Nate's Odd Comments About Bayless
by Blazer Guy on Dec 24, 2009 8:22 AM PST
Email
PrintAfter the Blazers improbable win last night in San Antonio, Nate McMillan was asked about Jerryd Bayless' career night. Here's what he said:
"We knew what [Bayless] was capable of doing if given the opportunity. He’s playing off the ball and we need him to score. He’s showing that he’s capable of scoring. Once again he showed it tonight. At the start of the game we realized Brandon wouldn’t be able to go and I told him he had to step in at that spot. I told him to have fun with it. We gave it to him, moved him around, and he delivered. I’m more happy to see him come along defensively, to see him playing off the ball. His game has definitely picked up."
When asked whether he had given Bayless the green light to shoot, Nate said:
"He had the green light. He’s playing off of Miller and Blake and we’re running similar sets that we run for Brandon where we try and move him around and get him that ball and let him spread the floor. I thought tonight he did a nice job of not only scoring, but when he made the defense commit he gave up the ball."
Now maybe I'm reading too much into this, but in the course of answering two questions, Nate seems to go out of his way (twice) to emphasize that Bayless was playing "off the ball," the implication being (at least as I read it), that Bayless was playing off-guard, not point guard.
But here's the thing. That's not really true. Bayless had the ball in his hands the majority of the time he was on the court last night. He brought the ball up the court at least as many times as Miller or Blake, and in the fourth quarter, Bayless (like Brandon usually does) took the ball up the court on most possessions. Furthermore, the vast majority of Bayless' scoring was off the dribble. He scored primarly with penetration and pull up jumpers. He was only assisted on four of his field goals last night, and all four were perimeter shots on kickouts.
And Bayless wasn't just scoring. He had seven assists (and ZERO turnovers). In short, Bayless was playing the role of scoring point guard last night, not off-guard. If you doubt this, try to imagine Rudy Fernandez playing the role Bayless played last night. Even Brandon lacks the ball-handling chops to do much of what Bayless was doing last night. When was the last time you saw Brandon dribble into the paint, dribble back out again, and then circle back around for another try? That's something the Steve Nashes and Tony Parkers of the world do, not the Brandon Roys and Dwyane Wades.
While I don't want to read too much into Nate's comments, I get the sense that he feels somewhat defensive about Bayless' recent success. Here's a guy who has languished on the Portland bench for the last year and a half. Suddenly he gets thrust into the lineup and he's lighting the world on fire. For the coach, the obvious question is why weren't you playing this guy before? Nate's implied answer to that criticism is that Bayless is an off-guard and that the Blazers had (until recently) two other quality off-guards on the active roster, Roy and Rudy Fernandez. But if Jerryd continues to play the way he's been playing, this defense just isn't going to hold up. Neither Miller nor Blake (the "true" point guards in McMillan's eyes) are doing anything on the court that Bayless isn't doing just as well. And we've seen in recent games that Bayless and Roy are more than capable of co-existing together in the backcourt. They've actually looked pretty darn good together.
So there's only so long that Nate can continue to play the "Jerryd's not a point guard" card and expect to get away with it. When Rudy and Roy are both healthy, it's going to be a moment of truth for Nate. He's going to have to acknowledge that Bayless is indeed a point guard and play him at that position. My hope is that, by that point, either Andre Miller or Steve Blake will have been traded, thereby forcing Nate's hand.
There will undoubtedly be bumps in the road ahead for Bayless. He won't always be as good as he was last night. But he's shown enough lately to convince me that he has the chops to be a point guard in the NBA. And given that he'd be paired with an off-guard (Roy) who likes to handle the ball himself, Bayless may end up being an ideal fit for Portland. I was hesitant to believe it before, but now I'm a believer. Bayless and Roy are the future backcourt for the Portland Trailblazers.
197 comments
|
13 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I was thinking back to last season summer league last night.
The Blazers were trying to make Bayless a “pass first” PG and I couldn’t help but think that was dumb. Why would you tell a guy not to use his best skill which is getting to the bucket, either scoring or drawing a foul which is a highly efficient way of scoring. Just seems like that was a huge mistake. If the other teams are going to play the passing lanes why should Bayless not attack the basket? Once they start to respect Bayless’ ability to drive then the kickouts and open jumpers start. Some guys get their scoring going by passing and forcing teams to respect the passing lanes. Other guys use their scoring to open up the passing lanes. Why try to make Bayless into something he is not. I hope Nate learned from that mistake. Also Bayless can play the PG position. Just look at Aaron Brooks or Tony Parker.
The only thing that I can say in
defense of Nate (cause that’s how I roll) is that the best way to learn a skill that you aren’t spectacular at is to do it exclusively. If you can get to the lane at will but have tunnel vision, you won’t get better vision by continuing to attack the lane and chucking up shots. I believe that by forcing Bayless to play pass first ball he has become a better passer. I know that he has better vision than he did last year. I don’t know that it was ever anyone’s intention to turn Bayless into John Stockton, but forcing him to play that way aids him to build those skills.
IMO.
It wasn't the first time I'd been kicked in the cherries and called a rat by a woman, but it was the first time I didn't mind.
by shenanigans on Dec 24, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I just don’t think Nate’s that concerned about what bloggers and sportscasters are thinking on this subject. I mean, he’s really got his hands full right now.
by 77 Fan on Dec 24, 2009 8:47 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
I don't think
This post was written w the hope Nate would read it. Just a fan’s opinion. I don’t know why you’d put that down
BTW someone should (I am too lazy... lol) go get some quotes
from Nate during summer league. I think we would all get a good kick out of the things he was saying about Bayless. What a great idea, tell a kid to be a pass first PG on a team with 1 other scoring threat.
Trying. Found this, though...
It’s what Jerryd was saying about himself after his first summer league game in ’08.
Get well soon, G.O.
#52
my keys to a championship team
Start Bayless w/ Roy, Draft Cole Aldrich (trade Miller for the pick), Hire a Coach who is not as stubborn as Nate.
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
I can't believe anyone would talk about getting rid of Nate...
…after the events of the last few days. He may not be the coach who will take us to the promise-land someday, but he is exactly what this team needs right now – and it should be very obvious. He is now even receiving national attention as a front runner for coach of the year.
Get well soon, G.O.
#52
by bforsythe on Dec 24, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What has he done?
What has he done and how is he exactly what the team needs? Facts not assertions are nice.
What has he done wrong?
Nate is keeping the team winning with half the players missing… He gets ripped on when they have all the players and they cant win… but when he gets his team winning with half the roster gone he gets no credit? Personally I think little of what has happened this season is because of Nate… Losing in early games, winning as of late… its not Nate.. its the players and the intensity that they are playing with. They played like shit early in the season, almost like they felt like they were entitled to win. Now they are playing like they are going to get blown out if they dont give it everything they got.
"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting"
"I don't like jail, they got the wrong kind of bars in there"
Charles Bukowski
Someone had said that Nate got out of the way, and they started gelling. Made sense to me. Nate’s done a lot for this team, showing them the way last year. This team’s grown up a lot, and Nate can prob step back and let them do their thing.
by hobbyshop_hero on Dec 25, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree entirely
Only an exceptional coach could have kept this team up and hustling every game and adjusting on the fly to the injury of the week. It is not all about x’s and o’s.He is not getting out of the way in managing the team – some perhaps in execution on the court. I think every team implodes without a strong coach. Doing their thing without the structure of a coach and his system is a recipe for selfish basketball. Can you imagine John Wooden getting out of the way or Red Auerbach? As easy going as Bill Self or Roy Williams appear to the public they are exceptional because they demand playing the right way. They will sit anyone for defying that edict. Nate is of that school.
Nate has the long-range development in mind when he teaches Jerryd to be a point guard. Unless Jerryd sees the court and knows how to make his teammates better he will be just another player who scores. Unless Jerryd plays the right way he did not play. No accident he sat last year. Just like Martell sat the first two + years.
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
yeah, but...
it’s also no accident that Martel and Jerryd had a combined 1 year of college basketball between them before entering the NBA. Roy was R.O.Y. for one simple reason: Four years of seasoning at UW. Bayless should be a junior in college right now. Experience is almost as important as natural talent.
That is true but he will not become great on the court until . . .
he can consistently play the right way both offensively and defensively. That is learned in practice and limited minutes on the court. When he continually flunked his exams (on the court) last year he could not earn the next step – in the rotation. This year he is playing defense and seeing more of the court on offense. He still has a long way to go but if he defends well he can be on the court while learning and developing. If he is not better than Blake and Miller it is hard to find minutes. Rudy’s minutes are what are feeding him this year and so he gets opportunity (as he did last year with Blake’s injury).
Great college coaches require their recruits to earn their minutes and establish discipline in their games. As you have pointed out so well, Bayless did not get that at UA under O’Neill but was told to attack every play. In Portland Nate has assumed the role of college coach for Bayless and Webster and Outlaw. It is a slow process but very likely to succeed.
