of Blake/Miller mediocrity) continues at PG and Bayless continues being efficient, you’ve got to wonder what’s going to shake loose.
I will say this, I think we will have a better understanding of what is really going on after Tuesday when Nate comes back and the moratorium on trading signed players passes. The moves that are, or are not made might shed light on the direction the team wants to go.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
Just an aside, it seems KP is a Bayless fan.
KP’s also a Blake fan. The coaches are choosing to play veteran guards in an attempt to win ballgames. KP will not countermand Nate’s lineup decisions
OTOH, I’m sure there have been “internal discussions” re: the rotations and PT between KP and Nate, Quick said as much this AM on the MSP
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Ben's argument is that he wasn't talking about anyone on the team.
Written another way, it might be:
“It’s tough. Especially since, and I hate saying this, seeing these other guys (Brandon Jennings, Johnny Flynn, Ty Lawson) doing what they are doing. I know I can help this team. I know I can.’’
Arguments in favor of Quick’s interpretation:
1. He was there and knew the context.
2. Makes more sense that he would hate to say something bad about his teammates.
Arguments in favor of Ben’s interpretation:
1. Bayless says that’s what he meant. Note, that’s after the fact and presumably after someone pointed out how inflammatory his comments sounded.
2. People close to Bayless had said similar things to Ben earlier in the year.
Honestly, I’m not sure it matters, but if I were to guess, I’d say Bayless intended to be interpreted the way Ben sees it, but really thinks about it the way Quick sees it. :-)
Sports are funny at times like this. Does anyone believe that Bayless doesn’t think that he can play better than the Blake and Miller? Does anyone think based on the way that Blake and Miller have been playing lately that Bayless has to have begun to believe he is playing better than they are and should get more playing time?
In the end, I don’t think it matters all that much. Roy grumbling at the coaches and throwing down the towel in disgust is probably much more relevant to the problems going on with the team than this.
by grigs on Dec 13, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Bayless saying he "hated to say it"
makes it pretty clear to me that he was referring to his teammates. That’s not “how it’s done”. But with the level of frustration he’s feeling, and how often microphones are shoved in these guys’ faces, I’m not surprised it came out publicly.
McMillan has said publicly that the guys who play hard and well will play more. Bayless has been mollified about his limited playing time by variations of “keep working, keep improving, and your time will come”. It’s as clear to him as it is to us that the players receiving three or four times his minutes aren’t earning them with their play; they’re earning them with their history. And that doesn’t jibe with what he’s been told by the coaching staff for over a year.
The Blazers are going nowhere this year. I would be surprised if they made the playoffs. Miller, even if he is not traded, will not be here in two years. No better time than the present to give Bayless significant run and see what he can do with it. Cunningham, too. Howard has played fairly well, but Cunningham can do most of the same things, and the difference in long term relevance is obvious.
by Corwin71 on Dec 13, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
it doesn't really necessitate that interpretation
he could “hate to say it” about other young guys playing big minutes because he is a coach-able young man who doesn’t want to sound like he is whining or that he wishes he played for a worse team. Your interpretation may swing on your bias, but it is most assuredly a statement that can be interpreted either way. Given that Bayless quickly and forcefully clarified what he meant, I tend to accept his interpritation.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
*interpretation
why can’t we edit comments Dave?
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
Granted, it's my interpretation
but I tend to believe what he said in the heat of the moment, as it were. Not what he came up with a few hours later, once the potentially damaging effects of his comments sunk in. His comments don’t make a whole lot of sense to me in the latter context, either, but yeah, that’s my interpretation.
yep, we may never truly know
until bayless publishes his memoirs…
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
It makes sense to me that Bayless "hates to say this" as it may sound PETTY
for him to bemoan others’ successes!!! And Bayless isn’t one who wants to see himself as petty in any way I am sure!!! He is also smart and do not think he says things that are stupid in the heat of the moment to reporters. Period.
i hate to say it but
i’m helping my team, and i get benched…meanwhile all across the league, guys just like me are helping their teams, and continue to play and even start. I hate to say it, but its true.
You're putting words in JBs mouth yourself
Nowhere in the quote does he say he’s playing better than anyone.
is nate a liar?
Nate has always said play will determine rotations. Time and time again this year Blakes poor shooting and turn overs have him playing 36 plus minutes a game. Last year Travis would shoot 2-11 and get 30 plus minutes a game. Andre Miller is clearly better than Blake but gets less minutes than Blake in almost every game this year. Maybe the players see Nate is telling lies. Just stating the facts.
Well I think the players will show how they feel about Nate in upcoming games.
