The 2 points on 1-6 shooting, no free throws, and 24 minutes seems more anomalous than any trend. But would any of us really be all that upset if Brandon averaged 18 points a game but got 7 assists instead? I sure as hell wouldn't. Regardless, I have zero doubt that Brandon will still manage to put up great numbers throughout his career but that's because he's a great player and he knows how to play the game, it's just going to take a little bit of time for him to adjust to also coming off of screens and cutting to the hoop (much like the give and go between Oden and Miller tonight). Sometimes you have to be willing to let something go so it can come back to you, maybe for Brandon that means letting himself move off the ball a little so other guys can get him the ball where he likes it and score more easily?
Gotta go with PapaG here... you did kind of call him a troll... unless you called me a troll, which would kind of make his day.
Yeah, Bayless has been a very good shooter throughout his basketball career until last season. That poor shooting seemed like an aberration, possibly due to sporadic playing time. I fully expected his shot to return. If he can combine dangerous shooting with the ability to frequently draw fouls attacking the rim, he really can be Parker-like. At least as a scorer. He'll still need to master finding open teammates with the ball when he collapses defenses.
He's definitely filling our Instant Offense need. This is a role that used to fall to Outlaw, and a lot of us would kind of cringe and hope he came through when it counted. Bayless is so driven to perform, though, that you see him get the ball, drive the ball, shoot the ball. He gets to the line, he shakes up defenses, and eventually when they respect him more, he will open up some shooters on the wings. I'm very impressed with him so far.
Bayless looked confident tonight. That's the key with him, IMO. He has the body and athleticism to be a defensive presence and an offensive plus as a 1/2 tweener off of the bench.
That'd be sweet if he can be a triple threat like that on offense -- shoot the jumper, draw fouls attacking the rim and being a good passer. The first two have looked pretty good so far. And overall, I think he did a pretty nice job kicking the ball out when he drove but that part of his game is his next evolution. But right now, I'm just happy to see him hitting the jumper.
So, how many more pages of this crap are we going to be treated to? This is really very simple: Roy: 1-6 Miller: 9-14 Roy's shot clearly wasn't falling tonight. So, rather than force it, he did the right thing and deferred to someone who's shot was falling. Please explain to me why that's a bad thing. On second thought, don't. There's really nothing to discuss. It makes perfect sense, and it's absolutely THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Anyone who can't see that doesn't know shit about basketball. Even a superstar like Roy will have nights where his shot just isn't falling. The difference is Roy puts the team first and helps them win by getting the ball to the guy with the hot hand. That's just good basketball folks and certainly NOT a reason for page after page of pointless hand wringing after a 23-point win. BNM
It's obvious that Miller can't do anything right for some people. When he puts up 11 assists and zero turnovers, he's a bad defender. When he scores 21 points off 9-14 shooting, he isn't passing enough. There's always going to be something. Might as well just accept it.
See, we're frenemies, in that "ignore but read every post anyway" way, which is cool, y'know? My ridiculous undefeated statement was just to characterize this game as what it was: a single game with really no significance to Roy's game. It doesn't project into the future at all. Mike & Mike said it all game: if the game were close, Roy would call plays for himself. Nate would call plays for Roy. Miller would call plays for Roy. Roy will get his when it counts. He will carry the team if we're down or if the game is close. That's his role. So there's really no reason to say "we're going nowhere if Roy scores 2ppg" because, well... we won this game, and he probably won't score so little unless we're winning by a lot. I think that's why people are saying you're being negative when you are just stating fact (and it is a truthy statement).
Here's the confusion: Most people get concerned about bad things. Seeing someone concerned leads most people to believe that the item of concern is bad. So saying you're concerned about it does in fact lead us to believe you said it was a bad thing, because one (bad thing) causes the other (concern). This is a causal relationship. And all we're trying to say is there's nothing to be concerned about. This game had no elements in it (other than Martell landing funny on his foot) to be the least bit concerned about. Roy's scoring stat in context is a positive, or a neutral, not a negative. It is not a point of concern.
When have I ever gone into a thread after absolutely dominating another team, and bitched about Travis or Nate?