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
For the umpteenth time.....
Bayless didn’t flunk last year. He had a PER above 15 during the one stretch of decent minutes he received. His poor season stats where as a much a reflection of how he was used as they were a reflection on his game. We will never know if he would have played better if used differently, but it is a gross oversimplification to just say he wasn’t ready till now.
Most observers, who are not blind homers, believe that the team is not going anywhere this season without a center and with two of its wing players out for half the season or more. We may limp into the play-offs on determination and the excellence of our young stars, but few expect us to go anywhere in the playoffs.
If this is the likely scenario, why not play Bayless now? He may, or may not, be better than Miller or Blake. His presence on the floor for an extra 10 or 15 minutes may, or may not, cost us a few games. What is certain is that his development is very important to the team. Next to Oden’s development, I would argue that developing Bayless as our long term PG is likely the single most important thing we can do to help the team long term.
Bayless is going to make plenty of mistakes, and he is going to have some bad games, young PGs do. Look around the league at all the young PGs, they are all up and down. It is part of learning the craft. To me, it makes much more sense to have him make those mistakes this year, rather than next year when every game will count.
by upper left corner on Dec 30, 2009 5:17 AM PST up reply actions
We are 2 games out of first place in the Northwest with 6 people out for a long period of time.
Meaning, no matter what personnel Nate has to use he figures out a way to use them effectively to win games. We may not see much of our favorite players but as long as the Blazers keep racking up wins, Nate will continue to do it. He has said repeatedly that ’Winning’s never ugly’.
Brandon Roy - The Savior Of Portland Basketball
by rise_stand_resist on Dec 25, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
His decision-making has improved by leaps and bounds.
Not to mention his shot and defense. I was skeptical of his ability to play point, but he’s making smart plays and hitting shots now, not to mention drawing fouls and playing great D. It’s hard to argue that he shouldn’t start with Roy. If not now, in the very near future. Even if he’s not a ‘true point’, whatever. Do it by committee.
I like my crow fairly rare.
Keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed.
Kudos
As one of the people who spent countless hours defending Bayless from the multitudes chanting “he isn’t a PG, and never will be,” I have serious respect for anyone who openly admits they were wrong about Bayless.
Too many folks are either pretending that they didn’t say the things they did, or are stubbornly denying what is in front of their eyes. Good for you for honesty and integrity.
by upper left corner on Dec 24, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
Benjamanic wasn't the only doubter
Watching the old Jerryd fumble the ball while trying to attempt a pass or setting up the offense was tough. The summer league debacle wasn’t encouraging either. Definitely a thrill to see Bayless used more appropriately as an attacking pg, as well as his higher comfort level due to more use.
I think Bayless is smart and has learned from Andre Milller..combine this with a superior
work ethic, fabulous athleticism, amazing attitude…you get results. Bayless had NOONE to observe/learn from before Miller came..well there was BLAKE….
nice write up, Blazer Guy
I concur wholeheartedly. Bayless isn’t a Stockton or Nash prototypical/stereotypical point guard – but he is effective with the ball in his hands and will either score or get the ball to a teammate for a score.
That is a point guard, pure and simple. Speaking of his assists, how many would he have had if Miller could hit a shot, last night? Miller was brutal.
Thanks
And I agree. Bayless had a number of would-be assists that he missed out on because others missed shots. With Miller, I almost get the sense that he is pressing too hard, trying to prove what he can do. He hasn’t had to compete for the PG spot in a long time and I think he sees the writing on the wall with Jerryd playing so well. I kind of feel bad for him. He’d be better off if he focused on the thing he does much better than Bayless or Blake, passing. He should try to prove his worth that way and stop pressing so hard on offense.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
It reminds me of how Steve Blake was playing at the beginning of the year.
Just trying waaay too hard to “prove himself,” and getting thrown off his game in the process.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
I agree. Miller passes very very well.Others are learning from him. And yes..he knows.
But he also has intangibles that do not show up on the boxscore…which BTW…he was + in last night…vs. Blake who was – ….He gets under the skin of his opponents…he has veteran moves that MAKE A DIFFERENCE. He has a veteran calm (well maybe he’s a bit rattled at seeing Bayless’s play) and is a leader on the floor. We need him WAY more than we need Blake. Esp. when Rudy returns….Rudy can hit 3s. Also Miller can play the uptempo game…
I hope he relaxes on shooting and does what he does well…many things.
I too have been confused and concerned with this "off the ball" terminology that Nate uses.
Travis Outlaw, the Funnel Cake of the Blazers
Why wouldn't they be
Maybe the other four percent wants Mills and Roy.
Bayless has certainly proved himself, and has made a case to start. There is no way he’ll be on the bench in the coming years.
Barrett: You are going to score 35 tonight.
Bayless: Ya think?
MB off by only four, my oh my.
by thenatural007 on Dec 25, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, Nate's comments seemed designed to deflect blame
from the decision not to give Bayless more run earlier. In particular the “his game is coming along defensively” comment was an attempt to justify the lack of run.
I laughed when I heard him say
“We knew what him(bayless) could do, he just needed the opportunity” – Nate
Who was holding him back from the opportunity? Oh ya it was Nate.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Dec 24, 2009 10:05 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
thats what im saying, If you knew what he could do given the chance, why wouldnt you develop him sooner, we coulda used him against Aaron brooks and ron artest.
by tevisthe4th on Dec 24, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Bayless couldn't shoot last year
and struggled to defend without fouling. It’s hard to argue that last year, he was the missing link.
This year, he is shooting 11 points higher overall, and 17 points higher from 3-point range to go along with much, much better defense (he wasn’t ole – but he touch fouled way too much).
Plus, this year, his comfort zone allows him to make decisions about what the defense is giving him
by blacknoiseNW on Dec 24, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
Bayless definitely didn't shoot well in games last year
but I’d always heard that he was a good shooter in practice and scrimmages. And he was a pretty good college shooter (shot over 40% from 3 point range). So there was reason to believe, even last year, that Bayless could shoot if given enough time to get comfortable. I don’t really blame Nate much for Bayless’ limited run last season, though. We had a stacked team. This year it is harder to understand why it took so long to get Bayless actual minutes.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
It played itself out last year
when Blake was hurt, look at Bayless’s numbers when he got decent minutes, his fg% was much better then when he got 5-10 mins a game. I don’t think Bayless would have won the Houston series for us, but if Nate knew what he could do, why didn’t he get him into the rotation earlier this year? Like from training camp/preseason and to start the season as at least the backup point. If he knew this was what Bayless could do, then even last years Blake should have been replaced by this years Bayless. Yet once again Nate favored Blake eventhough he “KNEW” Bayless was better.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
Yeah I think if he was given the chance to get acclimated to the NBA game he couldve found his comfort zone come playoffs. a
His shooting was there before, it was a case of no confidence due to limited time.
Or maybe it was Rudy's presence.
Nate and everyone else knew about his athleticism, but he was being used as a shooting guard and was 3rd on the depth chart. Nate could have played him over Sergio last year, but Bayless just looked like he wasn’t ready and Rudy can’t initiate the offense like Roy can. Rudy plays better off the ball so it isn’t illogical to think that he needed a more traditional point like Sergio with him in the backcourt. It was the safe way to play, but now there is no need to play it safe. (Not that they even have that option at this point.)
Keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed.
I know, right? When he said he knew what he was capable of it just made him look stupid.
My whole living room erupted in screams at Nate when he said that. He is already on thin ice with fans in Rip City, and if he doesn’t handle this emerging star correctly anymore, we will all be calling for Nates head. He has no excuses anymore not to play him.
I think ideally we should run a 3 guard rotation of Roy, Jarryd, and Rudy, with Blake getting spot minutes. All 3 can shoot, all can create plays, all can finish, all are awesome. If we don’t go with those 3 guys I will be pissed.
#10
Call all you want...
…Nate and his head aren’t going anywhere! He’s not, and never has been, on thin ice with me…and more importantly his record speaks for itself.
GO BLAZERS!!!
by Ilikeemall on Dec 24, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree he's not going anywhere anytime soon. That's for sure. I just have noticed how much criticism he has been taking locally and nationally on how he has handled this guy.
He is starting to look bad, like a grumpy coach that can’t develop players. If the fan base is starting to turn on him, I think there is a pretty good chance KP and PA are getting a little frustrated at how Nate has handled this kid.
#10
by dario argento on Dec 24, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Nate brought this team up from the basement
a grumpy coach that can’t develop players
Argue his coaching from your computer chairs all you like, but have some respect for that.
by Chadillac5000 on Dec 24, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
I do have respect for his talent. And I know he's been a big part of the turnaround.
I don’t necessarily think he’s a grumpy coach who can’t develop players, but he is starting to LOOK like one in the eyes of fans and media because of this Bayless playing time thing. That’s all I was saying.