Though they didn’t win, they did play with effort the past 2 games…more effort than I’ve seen them give when playing for Nate.
by Natsthecat on Dec 13, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Blazers need to quit talking to the media so much
Learn from Rasheed “Both teams played hard.”
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Dec 13, 2009 11:57 AM PST reply actions 8 recs
lol
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
or just blog
just make the players the media. Pay Bayless an extra million a year and make him the official player-blogger. We should have done that with Channing last year
by prezofdeath on Dec 13, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This is on Nate's hands
Quick messed up here. His reporting has been awful this season, really. It’s all about his parenthetical insert. (Blake and Miller)
I don’t think Bayless would dog his teammates like that. Nice work, Quickie. Good grief.
That said, Nate created this situation. He’s the only Blazer having a poorer season than Steve Blake.
by travis13 on Dec 13, 2009 12:12 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
you've been dying to use the word "parenthetical" in a sentence
haven’t you?
I used to have an English teacher who would try to insert it in sentences as often as non-awkwardly possible.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
Love this article by Quick. LOVE IT. He is pretty hit-or-miss for me, and this one is the arrow splitting another arrow in two.
It is shooting the same hole on the target at the range with a smaller round and not hitting any paper. This article needed to be written. We are letting a supreme talent rot on the bench, while all of our minutes go to a guy whose ceiling not onlyhas been reached, but busted last season. This drama between Bayless and Blake is just going to get uglier.
This Blazers locker room has been all hugs and kumbaya for too long now. Controversy was bound to happen sooner or later, and this Bayless screwing is as good a reason as any, if we have to have some. Maybe this will force KP’s hand into a trade…maybe. Blake IS and expiring contract after all, in a year where lots of teams are looking to shed salary. How about Blake and a draft pick for Wilson Chandler?
Oden fan for life
I would do that, if the pick was protected.
I think it was Alan Hahn who said he thought Chandler’s ceiling is 80% of Trevor Ariza, not a bad backup swingman. Needs to improve his 3pt %, he’d be a good Webster replacement.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
Aside from the issue of Quick clearly putting words in Bayless' mouth...
The article did NOT “need to be written.” The “drama between Bayless & Blake” is NOT “just going to get uglier.” Nate had already signaled that he was ready to start Miller, then his injury set back the timetable.
Expect Miller to start beginning the very next game—or perhaps the game after that. And expect Bayless’ minutes to gradually increase relative to Blake’s if Bayless continues to outplay Blake like he has so far this season.
But it’s more likely that the moment Blake is demoted he’ll relax and start making his threes. In that scenario, Bayless’ minutes will increase this season, but more gradually.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
"clearly"
that’s cute. apparently you were there.
The use of (parentheses)
Makes it clear that it was putting in words, or the intentions of those word, in his mouth.
The parentheses means it is 100% not a direct quote— just that Quick thought it didn’t change the intent of the quote. Now, since what was filled in with the parentheses is the whole damn point of the quote, putting the wrong names in the parentheses changes everything entirely.
We do know this: the use of Blake and Dre’s name in that specific quote within the parentheses means it is not a direct quote.
Mortimer
#52
Apparently you were there, too
based on your comments on this thread.
#52
How about Blake and noone...at this point I just want him off the team. Not his fault at all but
as long as they keep McMillan here…..he won’t be where he should be…on the bench. Coming off RESTED and COMFORTABLE with his role..and able to shoot those 3s.
Nice try Bayless, I'm not buying it
What a jerk, he throws two veteran point guards under the bus then tries to say he’s talking about other young point guards in the league. Whatever!
A guy doesn’t get a nickname like Rex, by being a good guy or a team player. I think the time has come to trade Bayless before he tears the team apart with his negative attitude and back stabbing of his teammates.
by tominhawaii on Dec 13, 2009 12:26 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
we definitely should trade bayless
to keep blake happy. we’re going to have a hard time resigning him if we don’t.
by colinmarsh on Dec 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Yeah we need to do everything possible to keep Blake happy. He IS our permanent PG however.
Oden fan for life
by dario argento on Dec 13, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
We should trade Bayless ASAP
What’s the point in developing a point guard for another team?
by tominhawaii on Dec 13, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
With profound sadness and boiling outrage
I agree. And I agree for Bayless’ benefit. He’s a person, not a statistic. He should be blazing up the league by now. Instead – sitting behind Steve Flake, watching him lose games for us.
Free Rex
His trade value is higher than Blake or Miller right now I bet….Get a draft pick for 2011 so we can rebuild after Nate and KP have self-deructed with their foolishness
PS: JB WILL pay Portland back for years to come
Trade Bayless - Trade Rudy
Neither Bayless nor Rudy will ever get the time they deserve. Trade them and they will start and star on some other team. I like both players, but let’s be fair and give them a chance to reach their potential.
