Discounting the whole 3-point-shooter-crisis debate about Miller (which I think is overblown), isn't his game a lot like what we hope to see from Bayless in a few years?

• Miller has been described as being "high in intensity and spirit" on the floor. Bayless could bottle and sell his intensity ... already.
  
• Miller has been said to have a good post-up game and loves going into the paint, which creates opportunities to kick it out for threes, assuming a team has a good 3-point shooter, or two. Portland has loads of good 3-point shooters. Jerryd's been known to take the ball deep into the paint. He just hasn't mastered the finishing and kickout part of it. And as far as that post-up game goes for Bayless, who better to teach him than a point guard with a post game. Miller may be a perfect mentor for Bayless' inside and post game.
  
• Certainly, I'd hope that Bayless could eclipse Miller's 3-point percentage. On the other hand, I wouldn't be all that upset if Bayless never took another 3, and instead, he focused on getting to the hole, creating havoc inside, or dishing out to the 3-point shooters. Afterall, if Bayless isn't driving and dishing, who is (other than Roy)? Sure, Miller's 3-point percentage looks bleak. I wonder though, had he been a 3-point ace, would he have developed such a good inside game? I don't see how a great passer could hurt our 3-point game. In fact, it seems like it might even provide better opportunities for threes.
• Finally, I'm no basketball expert, so I'm probably not seeing some obvious faults in my logic. I'm guessing Bedgers will set me straight, should they see the need. I say, "Bring it on!" (Hopefully, I won't regret saying that as things didn't work out so well the last time I heard that phrase.)