#10
by dario argento on Dec 25, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
Wow...
Could not agree less with AMAZING talent. When he started, nobody knew what the Blazers had. It was rebuilding time and no coach was going to win much with his first year team. SInce then his team’s are 146-131. 164 of those games were with the youngest rotation in the NBA. He has done an amazing job building up the franchise. Yes, the talent has been multiplying during his tenure. The players have also been growing and the team has been improving each year. He deserves credit for what he has built so far.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Dec 24, 2009 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Agreed
This emergence is making Nate look bad for not playing him earlier. Are you telling me Jbay wasn’t flat-out killing our porous defense in practice? BS! McMillan can’t accept that a basketball player who breaks some of his curmudgeonly rules of what a “true” point guard is could be good or even great. This off-the-ball nonsense sounds contrived … this was what he was already supposed to be good at! The difference is certainly his on-the-ball play. Nates just trying to create a phony narrative for why jbay didn’t play more earlier. He’s still not going anywhere, but he really needs to wake up and smell the 2xxx’s NBA … Aaron Brooks dominating us last year was a sign of things to come, league-wide.
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions
You are who you defend?
Or are you who you offend :) Well, in both cases, Jerryds an effin point guard.
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah it's like he was trying to convince us that Jerryd plays better off the ball. That he needs to be off the ball.
Nate, Jerryd just pulled off one of our best wins in the last 5 years dominating the ball. We all just watched the freaking game!!! You’re not going to “trick” me into thinking that Jerryd was playing off the ball.
#10
by dario argento on Dec 24, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions
The bad thing is that even if they trade Miller,
Bayless has to break through Nate’s stubborn belief that Blake should be our starting PG! Good luck with that!
Ha! Good point. Another Blazer Sedge controversy for us to get fired up about.
#10
by dario argento on Dec 24, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
That's where a GM steps in
Nate gets all the blame, but KP could sure simplify this problem (of who to play at the 1).
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Delegation, Specialization, Accountability
KP is the GM not the coach. If KP doesn’t like how Nate is handling his duties he should fire him.
Not necessarily
If you don’t want to fire Nate, but want to push him into a direction, trade blake for Chalmers and Miller and Outlaw for Turiaf. That takes away Nate’s security blanket at PG and as the bench scorer, opening up Bayless and Rudy to take over those roles.
Without firing him.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Dec 27, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions
So what if Bayless is not a PG?
While I don’t think he’s a PG either, he is definitely a combo guard. He has done good things attacking with dribble and made enough variety of passes to only confirm my suspicion that while he’s not a PG in this league, he is definitely a combo guard and not a SG in PG’s body.
While you don’t want to roll out a combo guard and a true wing at the 2 backcourt spots (not without a play-making SF anyway), you can roll out 2 combo guards as long as their skillsets combined covers what a single true PG can do. While there are still few areas where one of the two combo guard has to learn, such as post entry to a guy with deep position, i see no reason why not to eventually move to backcourt of Bayless and Roy. I’d probably do that next season unless we decide to move Miller at the deadline.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
This.
A lot of people are saying that Bayless is a PG because he spends a lot of time handling the ball, and had 7 assists last night.
If that’s the case, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Roy, Joe Johnson, and Paul Pierce are all point guards. Two of those guys (Roy, Johnson) also managed great assist-to-turnover ratios, with Roy finishing top 20.
by Biddy77 on Dec 24, 2009 10:29 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
You have to think about what is right for our team
We have a SG (Roy) who plays like a PG and a PG (Bayless) who plays like a SG don’t you see… they compliment each other and should therefore start together
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
I just flat out disagree with you
You have been all over the site trying to make this nuanced argument that Bayless isn’t getting the right kind of assists, or that he is generating the assists because he is attacking, and therefore he isn’t a PG. I think this is just silly.
IMO, you are trying too hard to compartmentalize the PG and SG roles. Basketball is about functions. You need to distribute the ball, you need to score, you need bring the ball up the court. These too functions can be shared by the backcourt players in a wide variety of ways. As long as it works, it works.
Bayless may not be a “true” PG, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a PG. You are what you can defend and Bayless can defend PGs. He can play either on the ball or off the ball. To me that seems like exactly what we need next to Roy.
by upper left corner on Dec 24, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 12 recs
What's funny about this
Is that I haven’t once said that Roy and Bayless can’t (or don’t) compliment each other, OR that Bayless was getting the “wrong” kind of assists.
The sole reason behind my highlighting his playstyle/ role is to point out that he’s at his best when the leash is off, and he’s free to attack and score. Trying to force him to play the role of the pass-first, distributor type is insane considering how effective he is in his natural role as a score-first guy. I’m not only not trying to take anything away from him, I’ve actually plainly stated that I would like to see him starting alongside Roy, with those two taking turns on and off the ball. What I do NOT want to see is a Bayless/Roy backcourt where Bayless is forced to play with a leash on, and prioritize distribution. There is a huge difference, and depending on which way the coaching staff approaches that backcourt as a starting pair, it could either go very wrong, or very right. My preference is ‘very right’.
Taking it a step further, I’ll show how pro-Bayless I am by saying this: I like him as a second option more than I like LMA, because he generates more easy scores, and puts us in the bonus quicker. He’s averaging just .2 fewer FTA than LMA already, in fact. That’s huge.
by Biddy77 on Dec 24, 2009 12:57 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah..I didn't think you were disagreeing with me, either...
Also, I support your notion that Bayless should be the second option over LA if Roy, Bayless, and LA are out on the floor at the same time. Bayless is actually our most efficient scoring option while LA is pretty inefficient for a 6’11" PF.
When fully healthy next season, this is how the offense should look in terms of its offensive progression (for the ideal starting lineup): Oden – Roy or Bayless – Aldridge – Batum.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
Bayless is a point guard that can play off-guard - effectively
that is the basis for those of us that disagree both with your definition of a point guard (a true point guard is a guard who has the ball at the point of attack & defends point guards) and the notion that playing Bayless alongside Roy somehow diminishes Bayless.
If you want Bayless to be CP3, then well, yeah…maybe he shouldn’t be the second best guard on the team. However, his skills are by far the best compliment to Roy’s of all the guards on the team – and it ain’t close.
by blacknoiseNW on Dec 25, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
I'll apologize before being called on it
I didn’t read your post thoroughly enough….we don’t disagree here on how to utilize Bayless – but my disagreement with your “definition” of a point guard (from above) stands…
by blacknoiseNW on Dec 25, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
1000% agree
As long as you have an egg in each basket, it doesn’t matter where it comes from. Bulls -→ Six championships no real point guards. It can be done.
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
not really
All of those people you cite are tall wings who have play-making skills. Bayless is a different breed. He’s much faster and a better ball-handler than those guys. He’s a scoring piont guard. Why does no one question that Derrick Rose or Mo Williams are point guards? What’s the difference between the Jerryd Bayless of last night and those two guys? And have you watched Chris Paul play? He doesn’t always pass. He does a lot of the dribble around/driving/shooting stuff that Bayless did last night.
It’s certainly true that Bayless isn’t up to Paul’s level when it comes to passing and court vision. But few PGs are. The point is that Bayless’ passing and court vision are adequate to play point guard in the NBA, especially when he’s paired with someone like Brandon Roy who can share the play-making duties. Bayless IS a point guard.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
by Blazer Guy on Dec 24, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Semantics...
Are a mother. They’re also the enemy here.
I’ll say it again: I’m in favor of a Bayless + Roy starting backcourt as long as Nate doesn’t try to force Bayless into the role of a pass-first guy. That’s not his nature, and that difference in mentality—which he shares with Rose, Tyreke Evans, etc—is what differentiates him from ‘classic’ point guards like Stockton, Nash, or even guys like Brevin Knight and Howard Eisley.
Is this bad? Absolutely not!—unless the coach(es) are going to try to make Bayless be that other type of guard.
I agree 100% that Bayless and Roy are great together, as long as the coaching staff let’s Bayless be Bayless.
As someone pointed out, the Bulls won six rings without a true PG—and that’s what I’m getting at. If we allow Roy and Bayless to take turns with playmaking duties (and thereby take turns with the scoring role), I think we’ll see great things.
I just worry that the coaching staff might not let it happen that way.
by Biddy77 on Dec 24, 2009 3:37 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Fantastic Post and Insight
Really like your post. You articulated a lot of things I have been thinking separately without the ability to connect the dots and synthesize.
I may be a little late to the Bayless boat, but one thing I would add about him is how highly touted he has been since the age of about 15-16. He was one of the most prized college recruits in the country at PG and ended up going to “Point Guard U.” Granted he wasn’t coached by Lute, but Lute recruited him and has a pretty great track record for spotting NBA talent at that position. He also doesn’t have a prototypical PG that he goes for. He adjusts (cough, cough) to their talent.