Why didn't my reply go directly underneath your post? I want you to know that the
post that made me laugh aloud was yours!!! "we definitely should trade Bayless to keep Blake happy. We’re going to have a hard time resigning him if we don’t!!!’…ok now you will know whose post I mean, in case this goes into some random spot again!
you know tom,
as the swiss army knife of bedgers, I never expected long term subtle sarcasm to be such a powerful weapon in your posting arsenal. Bravo.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
I'm just filling my role, taking it one post at a time, God willing.
If I step out of my role, folks get confused.
by tominhawaii on Dec 13, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
lol, no
we’re confused perpetually.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
My concern
is you’ll start wanting a bigger role, and talking to the media.
#52
both blogs typed hard
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Tom, your attitude about Bayless needs an adjustment
Convict the guy on entirely circumstantial evidence if you will, but that only reflects your own prejudices.
by upper left corner on Dec 13, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Rosanna, roseanna dana
Never mind!
by upper left corner on Dec 13, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Flag for the sheer stupidity
of taking things at face value.
#52
Tom's rants on Bayless are a little tougher to read than his usual fair
by upper left corner on Dec 13, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Besides it has been at least six months since I fell for one of Tom's provocations
I need to keep in practice. Somebody has to play the back-up fool around here!
by upper left corner on Dec 13, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
We should trade Batum
before he makes all his teammates French.
I am Spartacus and I approved this message
by EngineerScotty on Dec 13, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I believe Jerryd.
The fact that Quick puts (Blake and Miller) in parentheses makes it evident to me that he’s putting his own salacious spin on that paragraph to sell his paper. Take those words in parentheses out since the indication is that he saw fit to add them in order that his readers take it in the most damaging way possible. Jerryd is a smart kid and I can’t see him making such inflammatory remarks about his team mates to a hack he knows will publish them gleefully. Quick loves to stir the pot to get his story and his readership.
#52
Nobody said Bayless isn't smart
but have you been watching the same guy for the past two years? Bayless has had a chip on his shoulder from his introductory press conference (or before). He leads the league in scowls. He is not the most diplomatic guy and never has been. This isn’t the first time his comments have received this kind of spin.
Also, re: Quick. Last year, I saw a lot of people accuse him of being a homer and worrying more about being liked in the locker room than he was in getting the facts. Now he makes things up about unrest just to sell papers? Isn’t it more likely that what was a harmonious locker room last year is now an unhappy one, and he’s reporting that?
by Corwin71 on Dec 13, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I was never one of those "people" who thought Quick was doing anything
but trying to sell his rag, however he went about it. I’ve always pretty much thought he should write for the National Enquirer. I will admit that I liked his “Behind the Locker Room Door” series but even that got old fast.
#52
Who called Quick a homer?
I’ve seen nothing but a desperate reporter for a failing paper trying to create controversy—at the expense of the Blazers’ team chemistry. Putting words into Bayless’ mouth (along with characterizing his mood and thoughts based on Quick’s interpretation of his facial expressions and body language) is just the latest example.
Of COURSE there must be cracks in the Blazers’ team solidarity right now. Losing will do that to the most harmonious ballclub. But the last thing they need is a muckraking reporter exaggerating—and even creating—those cracks in order to sell papers. That’s what can turn hairline cracks into gaping holes.
For all of their issues, the Blazers have admirably resisted finger-pointing. Now here’s Quick claiming that the finger-pointing has begun—when clearly it hasn’t.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
Drama Queen Jason Quick is a frickin' genius... He has an MBA in Body Language Interpretation from Columbia University...
Not to mention he’s worked at the side of The Great Canzano, most amazingly superimpressive sports columnist in North America and Europe.
So when Drama Queen Jason Quick says Bayless indicates an explosion to come based on a “sour face,” I believe him.
Because he knows everything before it happens!!!
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
He should. They suck.
Never would I question my teamates abilities…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Light a fire under Nate's butt.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Like Nate cares what Quick writes?
The way to light a fire under Nate would be to tell KP that if he isn’t going to get a chance, he’d rather be traded. THAT would light a fire, because KP (at least) is extremely high on him.
#52
he should question the press' writing ability
bayless leaves over my dead body
Start Bayless (in a 2 guard lineup)
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52
#4
Can someone give a rational explanation of why blake plays 36 minutes a game?
by thomasikehara on Dec 13, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe Simmons will write about how Bayless
“walks like he wants to be traded”?
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Come on Ben.
Quit being a homer.
I normally respect your posts, but Bayless has every right to be frustrated, and I think Quick did a good job conveying what he’s really thinking, and not the PR front Bayless is protray.