Worth it to check out “Gunning For That #1 Spot,” a 2008 documentary about the top 24 high school players in the country. In it, Bayless is one of six – eight players featured alongside Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, Michael Beasley, Kevin Love, Donte Green, Kyle Singler, et al. See IMDB entry here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1204298/
Granted, high school and college don’t mean anything in the NBA, but when you are featured among four Rookie of the Year candidates, you’ve gotta have some upside.
Dear Kevin
Please Trade Miller for an opportunity to Draft Cole Aldrich, Let Blake walk unless he wants to sign for super cheap and short term, and let the Bayless/ Mills PG spot Flourish…
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
if this year has proved anything,
it is how valuable a serviceable back up is. and considering we haven’t seen a single minute of patty mills play, it would be beyond rash to entrust the backup point guard role to him
by gotyourselfastew on Dec 25, 2009 1:19 AM PST up reply actions
Proves little
There are a lot of Olympians, including those who play well in the Olympics, who never make it in the NBA.
#52
Roy and Bayless: Batman and Robin
I woke up with this image stuck in my head. Roy the cool leader who never gets fussed in a crisis. Bayless the fiery young sidekick who leads with his heart and his fists. Both have serious game. If one is in trouble the other is capable of coming to the rescue. I think this analogy works on many levels.
Now, I want to see it work on the floor. We are not going to make it to the WCF, it would be shocking if we made it out of the first round, and positive if we can make the playoffs given the injury situation. If that is the case, we need to be thinking long term. What can we do in the present to help the team win in the long run? Nothing is more obvious than playing Roy and Bayless together in the backcourt. We don’t need to start Bayless, yet, but I think it should be the goal to do so by the All-Star break.
by upper left corner on Dec 24, 2009 10:32 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
The Blazers are more like the X-Men.
Roy: Cyclops
Bayless: Wolverine
Nic: Gambit
Oden: Beast
Etc, etc, etc…
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
Its time to put our fears to rest about Bayless not having good court vision
He has shown a greater ability to see the floor and get his teammates the ball when they are open. His 6 assists and zero turnovers should testify that whatever he “is” (point-guard, shooting guard, combo guard, etc) he can create opportunities for his teammates or find his teammates when they have created opportunities for themselves.
He will be a great compliment to Roy if McMillan gives him the opportunity and here is why. Roy creates opportunities for his teammates 15-20 feet out. I’m seeing Bayless find his teammates closer to the bucket than Roy can. They are getting easier buckets because of Bayless. This is the only reason we were able to win last night.
I didn't mean to turn you on
Not turning it over goes a long way with Nate.
If that keeps up, he’ll definitely get plenty of opportunities to play with Roy whether or not he starts. Nate’s violently allergic to giving the ball away, which would also explain his aversion to starting Miller earlier—too much gambling for his taste.
Keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed.
That's a great point
And one I forget about in the midst of more juicy conspiracy theories.
It’s why Miller gets yanked sometimes, and acts bewildered.
It’s why Oden was never handed the #1 option position.
I’m not sure whether it’s in Nate’s favor or not, but it is a valid (and entirely too rational) point in this discussion.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Dec 27, 2009 10:04 PM PST up reply actions
of course he's defensive about it, bayless can and always has been able to play
yeah he has weaknesses but he seems like the type who will work and work to get better throughout his entire career.
Still Nate gets some credit for finally giving in and loosening the reins. yeah I know he sorta had to.
.
Blazer Fan
nate's not very eloquent
i wouldn’t take his little speeches to the media at face value. he’s kind of a klutz with words.
fair enough
but this isn’t the first time he’s said this about Jerryd. Basically whenever Jerryd does anything good, Nate’s response is to say something to the effect of “well, we always knew the kid could score”, implying that he’s somewhat one-dimensional scoring guard. But Bayless has improved his “true point” skills considerably and gets no credit for it from Nate. Bayless is every bit as good a distributor right now as Blake.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
it’s fair and accurate to say that nate believes jerryd needs to prove that he can do more than just score. and prove that he can do it consistently over a long period of time. nate will always take consistent good over inconsistent excellence.
jerryd right now is trying to undo the first impression he made last year especially with regard to his ball-handling and defense. that will only come with time. also nate is looking to continually challenge jerryd to improve. the easiest way for jerryd to fall short of his potential overall is to fall in love with his own scoring. nate bends over backwards to protect against that.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Sounds like Nate apologetics. Surprised to hearit coming from you.
Bayless has always given outstanding effort on defense. It has been clear from the beginning that the main thing he needed to improve was playing time. He needed to learn how to adjust his defensive aggressiveness to NBA skilled players and to NBA officiating. He is doing that. He needed to improve his defensive recognition so that he wasn’t late on rotations. He is doing that. Guys need time. Bayless didn’t get it last year.
by upper left corner on Dec 24, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
i was explaining nate’s thinking. did i say i agreed with it?
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
A question, Ben
Are you speculating that this is Nate’s thinking, or are you telling us with confidence that this is Nate’s thinking?
As a big Bayless supporter from the beginning, if this really is Nate’s thinking, I agree with it — to a point. The focus is not on winning games right now by utilizing what Jerryd can do well, the focus is on molding Bayless into the kind of player he can become. And the danger is that Jerryd drifts into being just a scorer, which would be a sad waste.
Where I would not agree with Nate is that development is a lot harder (not impossible, but harder) and definitely slower, if you never get in the game, and have to do it all in practice.
#52
im telling you with confidence that’s nate’s thinking.
indeed all but the last line he has made pretty clear either directly or indirectly over the last 20 months or so and repeatedly in some cases.
the last line above nate would probably disagree with the characterization but i think it’s accurate given how he’s handled this entire thing over the last two years, including summer leagues, camps, and preseasons.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
and his disagreement would come in the word choice — he would agree that the coaching staff and management have made it a priority for jerryd to avoid becoming a score-only point guard.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks, Ben
I really appreciate the work you do.
This increases my confidence in Nate quite a bit, I must admit I was really doubting him on Bayless. Seems like he’s seeing the same things we all are, but not really been focused on it because he’s still looking down the road.
I might not agree entirely with how he’s getting there, but this gives me confidence that he’s targeting the same things most of us think he should be targeting. Process isn’t necessarily as important as the ultimate goal.
#52
one other thought on this with regard to nate’s handling of jerryd…
the 3 case studies to watch for me are bayless, flynn and westbrook. which of those 3 guys is a more productive point guard capable of winning 4 years into their career.
westbrook was given the reigns of a pretty simple system and paired with an elite wing. flynn was given the reigns and put in a complicated offensive system that he has to learn on the fly. bayless was forced to work for every minute in a simple offensive system with set responsibilities and an elite wing.
i’m fairly confident bayless will be ahead or at least equal to both of those guys in 2 years. and in the end may be better off than he would have been had they thrown him to the wolves.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
hard to say there
the blazers are a lot better than the thunder and wolves, so if the blazers were at full strength i doubt bayless would get as much freedom as either flynn or westbrook.
its all speculation till the blazers are back at full strength of course
You can't develop in a bubble, or on the bench
you develop by testing your limits. Nate hasn’t been on record as developing Bayless as a point guard – he is on record as developing Bayless as an off-guard.
Nate is wrong, here.
by blacknoiseNW on Dec 25, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Thrown him to the Wolves?
Poor Flynn. :)
It’s hard to say how the three will develop. But I have no doubt that Jerryd is developing into an outstanding player. If he progresses further than those guys, does that mean Nate’s approach was best, or does it just mean he had better talent or was a harder worker? Who knows?
I like Flynn, he might be a great one. I do expect Bayless to surpass Westbrook — I think we got a steal.
#52
outstanding effort and outstanding results are two very different things to nba coaches. he’s getting to the results now and it’s great to see.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
good points
I suppose Nate’s comments could be more about motivating Jerryd and less about deflecting criticism. I just wish Nate would give him a little praise for the improvement he’s made in his “pure point” skills. I feel like Nate himself, through his comments, is pidgeon-holing Bayless as a shooting guard. But maybe this is just a motivational tactic.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
rookie turnovers tend to scar a coach’s memory and more than they should.
if bayless continues to demonstrate this type of a:to ratio and general good flow for 2-3 weeks, you will definitely hear the credit come from nate.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
To me, Nate's comments seem to be more about a coach motivating a young player...
…and people are being a little sensitive in J-Bay’s defense. It’s hard to think anyone could be happier about Jerryd’s recent heroics than Nate.
Get well soon, G.O.
#52
Except for Jerryd, I should probably say.
Get well soon, G.O.
#52
by bforsythe on Dec 24, 2009 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
lol, bforsythe ... rec'd
This is probably why Nate limits his praise for Jerryd.
Let’s remember that all these occasions are “teachable moments.” A good coach cannot be only reactive. A coach needs to know when to publically give high praise, and when to be careful and to teach.
True, Ben, Jerryd does need to prove he can be consistently good...
but blake, up until the last few games has been unbelievably consistent at being terrible, and he still dominated the guard rotation. Nate has always said " you earn you minutes ", and that has just not been the case this year with Blake, Andre, and Jerryd, just the exact opposite.
#10
by dario argento on Dec 24, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
you’re overstating it. blake hasn’t shot as well as last year but the advanced stats do not point to him as being terrible in any way.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
Overstating on Blake is reaching pandemic proportions
Steve hasn’t shot well, and his turnovers have been up over last year. But the ball hasn’t moved and the offense hasn’t flowed as well, either. A lot more 24 second violations, or virtual violations (a no-chance shot just before the buzzer). Maybe that isn’t just Blake, but he’s been part of it.
I agree that he hasn’t been terrible, if anything I think his defense has been a little better this year, but he has hardly been playing at a level that should have kept Jerryd shut out, the way Jerryd was playing.
That’s from my admittedly limited perspective, though.
#52
indeed — i agree with all of that. hey, nobody thinks bayless should get more time than i do.
but blake has been average or slightly below average and there’s a big difference between that and terrible.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
Ben, thank you!
rec’d
I know you’re a big Bayless fan. But I really appreciate your for your willingness to step in and comment to be fair to Nate.
Nate’s not perfect, but this isn’t a black or white business. This coaching business is complicated. Only one team rises to the top every year. You can be coach of the year and fired a couple years later. As someone who became president says, “If it was easy, it would have been done a long time ago.”
Anyway, Ben, thanks.
-jayfisher
oops .. pressed the "post" button before adding a couple more points
As I was saying, this coaching business is complicated.
Can’t we be happy for Jerryd’s success without turning Nate into the enemy? The Jerryd of last year and summer league developed into the Jerryd of this week. We really don’t know how things would have worked if Jerryd was just told to go out and score a year ago without a more fully developed game.
It’s really interesting to me that most of our responses are like, “Why has Nate been so dumb to hold Jerryd back?” Because, on the other hand we could be responding right now by saying, “Isn’t Nate wonderful for taking the teaching time to developing this talent?”
I totally agree Ben. "Undoing last years impression."
All anyone has to do is go back and look at Jerryd’s career from his beginning with the Blazers.
Bayless has always been able to get to the rim, that never has been too much of a question. What he hasn’t been able to do is distribute the ball even with the slightest bit of confidence. His decision making and timidity in passing the ball was atrocious last year. No matter how well he could get to the rim, you can’t have a guy on the floor that is a liability in the other aspects of his game, as Jerryd has been until now.
To sit here and look at these last couple games and think why have we not seen more of Bayless is overlooking how he could barely complete even some very simple passes last year.
His improvement is a testament to how hard he’s worked since then.
My own gut feeling is that Bayless looked good in practice far before he ever looked good out in the game. Players can look great in one setting and then that doesn’t translate to real time NBA action. Nate’s happiness in the progress of Bayless to turn the corner and finally show some results in a game situation likely exceeds ours by a great degree.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Atrocious may have been a little strong.
But there was no question he looked very uncomfortable out there last year. To the point where more playing time was not the answer last year. Yes it would have helped, as PT always helps, but it would have been at the sacrifice of the team. He needed time to develop maturity wise.
Maybe all it amounted to was a lack of confidence. He had plenty of confidence going to the hole, but he sorely lacked it in other areas.
I’m very glad all his hard work is paying off. He’s earned the right to see more playing time.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Nate is pointing out Bayless isn't defending point guards.
Nate consistantly looks defense first. That’s the stated philosophy Nate is trying to teach these guys. Nate is pointing out Bayless is not defending other teams point guards right now, he’s defending the two guard slot. Nate says right now he’s got Bayless doing what Ben Gordon does.
Bayless has produce defending other teams PG to make a completely legit claim on the Blazers PG job. Bayless will get years with this team to do that now.
Bayless’ in-game ball handling and decision making never came close to being this good before. Last year Bayless had 78 assists and 56 turnover.
Bayless play in this most recent summer league didn’t help. I don’t know what the problems was, but Bayless was off-the charts horrible… we shall never speak of summer league in Bayless presence again.
This year Bayless has 37 assists and 19 turnovers so far. It’s not marginal improvement. It’s a huge leap forward.
Keep Portland Weird.
You are speaking in half truths, IMO
Nothing you are saying is false but none of it is not in context:
1) Bayless was much better defending PGs last season than SGs the same was true in college. There is every reason to believe he will be better defending PGs in the pros.
2) Bayless has no doubt made improvements in passing and ball security, and you are right about the Assist/TO ratio from last year. However, a lot of that is likely do to the way he was used last year with lots of garbage time minutes in random little bursts. His numbers were much better in the one 14 game stretch he received consistent minutes while Blake was hurt.
3) Bayless was set up to fail in SL last summer. Cunningham was the only guy on the team who could shoot. The two SG were 3-27 in the first three games before Bayless was moved to SG. Blaming him for the sucktasticness of his teammates is just unreasonable.
The bottom line is that until this season, Nate never put Bayless in a situation where he was likely to succeed. I would love to know the real back-story here. I suspect there has been conflict with KP over Bayless. Nate has been very slow in coming to the party.
by upper left corner on Dec 24, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions
Its like psu
You do get a good grade for attendance
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
yea summer league
was not indicative of his skills, considering almost no one except cunningham and pendergraph were really NBA caliber players, and even at this stage pendy and cunningham are marginal players at best at this stage of their career.
Posters have all kinds of reasons . . .
and speculation. The bottom line on a good team (Blazers won 54 games &
tied for NW lead) is that rookies don’t play a lot and coaches (like Nate) tell young
players that their chance will come. Be ready !!
I’ve been all over the Free BRex movement and did not want the Blazers to sign
a FA PG after dealing Sergio. I felt BRex would grow and blossom with the 20 mpg
that came with the backup PG role. He would flourish running the 2nd unit alongside
Rudy as a attacking, penetrating combo guard. Mistakes happen, but with time the Rex
would find his way !! His chance has come !! RRRROOOOWWWWRRR !!!!!!
It's GO time !
An interesting and viable point
Nate resisted the temptation to allow Jerryd to settle for the scorer only role which motivated him to concentrate on adding the assist/defense capability to his repertoire. His passion to play forced him to concentrate on what he needed to add to his game, and we are finally seeing the results. Credit Jerryd for not surrendering to his frustration. Who could know how rapidly this transition to and effective all around guard could emerge? A very pleasant development, in the midst of apparent disaster.
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
oops, responst to Ben....
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
nate has made it clear jerryd will work for every minute. and that’s showing to be a solid strategy in motivating jerryd (at least now that there are minutes for him to play… if the entire backcourt was healthy, maybe it plays out differently). so i think it’s fair to give nate some of the credit for jerryd’s development.
but the lion’s share as you mentioned goes to jerryd who has put in the work on and off the court to take huge strides in a relatively short amount of time and a relatively tough situation. but he definitely had coaches actively pushing him in the right direction.
by Ben Golliver on Dec 24, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Can you be a good coach?
And not a good manager? Its seems like coaching is divided into development (teaching) and management (making personalities work together, making pieces fit). He seems excellent at the former and still learning at the latter.
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 1:07 PM PST reply actions
Good point. Nate should just hire me to run the rotations, while he coaches.
#10
by dario argento on Dec 24, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
Ha!
Well, let be a ballboy if that happens!
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
Now moving past the latest autopsy on Nate's coaching
the current Blazer scheme does not now and never has used a traditional point guard scheme (whatever that’s supposed to be). All the guards are expected to run the plays, move without the ball, spot up for open j’s and defend like crazy. Our guards play it the way it’s coached. If you don’t like the scheme that’s your problem but don’t continue to say it’s bad coaching. That’s a childish type of criticism.
by oregonslee on Dec 24, 2009 1:20 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Egzacktlee
Nate is correct in his description; in the Blazer system Bayless IS playing “off the ball”.
Normally its Roy who plays “off the ball”; he plays “off the ball” by dribbling it.
Who cares what you call the position. Bayless can drive, shoot, or distribute.
I’ve said before that Bayless needed some more time on the court to make, and learn, from his mistakes. With a full roster experimentation and growth just aren’t high on the agenda (even though I counseled otherwise). Bayless has upgraded his game and earned the chance (being needed helps too). He’s making the most of it!
Roy and Bayless CAN play together, just as Miller and Roy can.
Now, if let’s see if Bayless can be consistent and up his FG% a few points…
That was like a poem
It was beautiful, man.
#52 by Mortimer on Dec 17, 2009 10:35 PM PST
by Sashland on Dec 24, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I really need you to explain
Normally its Roy who plays "off the ball"; he plays "off the ball" by dribbling it.
Does not compute. Please explain.
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
First, meaning Roy dominates the front-court ball handling as a shooting guard.
He’s not waiting for a feed off a screen a la RUDY!!!, he’s using the screen on the dribble.