Are you serious?!?
You honestly think Quick should ascribe words to Bayless based on what QUICK thinks Bayless was really thinking?
He put it in a quote. If Quick wants to say that HE thinks Bayless really meant that, that’s another deal. But if he’s going to ascribe the comment to Bayless, and Bayless didn’t say or clearly communicate it, I call it a lie.
i find it impossible to believe
that a 21 year old kid forced to sit on the bench while other players don’t play as well as him had a moment of frustration and indicated that he should get more time than those in front of him.
clearly everything chemistry-wise on this team is perfect and quick is just stirring the pot to find a story that doesn’t exist. all of the players think the current rotations are ideal and don’t doubt the coaching staff one iota.
No kidding. His only mistake was trying to save face by fibbing about who he meant.
Here is who he meant:
STEVE BLAKE
and
ANDRE MILLER
And Bayless is right, according to the numbers…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
I thought he was talking about Steve Miller
and Andre the Giant, myself.
Of course, the latter’s dead, so maybe not.
I am Spartacus and I approved this message
by EngineerScotty on Dec 13, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
I guess this is OT because I'm not going to be reading Quick's article:
Bayless put in the training time, the bench time, the good attitude time…
It is now his time.
He should cut & run, best as he can, if they don’t give him the play he has earned.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
he WAS referring to Jennings
That’s what Bayless is saying. REALLY bad journalism by Quick here.
I think we can agree that the root of all our problems is the coaching staff.
Really, Roy will have his on night and his off nights and he still does some good things despite not being the player he was last year. But it’s the coaching staff that’s killing us. This PG situation is backwards and a mess. I can’t even look at McMillan’s name anymore without cringing and having my stomach turn. Don’t want him back at all.
Why? You want to put him in the hospital?
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Don't worry timbo.
I bet the operation would be a success!
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Jensen
stands outside Bayless’ house with a coupon for free chiropractic sessions, cranking “Snap your neck” by Prong…
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
feed the meme!
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
meme is on the atkins diet...
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions
you're gonna make the meme fat, you are.
meme’s thrive on jerky and tears, and sometimes a salad.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Prong reference = Aging hipster
Too old to use a Vampire Weekend reference, too cool for Right Said Fred. What are you going to do in another 10-15 years when the grandkids tell you to turn down that godawful noise? >.<
by conspirator5 on Dec 13, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
actually
I know the song because of the demonhunter cover.
No hipster here, my jeans are loose and I don’t own an ironic shirt. I’m qualified to wear a western shirt because I’ve actually worked on a ranch.
As an answer to your question, in 25 years I will tell my grandchildren to shut up because apocalyptica is good for them, lol.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Dec 13, 2009 3:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Don't tell me where you think I've been
I can’t sing, I ain’t pretty and my legs are thin.
And don’t ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to. – Fleetwood Mac
Travis Outlaw, the Funnel Cake of the Blazers
As long as it's not Busta Rhyme's "Break Ya Neck"...
Miller - Roy - Webster - Aldridge - Przybilla. Is that so hard?
Article fixed!
“Especially since, and I hate saying this, seeing these other guys (Jennings, Lawson, Evans, Collison, Flynn) doing what they are doing.”
That actually reads fine, now that you mention it. But still........
But how do you explain
THE SOUR FACE
???
Only Drama Queen Jason Quick’s interpretation can do THAT.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
I can fix that too!
Quick, meanwhile, is doing his best not to explode. His sour face when Bayless was pulled with 10:14 left in the fourth, despite having hit two key baskets near the end of the third quarter, told the story.
by blazingjim on Dec 13, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes. If Bayless had actually been calling out Miller & Blake, he would have used different language
He’d probably have said something like, “…seeing my teammates struggling.” He wouldn’t refer to Miller & Blake as “these other guys”—as if he hardly knew them—and he wouldn’t say “doing what they’re doing”—which is so weirdly neutral. Quick’s version doesn’t pass the sniff test, whereas blazingjim’s is perfectly natural.
Did Quick actually believe Bayless was calling out his teammates? Conceivably he wanted to hear something controversial badly enough that he convinced himself he was hearing it. But that’s no excuse whatsoever.
The Blazers have enough problems without their intepid beat reporter continually trying to stir up controversy.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
Quick made it up
NEWSFLASH: He has an agenda.
I don't know if "intepid"
was a typo or intentional, but either way, I like it.