And that’s not the typical role for what might be considered to be an OTB position.
So I’m facetiously saying he’s not really playing OTB at all.
I though Bayless was playing more OTB when he was the “point guard” paired with Roy, ending up with that “Blake” corner 3.
http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nba/Teamwork_Play_of_the_Game/17198331#nba/Teamwork_Play_of_the_Game/17198331
{sorry can’t get it working right}
So then Bayless stepped into Roy’s spot, and the ball handling, but was still also moving well when Miller or Blake had the ball to get into position for a shot.
I think Nate was pointing out that Bayless was doing both; being a scorer AND still a relief valve. In Nate’s system the role’s are often reversed / alternated.
Second, esoteric aesthetics, trying to hint at the vague part of Roy’s style, where it seems sometimes he really is following the ball [playing off the ball’s movement]; setting up a play and testing the defense, rolling to a soft spot, working an angle, and then a spin move, cross-over, or, especially, behind the back where he seemingly ends up chasing and reaching out to grab the ball, just before he jumps up and back and nails another one.
But what the Helena, Montana does “off the ball” really mean anyway? We may all be talking about different / multiple things.
Bottom Line: If Since Roy and Bayless can both play 1 or 2, you have a positive, not a negative. I don’t really care what you call the positions; its about the skills of the players and how they mesh.
‘Hal’ Happy?
That was like a poem
It was beautiful, man.
#52 by Mortimer on Dec 17, 2009 10:35 PM PST
I forget
Who put the scheme in place?
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
I think you missed the point...
Nate put the scheme in place and it is his scheme. His scheme produces wins. The team struggled to implement the scheme at the beginning of the year and guess what…they are still 19-12 coming off of the road trip no one expected them to win more than 1 game with Roy and they just won the last one without him to come out of the trip 3-1. Nate deserves credit for motivating this team and implementing a scheme that gives them an opportunity to win just about every game they play.
You can not like the scheme but it is difficult to argue against its success up to this point.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
How would you tell the difference between
A poorly executed scheme or a poorly chosen one?
Or a well executed scheme or a well chosen one? It seems to me that injuries fixed an inherent problem of the scheme; that it required too many seconds to give the players a chance to be comfortable in their assigned roles. The inability to bring the ball quickly into the post, followed by slow repost, followed by a swing around the weak side, resulted in a half-assed play at the end of the clock and everyone feeling rushed. Castrating our best offensive option (Broy) to run through the paces of a clunky scheme didn’t make sense, looked ugly as hell, iced shooters, and creamed our offensive efficieny. For the love of God, I’ve seen so much more actual offense run since we’ve lost half of our team — such a glaring indictment of scheme. And yes, that’s on Nate.
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 10:35 PM PST up reply actions
Your assessment is a bit more harsh than my own, but I share your general view
The most amazing part about the win in San Antonio was that they looked like a team on offense. Crisp ball movement, reduced TOs, everybody contributing. It was pretty amazing.
by upper left corner on Dec 25, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
It is almost impossible for me to see how we go 3-1 on this road trip without good coaching. And a 6 minute drought away from going 4-0.
These wins came from the months of coaching that led up to this trip. It took us until the last ¼ of the season last year to see some good ball movement. The kind of ball we’re starting to see right now. IMO there is just no way the unit we have on the floor right now wins these games without some good coaching.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Some obvious inferences:
1) Jerryd deserved more time last year because due to his potential future value to the team.
2) Jerryd deserved more time this year due to his play (along with # 1).
3) Nate deserves some heat for messing with the kid’s head (#’s1 &2).
4) Late is better than never, and it is likely that there will be some positive affects as well (more focus on passing and defense).
5) Nate is likely to come out of this series of events smelling like a rose—a Roy/Bayless back-court (talk about scoring, penetration, and drawing fouls!).
#52
Kind of a biased poll question.
Coming off of multiple career performances. I will admit he is ballin out of his mind right now and has shown a hunger that could only be described as ravenous. With that said I definitely voted yes to the question.
who cares if bayless
isnt a “traditional” point guard.
hes shown his outside shot is consistent enough to play off broy, his passing is up to scratch, he knows the sets so hes unlikely to be out of place, he can play off the ball if necessary, and he can penetrate and draw fouls or finish at the hoop, which blake lacks and miller is inconsistent. he is also a better one on one defender than either.
imo bayless has to be given the chance to start alongside broy and see how if it works, otherwise bring him off the bench as 6th man.
theres no question he has earned minutes and an important role now
+Rec. Great Post. Why are we pigeon holing Rex?
I thought he could play PG from day one and he is still showing me more passing skills than I thought I would ever see. We should be happy. It sure looks like the team finally found an elite PG. I was expecting Jason Terry and the guy is playing like Tony Parker.
Dick Vitale used to call this sort of G a Lead Guard
rather than pure PG, using Isaiah Thomas as the prime example
ignacio
...except Isaiah was a pure PG...
If you look in the dictionary under “pure PG”, his smiling mug will be under it.
Oh, and the same goes for “Knicks killer”
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
Poll needs another option...
Bayless looks great. Need to see more before annointing him PG of the future.
I don’t expect him to keep scoring 31 every night or to never have an off game. I love what I am seeing from him in terms of finding the open man and making sound decisions on offense. He is doing a lot less grabbing and hand checking on defense and not losing his man on the boards. If he keeps all that up, I see him being the future long-term PG.
He will have to make adjustments as teams begin putting a folder together on him. He may begin struggling with over-penetrating or thinking his first read will always be there as teams get to know his tendencies. He is defintely on the rise.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
No third option!
Of course you’re right, but if I gave a middle ground, hedge-your-bets kind of answer, everyone would choose it and the poll results would actually be less meaningful. I was just trying to get a sense of what people feel in their guts about Bayless at the moment. Is he the answer or not?
www.ripcitydispatch.com
Inherent bias
Guess what happens if you did this poll after Bayless has a terrible 5 turnover game and looks like a selfish chucker missing all his contested jumpshots?.
There is no gut feeling. There is what have you done for me lately.
"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith
small sample size errors
maybe closer to a skew than a bias?
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions
One of the few "no" votes here
I am not a witness yet for Jerryd Bayless. Last year he missed a lot of open shots, turned the ball over in the half-court sets while playing point, and saw limited minutes as a result. He did not have an effective summer league.
Recently, he’s had a couple of good performances where he has largely been asked to dominate the ball. After he was so effective against Phoenix, he was given even more minutes the following game and went 3-13 with two turnovers to one assist. I’m glad to see him getting more minutes, he clearly needs them to continue to develop, but I’m far from being sold on him as the answer at point guard.
For a historical perspective, go look at what people were saying about Sergio after the Denver game where he dominated.
Jerryd was a 20 year old rookie last year
He’s a 21 year old second year player now. When Roy was his age, he was a bench player for his college team. Of course Jerryd still has a lot to prove. He’ll be inconsistent, as all young players are. But over time he’ll be able to produce more consistently. With experience, his game will improve, as will his feel for the game. There’s every reason to believe Jerryd will improve and very reason to believe his game will regress.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
Improve, regress, relative to what?
He’s had a couple good games and others where he wasn’t so good. I don’t think he’s as good as he’ll ever be right now, didn’t mean to give you that impression.
Will he be an effective long term fit playing alongside Brandon Roy? Maybe, but I’m not convinced.
I disagree completely, but good for you for sticking up for your POV.
I appreciate that more than the folks who trashed him all last season and last summer and who are suddenly on the bandwagon in the past two weeks w/o being willing to admit that they have changed their minds.
Of course I think it would be even better if you came around and were willing to admit it!
Bayless has been very consistent so far this season. Of coarse, you “cherry picked” his worst game of the season. He has been consistently efficient, hitting a good percentage from the field and getting to the line with All-Star frequency. He has a lower TO% than any of our five guards. In the month of December, he has even hit 50% from 3.
IMO, the one area of Bayless’ game that is not really proven is his ability to distribute the ball. His Assist% is slightly behind Blake at 19.2%. On the other hand, he has played a lot of minutes w/o the ball in his hand, so any criticism of his Assist % should start with the fact that he really has not been given a consistent opportunity to ring up a volume of dimes.
Trying to diminish Bayless’ accomplishments as “a couple of good games” is just intellectually suspect. He has scored in double figures consistently when given minutes over the past month. Of coarse he is going to have the occasional bad game, but what 21 year old player with less than 1000 minutes of PT is not going to have a few ups and downs? Any honest look at the Game Log indicates how consistent Bayless has been.
by upper left corner on Dec 25, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
Pardon me for cherry picking again
But he followed up a strong performance at San Antonio with another less impressive outing, shooting 20% from the field on 10 shots, though he did manage six assists. Roy had to have a word with him about shot selection after he pounded the rock for 15 seconds then forced an 18’ shot with a hand in his face. Yes, he’s a young player and he’’s learning. We’ll have to see where he is when he’s got more experience under his belt.
I’m not sold on him, but I’m not unhappy to see him getting an opportunity to prove me wrong, so far (it helps that the team is winning).
Let's talk
The two games you cited were against the two top shot blocking teams in the league. In both cases, against Howard and against Nene and Birdman, Bayless was trying to take it to the hoop against guys with the top shot blocking reputations in the league, and he was not getting his fair share of the whistles. It happens. It happened to Roy in his first couple of years. It happens to all young penetrators in the league.
Then in another post you cited his one air-balled three, but skipped over the fact that he has shot 43% from three for the month of December.
Yes, you are cherry picking, and doing so in a pretty shameless manner. Of coarse, that is your right. You can focus on every bad shot of every bad game for as long as you want. The point is that by focusing on your criticisms rather than on the bigger picture painted by the stats, you are missing his overall development.
Of coarse, he is young, and he is going to struggle from time to time, but those two games you focused on are not the norm. There are far more teams like Phoenix and San Antonio that don’t have top shot blockers than there are teams like Orlando and Denver. Even last night, the energy and effort Denver spent trying to shut off Bayless created tons of openings for Roy and Blake. Bayless carved up Denver’s defense in the fourth. We are going to see more and more of that as the season goes on and as Bayless’ reputation spreads.
Bayless and Roy on the floor together is the future for the team. Together they put enormous stress on the opposing defense. Paired with a couple of shooters on the perimeter and Oden in the middle, and they are going to beast. It doesn’t matter if the shooters are Blake, Batum, Webster, Rudy, or Travis. It only matters that they can hit their shots.
I have seen enough over the past two weeks to be pretty confident that Bayless is the missing piece to our Championship puzzle. Don’t worry, be happy. It may take us till next fall to see all the pieces assembled, but I am more confident than I have ever been that the team has all the major pieces to the puzzle.
by upper left corner on Dec 26, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
Ah, sorry...
But while Bayless could be a great energy guy and has the potential to develop into an excellent fourth option, the missing piece to a championship is a healthy Greg…
Well stated!
I’m not totally with all of your points; I don’t think Jerryd has shown Miller’s court vision and ability to feed the post yet. That’s something few PG’s can match, but Jerryd has a ways to go before he could be considered in Miller’s league as far as those attributes go.
That said, the Blazers don’t really need a ‘traditional’ post feeding point guard. Further, Miller’s inconsistency from range makes him somewhat expendable in “Roy time” at the end of games.
So overall I agree. I don’t care what Jerryd’s position is so long as he continues to get minutes on the floor. We need him more than we need Rudy because he can put pressure on the ball in a way that we havn’t seen since…well…I can’t remember the last time the Blazers had a PG who could pressure the ball…
I'm just not crazy about player nick names...
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Dec 24, 2009 6:58 PM PST reply actions
I would looooove to see some of Miller's passing/playmaking skills rub off on Bayless.
Kid is on the up. He definitely has the best handle on the team, but his playmaking makes me nervous sometimes. I’m surprised he had no turnovers last night with some of those jump-passes he was making last night. He was in full Tasmanian Devil mode last night though, spinning through the lane. San Antonio had no idea what to do other than foul. Awesome.
Da Zeuhl Wortz Mekanik
by NoiseMekanik on Dec 24, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
What bayless has shown
Is that he is a stronger finisher and a better deep shooter than Andre (who I like). Defenders are having to chase him nearer and farther than Andre relative to the basket. Spacing is the key in basketball, and Jerryd makes more of it for himself and others than our other point guards. So I want him to start.
by Sound_Automatic on Dec 24, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
Not to mention that Bayless is waaay faster than Dre
Certainly Bayless is not yet in Dre’s league as a distributor, but he is showing rapid improvement. Agree that his ability to be a multi-purpose threat is what separates him from both Blake and Miller.
by upper left corner on Dec 25, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
Off the ball doesn't mean he's playing off guard
It means when he’s on D he is still defending his man and the lanes around his man when someone other than his man has the ball, be it a 1 or a 2. On the offense he’s moving, using picks, setting picks, making his man work and creating offense through his motion that opens up his game and the opportunities for his team mates. I really can’t believe how much burn this “analysis” has gotten when it’s an incorrect assumption. Bayless is a combo guard and always will be..he’s the ideal 3rd guard in the rotation on this team..on a team with a weak 2, then probably a starting one for Bayless. But we have Roy so he won’t be usurping that role.
Nate said he was more encouraged with Jerryd's defensive play.
I really can’t believe how much burn this "analysis" has gotten when it’s an incorrect assumption.
I too thought of the defensive angle here. Jerryd’s help defense, “while playing off the ball,” was excellent. And the teams overall help defense was the best I have seen it in quite a while.
In reality, I don’t think there is a lot for Nate to cover up here. It is pretty well out in the open now. Not getting Jerryd more game action was ….
#52
I suppose
he could be talking about defense, but it really doesn’t seem like it from the context. In his first comment, he said: “We knew what [Bayless] was capable of doing if given the opportunity. He’s playing off the ball and we need him to score.” I suppose he could be referring to defense and offense in the same thought, but he seems to be using “off the ball” to refer to Bayless’ offensive role.
In the second answer, this is even more clear. McMillan is asked whether Bayless has the green light on offense. He responds by saying: “He had the green light. He’s playing off of Miller and Blake…” That’s clearly a reference to offense, not defense.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
We have to consider Nate's disjointed communication style in this as well.
he could be talking about defense, but it really doesn’t seem like it from the context.
With most people who follow from point a to point b using context would have more weight. With Nate, the master of the sputtering, twisting, almost nonsensical speech pattern, I don’t think really think it is advisable to make too much out of this. Take a look at some of his quotes in the press, it is like, “What did you say?”
#52
Bayless
Before this regular season, it appeared that trying to make Bayless a point guard was like trying to put a round peg in a squre hole.
But he sure looked like a fine NBA point guard in the San Antonio game.
And in the previous game, Roy and Bayless made a fine duo at the guard position.
Could Bayless and Fernandez likewise play well together at guard. I definitely think so.
Some shift in thinking as far as the Blazers long-term strategy would appear to be in order. It does not appear that the Blazers need to be thinking about acquiring an additional point guard for the long term. Particularly in light of the fact that we haven’t yet seen what Mills can do.
Nate
" He may not be the coach who will take us to the promise-land someday, but he is exactly what this team needs right now – and it should be very obvious. He is now even receiving national attention as a front runner for coach of the year"
If someone wanted to come up with the most negative statement about Nate and still have some air of credibility, what you could contend is that he is masterful at leading a team of nobodies, but not so much when leading a team of superstars.
The Blazers have got to be one of the top 2-3 teams in the league if not outright #1 in performing in the face of adversity.
Their big challenge will be to figure out how to be a winner when they have a silver spoon in their mouth.
Exactly...
Nate defintely is a strong motivator for team basketball, hustling, giving it your all, never giving up… These motivational things that work (short term) with a young bunch of underdogs, when the “us against the world” message has it’s best traction.
Nate has not proven to be adept at: instilling the will to run early in the clock; feeding a dominant low post player (although he seemed to be coming around in Greg’s last 7 games), allowing a great PG (Dre) to run the show; making in-game or in-series adjustments that are critical in a playoff series. Until he can demonstrate some of that, I’ll still contend that he is not the right coach for the veteran, championship contending team we should have for the next 5 years.
Imagine if this Bayless Roy combo continues to work
And Nate allows it to continue, combined with LA, Greg, and plenty of depth, tell me we can’t make a championship push. Unfortunately that would have to be next year, and their are no guarantees that they will all stay healthy ,but that would be a winning combonation!
"We will not settle for average, we will strive for greatness." Chip Kelly
Nate
A lot of the things Nate says seem puzzling and they are either intentional in order to have some sort of psychological effect on player(s) or else they just mean he’s not good at organizing his thoughts when he has to speak off the cuff.
I'm a new convert
None of this is to mention how much fun it is to watch him play…
In Nate's defense...
There’s no question that Bayless has GREATLY benefited from his season & 1/4 on the bench. He’s had time to observe, think, study, & practice. We saw the explosiveness in Summer League before last season. But that player was raw talent, with an unreliable, slow-release, shotput jumper. He feasted on Summer League competition, but he had no idea how to attack NBA defenses or how to defend against NBA offenses.
By contrast, the Bayless we’re seeing now is poised, efficient, and possesses a vastly improved outside shot. He’s now ready for prime time, and bursting with confidence. So just possibly Nate knew exactly what he was doing in making Bayless bide his time.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
You too, Przy: everyone knows you're the heart & soul of the Blazers.
by hurryup09 on Dec 25, 2009 11:51 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention the fact that he could barley get the ball across the timeline for most of the 4th quarter in the SA game.
He was dog-tired out there. So it looks like he’s not quite ready to play these kind of minutes, but he’ll get there.