#52
Excellent post
For some reason watching another writer get called out gets me all excited. Especially when they totally deserve it. Quick has written some great articles, but he’s also written some questionable ones at best. I think his recap falls in the latter.
by Seven06Renault on Dec 13, 2009 12:49 PM PST reply actions
Yes, that IS exciting
Kinda like when one doctor calls out another one. Of course, that only happens when the offending doctor goes WAY over the line—as Quick did in this case. He’d have flunked Journalism 101 for putting words in Bayless’ mouth like that. Really shameful stuff, JQ.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
I believe Bayless on this 100%
We’ve seen this guy enough by now to know he wouldn’t be calling out his veteran teammates for their poor play. Bayless is fiery & competitive, but he’s also classy and team-oriented.
By contrast, Jason Quick is always suspect. At this point, he’ll write just about anything to boost his ratings. Yes, sadly Mr. Quick ain’t that far removed from our local Stephen A. Smith: John Canzano.
I’m proud to see that our young Ben has come to realize that his idol has feet of clay. The student has now surpassed the teacher. Plus, Ben’s way more telegenic.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
by hurryup09 on Dec 13, 2009 12:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
i believe bayless on this 0%
thing is, he shouldn’t feel bad about it. his not getting playing time is a complete joke.
At some point we need to address this undiscussed problem: the monopoly of information coming out of the Blazer camp on the road...
It’s either official team propaganda (telecasts, MB) or it’s The Oregonian (Quick).
NEITHER of those sources are reliable, for different reasons.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
If only they were unreliable for opposite reasons.
Then we might be able to reasonably extract the truth. And by the truth, I mean what everyone else does: verification of my own opinion through confirmation bias.
πεντήκοντα δύο
by T Darkstar on Dec 13, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Doesn't matter who he's referring to, he's right either way.
It’s completely infuriating to see Blake, whose extended shooting woes are affecting the rest of his game and HURTING THE TEAM, continue to get huge minutes while Bayless, who provides a big spark almost every game, plays spot minutes.
I’ve never brought a sign to a Blazer game before, but I’m considering making a “Nate: Play Bayless!” sign and bringing it to the Phoenix game on Thursday.
Hit it. Yes he did. Ohhhh yeah.
by Badalona Baddie on Dec 13, 2009 1:00 PM PST reply actions
Might as well go all the way: "BENCH BLAKE!"
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
I'd rather emphasize Bayless's positives instead of Blake's negatives, but hopefully the point would come across.
Hit it. Yes he did. Ohhhh yeah.
by Badalona Baddie on Dec 13, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
I'd like to see Blakeless and Baymore.
Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.
by Blazerholic on Dec 13, 2009 1:20 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Meh
When is the next game on?
I should not sarcastically mock someone I don’t completely agree with.
It probably isn’t that easy. Quick was probably jumping between players and jumped into a conversation that had a different context than he assumed.
It would be classy for him to come out and say “sorry, I assumed a context that was obviously wrong according to Jerryd” or something… but probably won’t happen. Jerryd isn’t a big enough fish yet to warrant that.
by danielfarrell on Dec 13, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
It's fairly obvious to me
that Bayless is talking about the players from his draft class that went ahead of him and are getting significant playing time. Remember, he was expected to go much higher in the draft, and I think he was referring to guys like Derrick Rose, OJ Mayo, Westbrook, D. J. Augustin, Eric Gordon, etc., who are all seeing way more PT.
Normally, my response would be, “Yeah, but they’re playing on crappy teams,” but since most of those teams are just as good if not better than the Blazers at this point, he has a point.
LOL @ the PG drama.
None of these guards on this team have lived up to expectations this year (this includes Mr. ‘Touch my head and then wipe my hands on my jersey every 10 seconds WTH I never used to do that’ Roy.
Nevertheless, this team needs to forgo the 7th or 8th seed playoff birth along with the early round exit in favor of sending Roy to the Lottery so we can get a shot at John Wall and then trade away the below average point guards in Blake and Bayless.
Miller may need to go as well because he doesn’t fit Portland’s ‘slow, half-court, grind out baskets the hard way’ offense, either. Too bad because i thot Andre could overcome Nate’s system – but the system overcame him :(
Portland's PG of the Future - MORE John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
I hope André wins against the NATE SYSTEM!!!! ALSO..maybe Roy's play is messed up bc he is
being coached by someone who says one thing and DOES another.
Roy has been doing that long before this season, not sure why you think this is the first time.
are you searching for things to get all “WTH” about? I think we have real issues, caring about the fact that Roy wipes his fingers/hands on his jersey isn’t one of them.
#52
You know what makes me very happy?
that Bayless’ level of play has risen to the point that this is an actual debate.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
You know what makes me very sad?