I like what I’ve seen in Bayless these last 2 games, and it doesn’t feel like it was a freak performance. Time will tell.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Nates Offense has the larger guard attack the defense. They get into less trouble. Small guard spots up. You mention Wade and Roy, but Jordan and Bryant would be more prototypical of Nates system. The Smaller guard spots up like John Paxson or Derek Fischer.
The choice to bring the ball up the floor I think is Roy’s. If he wanted to, he could.
How many championships have been won in the last twenty five years by little penetrating guards (Nash, Parker, Damon Stoudamiere) versus the penetrator being Larger (Magic, Jordan, Wade, Bryant). I think there is a lot of validity to this.
Further, Bayless showed the problem with a Smaller guy being the instigator against Parker. Parker was put on him and could do nothing. Bayless can use size. I remember we would get creamed when Stoudemiere had to go up against bigger guards.
Nash will never win a ring. Parker only did ecause he had Duncan in his prime. The traditional Point Guard Paradigm just does not win as often
by Hermistonmelons on Dec 25, 2009 12:38 PM PST reply actions
I think that Nate saying "he's playing off the ball"
…isn’t saying that Bayless isn’t handling the ball. In Nate-speak, Brandon plays off the ball.
I think Nate was absolutely right in making Bayless wait
He was amazing when he first showed up but he didn’t have the Basketball IQ that Nate likes. He prefers to have smart PGs that can see the whole court and know what the team is doing 100% of the time. He’s already got that with Roy, yes, but now Bayless knows how to do it too. With a pair of very smart, RIDICULOUSLY talented PGs in the backcourt who know how to run the offense and can take over a game, Nate is armed to the teeth and WILL get Coach of the Year if Bayless makes the All-Star team with Roy who is going this year.
Brandon Roy - The Savior Of Portland Basketball
by rise_stand_resist on Dec 25, 2009 6:42 PM PST reply actions
hahahahahaha
Portland's PG of the Future - MORE John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
Ziller said it best
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/12/18/jerryd-bayless-and-the-liberation-of-combo-guards/
McMillan, I’d argue, doesn’t believe in Bayless, but believes in what Bayless just did, and knows that right now, with the bench suffering from the losses of Oden (bumping Joel Przybilla to the starting unit), Travis Outlaw, Nicolas Batum and Rudy Fernandez, he as a coach and manager of playing time needs to keep believing in Bayless’s work until twilight falls on the guard.
And that, perhaps, is the long-term curse of the combo guards who serve under traditional coaches: you’re like the woman on the side. When coach needs you, he’ll use you. But the minute you disappoint, or try to break out of the lopsided relationship, you’re gone, and it’s on to the new one. Combo guards deserve better treatment under the old school regime. If Dennis Johnson is the Susan B. Anthony of this movement, maybe Bayless can be the Gloria Steinem. Forward!
If Ziller is right
why did Nate play Jarrett Jack so much over Steve and Sergio that people on this site claimed he had a man crush on Jarrett, and some even wondered if it was because of racism?
Jarrett got huge minutes, and he was as much a combo guard as Jerryd.
#52
by jscot on Dec 27, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I wasn't on BE back then, but...
We really needed Jack’s offense back then, and neither Blake nor Sergio can get their own shots. Plus, Sergio would try for the fancy passes the fans would love but drive Nate nuts. In fact, nothing gets you pulled faster than couple no-looks that misses in Nate-coached teams.
Also, I’d argue Jack’s skill set lie closer to PG than SG on the “combo guard scale” than Bayless. Jack is better at setting up and running the offense as opposed to Bayless of right now. While it’s okay for Bayless to run the offense in short spurts, I’d have serious worries if he did so without any other guards like Roy sharing the load for extended time.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
We needed Jack's scoring?
Why did we need it more than we need Jerryd’s? Travis was scoring, we had Brandon and LMA.
The fact is, Jarrett and Jerryd are both aggressive, take it to the hoop kind of players, who score and draw fouls as much as they run the offense and get assists. They both make their free throws. They both get turnovers (though Jerryd is doing pretty well right now). Jarrett was better at team defense, Jerryd (so far) at man defense. Both can hit a reasonable percentage of 3s, but it isn’t the main facet of their offensive contribution.
There’s not a huge difference in style between the two. Jarrett may be a little more efficient in running the offense than current Bayless, but that’s not a question of style, that’s just experience and practice.
The fact is, Nate used Jarrett extensively, even closing out games, when we had Steve as an option. And that shoots down Ziller’s premise that Nate only wants to use a combo guard when he has no option.
The idea that Nate hates combo guards is not well-founded. Nate hates mistakes, and Jerryd makes more of them than Steve. The reason he is getting PT now is because he has convinced Nate that 1) he isn’t making as many mistakes as he used to and 2) even if he makes a few more mistakes than Steve, he does enough positive things to more than make up for it.
Now, why it took so long for Nate to be convinced is beyond me. But the “anti-combo guard” theory doesn’t hold much water with me. It is far more believable that it is the “anti-mistakes” mindset, which (for Nate) is especially important at the point. He can live with mistakes from forwards or centers, but not from PGs. If you are a PG and you are going to make mistakes, you had better really, really do some good things otherwise.
At least, that’s my best guess as to the mindset.
#5 #10 #52 #88
Funny, because I have quite a different memory of the Blazers in the Jack era ..
I remember a team that had dearth of offensive options and not the efficeint outfit that we currently have. On Jack’s last year here, roy made his first all-star team, LA increased his scoring average quite a bit, and so did Outlaw. However, we weren’t a good offensive team by far. That team had a negative point differential and scored below the league average. We had hard time scratching out baskets and the reason that we had 41 wins is thanks to Roy’s many heroics in the 4th. None of the three players you mentioned were in the same offensive caliber two years ago as they are currently, and it showed quite a bit on offense.
Also, Jack’s main staple by then was shooting off the dribble more than finishing at the basket. While Jack is a threat to get to the basket, he is nowhere near Bayless in terms of trying to attack the basket at this point. As you stated, we need Bayless’ scoring just as much as we needed Jack’s scoring back then..hence why he’s getting some extended burn. Also, defensively Jack was the superior of both Blake and Sergio, and that definitely goes long way with Nate.
While I wouldn’t go far as say Nate is more anti-combo guard than others, I would say he’s anti-combo guard as much as the average head coach in the NBA. He looks for someone that takes care of the ball on offense, and traditionally, that is not a strong trait of your average combo guard.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
I'm too short on time to look it up
but I’m pretty sure our offensive efficiency was pretty good that year.
#5 #10 #52 #88
Maybe True...
I like the idea that they have to guard two guys on each possession, not just Roy. If Bayless can continue to be a ‘playmaker’ and not just look for his own shot it can work. He’s still got some learning to do on when to fling himself at the rim but that comes with time. If J Bays shot stays at around %43-47 he’s gonna be a nightmare to guard. Love the chance for them to play it out for the next month and dread what happens when Rudy gets back. C’mon coach, make your money!
Protection
I love the fact that Nate protects our/his guys but sometimes i’d just like to hear the truth. I know its an art to tell the truth and get away with it so i’m not hoping too much.
Think what Nate's getting at is that the young fella's a streaky, smallish two guard.
Portland's PG of the Future - MORE John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
A 2 guard who has 18 dimes in the last three games?
I really think his play is putting the lie to the whole “he is not a PG” notion. Wake up and smell the coffee.
by upper left corner on Dec 30, 2009 6:16 AM PST up reply actions
well i do like coffee... so thank you!
I’m just saying Nate isn’t about to say Bayless is the PG messiah for this team just because he averaged 6 assists over 3 games. Much like he wouldn’t say that Jerryd’s not an efficient shooter because he’s only went 12 for 41 on shooting the last 3.
Portland's PG of the Future - MORE John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
He has a higher Assist % than Blake for the season
Who said anything about PG Messiah? Classic straw-man fallacy: put words in my mouth, and then knock them down.
There is a lot of ground between saying he isn’t a PG, and calling him a PG Messiah. He defends PGs. He is built like a PG. He plays like a number of scoring PGs using the threat of his scoring to create chances for teammates.
If you disagree, I would appreciate a coherent argument rather than just an unsupported assertion.
by upper left corner on Dec 30, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh. Did you really type this in a state of sobriety?
I was merely stating my interpretation of what Mcmillian meant by his comments. I’m thinking that perhaps an inflated ego translated my writing as a direct attack on you. And for that, I will except your apology.
In your ‘coherent argument’ for Bayless > Blake – I’m guessing McMillan would disagree. I, on the other hand, do agree. I personally feel Blake has had a very underwhelming year and would definitely move him behind Jerryd in the guard rotation.
I’m sorry for any hurt feeling or stress that i may have caused you. No one wants to sports blog victim. Especially when it comes to straw-man fallacies! :(
Portland's PG of the Future - MORE John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
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
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- 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
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.