That the level of play of our other PGs have fallen to the point that this is an actual debate.
by samuelleejackson on Dec 13, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
hehe, I was kind of thinking the same thing, but
then I wondered if Bayless has improved or if Blake and Miller are both sucking so much it just seems that way. Everything is relative.
Before you compeletly write off Miller...please see him START. See how he plays when
not coming off the bench. This nonsense HAS to be affecting his play..even while trying not to let it do so… he’s started his entire career for a REASON…Would love to see how McMilan would feel being demoted to an assistant coach and giving his ALL for the good of the team…
I haven't writen off Miller yet but his 2 lame crunch time turnovers cost us that game
by southern oregon on Dec 13, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
one of them we got back on an equally atrocious turnover
immediately afterwards. so one of them costs us nothing.
i don’t see how they cost us the game anymore than roy’s multiple flailing drives to the rim, blake’s poor shooting or our complete inability to defend brandon jennings.
also roy slowly dribbling seconds off the clock when we’re down 5 points is pure gold.
True
I am just so frustrated with the whole PG mess I can’t spit
by southern oregon on Dec 13, 2009 3:40 PM PST up reply actions
He did that for, what, nine games?
Blake was still in there, but Miller has started at PG for this team already.
Actually, we were 7-2 in that stretch, yet everyone still complained.
πεντήκοντα δύο
people want to see him start...
in a traditional lineup with an actual small forward as in:
miller, roy, webster, aldridge, pryzbilla
Fair enough.
But that part gets left out or assumed a lot. Hence my comment.
I think it needs to be done as well. And I think we’ll see it, unless Miller’s trade bait.
πεντήκοντα δύο
Ultimately, BOTH interpetations are essentially truthful.
As such I don’t think it matters which one is the objectively factual remark, and we’re wasting our time taking sides on the subject. What is more important is to try and understand why we’ve gotten into this situation where both versions apply. As much as I hate, hate, HATE to say it, I think the finger points at the coaching staff, and Nate McMillan specifically.
I have been a McMillan defender for a while now. Actually, I pretty much defend all the incumbent coaches and players simply because I refuse to presume that I know more about the game than the pros do. Outside observers can provide valuable critiques, but personally I haven’t seen a lot of value in criticizing a team or coaches that are on a steady upward trajectory. I also don’t see a lot of value in criticizing those who are left standing after the team is decimated by injuries. But there is a pattern of behavior that has emerged in three years of watching this team, and it is entirely about the poing guard rotation:
1. Jack? Blake? Sergio?
2. Blake? Sergio? Bayless?
2. Blake? Miller? Bayless?
Each year, three point guards being shuffled about. Each year, questions about who deserves minutes. Each year, a combination of drama and insecurity. Last year was particularly bad with Bayless and Sergio, with both of them getting yanked around, punished at any whiff of an error, etc. This year is more of an all-out, three way scrum because Miller has failed to take control of the PG position, despite his talent and experience.
I could easily digress here about the pros and cons of starting Miller, but that’s well hashed in other places and gets away from my central thought here that there is a coaching problem with respect to the PG position. I don’t think that problem is as simple as “McMillan is too loyal to Blake” or “Miller is not playing with heart” or whatever. Looking back over three years of PG kerfuffle, I’m gradually coming to the conclusion that Coach Nate is simply micromanaging the point guards, and is unsatisfied with all of them in one way or another.
If Blake is getting more burn that anyone else, then I think the reason is simply that Blake submits to Nate’s intentions better than anyone else. A “company man” who is good at taking the boss’s orders no matter what. I think we all (Blake included) would take issue with the quality of his execution, but he’s got the system down with his eyes closed, making him an easy “default option.”
Miller, for all his talent and experience, for all his quiet demeanor and his effort to be professional, it really seems like he doesn’t buy into this system. He’s a “floor general” for sure, but he’s clearly got some very strong opinions on what that means and is never going to be Nate’s proxy.
As for Jerryd, I feel for the guy. He has worked very hard to round out his game and enhance his PG skills. I think the original promise of Jerryd is still there as a guy who can play off of B-roy with scoring and defense, effectively splitting the PG responsibilities between the two of them. Conceptually, I believe that KP nailed the right guy for the role… but can Coach McMillan overcome his own biases to make that kind of backcourt work? Can you place tremendous pressure on your PG to behave just so while giving a ball-handling SG total discretion?
I dunno, I’m getting outside of my own comfort zone in trying to project what is going on behind closed doors, but it does seem like the PG rotation has been the single most unstable, least predictable part of the Blazer’s system over the course of Nate’s tenure. This seems very unfair to all of our point guards, and I find myself moving into the camp that believes that Nate was the guy to get us where were are now, but maybe not the guy to take us where we want to go from here.
by conspirator5 on Dec 13, 2009 4:25 PM PST reply actions 7 recs
I couldn't agree with you more
I think Bayless has really enhanced his game and for the brief stretch he played with Roy in last night’s game, it actually worked quite well. All along I’ve been saying that the Blazers don’t need a “pure” point guard like Nate is obsessed with, because Roy dominates the ball like a point guard for big stretches of the game anyway. Therefore, we only need weapons that can score and also pass the ball effectively filling in the other guard spot next to Roy. I think Rudy and Bayless more than fit the bill, and Rudy in particular is a better passer than a lot of true point guards out there. That’s why I keep pushing for a 3 guard rotation of Rudy, Roy, and Bayless, but I’m beginning to feel like that’s a dream that will never be realized, at least not as long as Nate is around, and I don’t think we’ll ever make it past being a team that exits the first round of the playoffs with Nate as coach.
I've been wondering
The whole concept of our offense is efficency and having a PG who can shoot a high percentage corner three is, in theory, very efficent. But aren’t the numbers actually better if that player can drive the lane and get a high percentage shot or get himself to the line? I’d think that right now ten Bayless drives into the lane would be worth just as many points as ten Blake corner-threes.
You think things are ugly now, imagine if Mills gets healthy, comes in for garbage time, and blows everyone away. The only option left is to spread the floor with Brandon Roy and four point guards. We’ll change the motto from “Rise (Rehab) With Us” to “Rebounding is for chumps”
The Oregonian = FAIL
Quick and Canzano manipulate the truth when it isn’t juicy enough.
I’m sure Quick thinks he knows exactly what Bayless “really meant” and, therefore, feelt totally justified printing this. I hope the Blazers start shutting the Oregonian out. Give exclusives to Blazers Edge! =)
See, I actually think Jason Quick deserves the benefit of the doubt here. Jerryd Bayless deserves it, too.
Quick could’ve accidentally misinterpreted the context of Bayless’ quote, which certainly isn’t an implausible scenario. Smartly enough, moreover, Quick used journalistic integrity to properly cite Bayless’ comment in a parenthetical manner, so that way he didn’t position himself to commit libel.
With Bayless, we — as with Quick — have no idea who his statement was direct toward and there’s almost no way we’ll ever know his true intent. Yet, no matter if Bayless was referring to Andre Miller and Steve Blake or fellow youngsters like Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook, he’s clearly discouraged about his limited role and seems to hold resentment toward someone — whether it’s his abovementioned teammates, the coaching staff, et al. — which makes for an interesting story.
My guess is that the embittered Bayless is more disillusioned with the coaching staff than anyone else, for they’re the ones who dictate his on-court role with the team. Heck, even if Bayless displaces some of the blame for his sporadic playing time on Miller and Blake by giving them the brunt of the criticism — which is unknown to us — his real problem is most likely with the coaching staff. At any rate, though, I’m intriuged to see whether this tension continues to fester, is smoothed over in the locker room, or is ultimately resolved somehow by the front office.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
You got it.
Truth be told, none of us here knows what exactly is going on in the minds of either Jason Quick nor Jerryd Bayless; therefore, it’s pointless to try and figure it out for ourselves. Besides, Quick would never say that he misinterpreted Bayless’ quote — as that’d make him look bad — while Bayless certainly would never say that his remarks implied Andre Miller and/or Steve Blake rather than his contemporaries like Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, et al.
All things considered, most folks will make of this what they want and use confirmation bias to support their assumptions. In my case, I could use said “confirmation bias” to rip Bayless’ character. I, however, won’t do that, since I don’t know what he specifically meant by his comments — nor do I care — and it’d be unfair of me to assume either way.
To be frank, I don’t hate on Bayless for being agitated about his lack of playing time — regardless of who he blames for frequently riding the pine — rather, my issues with him have to do with his street ball style of play on offense and overaggressive defense. To me, the questions around Bayless are more to do with whether or not he can consistently function as an off guard at the 1 versus his natural tendency to be a me-first, ball dominant gunner at the 2.
Y’know, Bayless’ fiercely determined nature and lofty sense of self are irrelevant — even if he’s borderline narcissistic, which isn’t necessarily a bad quality for professional athletes — and that’s similar to how Greg Oden’s one-time aloof demeanor and Andre Miller’s current reserved nature are of no tangible importance.
We all have different personality traits and, well, that’s what makes us unique as individuals. So, rather than hate, we should tolerate.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
If we trade or loose Bayless I'm leaving Portland
Not really, but I’d be seriously angry and disillusioned by the management of this team if he gets traded.
He’s a keeper. The Terminator.
I wouldn't care what Bayless meant
the bottom line is simply, that he needs more playing time, especially in this situation. it is total BS that he doesn’t get Rudy’s minutes
Obviously he meant
“It’s tough. Especially since, and I hate saying this, seeing these other guys (Nate and Dean) doing what they are doing. I know I can help this team. I know I can.’’
by meatwad3 on Dec 13, 2009 7:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Obviously the coaching staff isn't gonna play Bayless...
So what can we as fans do to get him more time? I am all for starting a “play BAYLESS” chant… He would have to listen, or we’d boo him…
Shout out from Section 314, We rock
by Lil0drummer0boy on Dec 13, 2009 7:59 PM PST reply actions
I've
read quotes from bayless where he’s come out and said that he see’s other rookies like rose and gordon, players he’s played against his whole life doing well and helping their teams and how it pains him because he knows he can do the same as well.
Tired of the Oregonian's coverage; thanks for holding them accountable!
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
I'm curious to see what Quick has to say about this.
Chances are, so are you. Regardless of what we have to say about his inserting hypothetical references, he’s still generating interest.
Mission accomplished, Quick—-you got us more interested in a dying paper, and a struggling team. Bravo!
I'm just not crazy about player nick names...
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Dec 13, 2009 11:16 PM PST reply actions
Me thinks...
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we bench the Bayless and start the Steve.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
by Krang on Dec 13, 2009 11:34 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Quick dropped the ball
After Bayless made his comment, Quick should of immediatly asked, “You mean Blake and Miller?” Then Bayless could of said “Oh no, of course not I meant the other young pg in the league like Jennings.” Quick made a mistake, like all of these players have been constantly making in games, and like probably all of us make in our jobs from time to time.
I think the bigger issue is that Bayless isn’t getting enough time. I’ve been a huge critic of Bayless. I don’t think he has good pg skills, and I think some fans give him far too much credit for his defensive ability. But I’ve come around to the idea that he should get more minutes, especially now with Rudy out. The team is struggling. Blake is struggling. Miller is struggling. Let’s see what Bayless can do. Then in the future we’ll have a better idea, of whether we should trade him or not.
by desperationshot on Dec 13, 2009 11:34 PM PST reply actions
How do we know he didn't?
It’s pretty standard journalistic practice to clarify any direct quotes you’re going to use. It’s entirely possible Bayless said it, meant it that way at the time, and then realized that he shouldn’t have said it once it was published and then wanted to back off the comments and so threw out a different explanation via twitter so to not alienate his teammates.
Athletes (anyone in the public eye, really) have been spinning past statements for as long as there has been a public who listened to them. I would’ve figured Tiger Woods would have shown us by now that even stories from the primary source are hardly the gospel truth.
#52
Whatever the truth, Bayless has publically refuted the parenthetical inference
the ball is now in Quick’s court.
There will almost assuredly be radio silence on Quick's part
about this, at least publicly. If Jerryd meant it how it was written, then Quick will only alienate him and the other players by proving somehow publicly that Jerryd is now lying.
If Quick did misunderstand him, it makes more sense to talk to Jerryd directly about this behind closed doors and sort it out. I’d imagine there’s more to the conversation than Quick just walking up, asking a question, hearing the quote and write it. Both of them know it’s in their best interest to just let the story die down, because, whether Jerryd said it or not, having people talk more about how he feels regarding his play compared to Blake and Miller doesn’t really help him.
#52
Yeah, it's in the best interest of all parties involved to let this story die down quickly.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
i just want to see him more than Mr. Unproductive Steve Blake..
that being said, that was a bad call by the writer to include his assumption on who jerryd was referring to although i have a deep feeling he meant Blake and said ‘other guys’ to cover his point.
by FILIPINOblazerfan on Dec 14, 2009 7:34 AM PST reply actions
Quick struck again this morning on 95.5 FM
when he said “there is a lot more going on…that I can’t get into right now.”
suuuuuuure, Quick. suuuuuuure. Whatever you say. We’ll just wait for your private memoirs to come out so we can all rush out and buy them.
“…I can’t get into right now”: Pffft! That’s like your high school buddy telling you he has “hot prospects” for prom date that he can’t tell you about.
That’s like when that same buddy throws a keg party and tells you Aerosmith “isn’t confirmed yet”. Ahem.
That’s like when Burgerville teases you with sweet onion rings once a year and—-wait—-no—-I guess it’s not like that at all but…I digress.
Anyways, my point is that Quick is a tease with more misdirection on this play than Oregon’s second snap from scrimmage.
I'm just not crazy about player nick names...
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Dec 14, 2009 1:58 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
- The Facebook campaign to hire Will Ferrell for All-Star Game player intros is underway
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
