2nd round 2008 Blazer Draft Pick

PG Mike Taylor . . . plays for the clippers and scored 35 points tonight to go long with 8 rebounds and 3 assists.

Can't underestimate those 2nd round draft picks . .. I think this kid has potential.

 

It was the Clippers for petes sake. They have no one else.

 

Quick! Sign him to a max contract! He had one good game!

 

Too late . . . he is already been locked up for next year.

 

Funny . . . Bayless has a good game and fans are ready to crown him the future PG.

Taylor has a good game and it is because he is on the Clippers and it's only one game.

I was just saying that a Blazer 2nd round draft pick did good . . . if anything it's a tribute to KP (if he made the pick)

 

Trade Bayless for him.

 

Didn't the Blazers draft him and traded him to the Clips?

 

It's not that funny when you consider that Bayless was considered by some to be a top 10 pick out of college and that in HS he was unanimously rated in the top 10 of his class. It's as if some of you never follow these players until they reach the pro's and then come off sounding rather ignorant in your observations and expectations.

 

Mike Taylor isn't that good...

 

I find it funny you characterize him as a top 10 pick . . . yet he was picked 14. So clearly he is not a top ten pick. Or is it that given his college game he should be a top ten pick, so really he is a top ten pick???

What I have heard of Bayless' (from college) is he has a good shot and can play the point guard position in the NBA . . . and some continue to hold this position without recognizing some of his struggles this year. It's as some of you only watch what these players do in college and assume they will transition with the same results in the NBA, which comes across as sounding ignorant in your analysis of their NBA game.

 

Zach Randolph, Baron Davis, and Eric Gordon aren't "no one else."

 

Bayless was picked 11th not 14th. Brandon Rush, who we traded to Indiana for Bayless, was picked 13th.

 

Thanks . . . still not a top 10 pick but thanks for clarifying.

And BTW-I'm not anti-Bayless. I'm anti pontius.

 

Nice.

I'm sorry if I think that negatively judging a 20-year-old based on his on-court play tends to fall in line with ignorance. And especially when considering his sporadic minutes and his catering to differing roles when playing time is given. People annoint Bayless as the starting PG of the future after he plays a good game because the forward thinkers realize his age and pedigree when taking in his positive performance. Whatever negatives that are seen should also be taken in context with the variables already mentioned(age,PT, pedigree). When they are not I find that to be ever so ignorant. It's a shame you disagree. We'll see who is right in the end.

 

I agree with Antonio H. Bayless is ignorant, cocky etc because he think he is good and hes not yet. His attitude to himself is that he has the experience and setting the tone for the offensive setup. Hes not a PG. Hes an attacking Guard just like Kobe B or J.Jack. He doesn't have the mental attitude off the court or in the game to set an inbounds pass to the low post position or someone open by the edge of the key. If he was truly a PG at this point he would be making the time in the Tualatin facility setting up plays with everyone else. Do we see an article on his dedication to be the backup PG position? No, he just hides behind Sergio and gets called when hes due. Thinking back now I had wished Bayless had stayed at Arizona for at least a year to polish up his skills and playmaking ability.

 

No offense sex offender, but jumping into a post where the only "negative" thing I said about Bayless was question why posters annoit him the PG of the future after a good game gets an assumption from you that all posters who don't see his definte place as a starting PG haven't seen him play in college and are ignorant for posting about him . . . tends to make me want to . . . kidnap children (we're joking right?)

So if I get you're logic: any negative posts about Bayless are ignorant because posters need to factor in "variables" such as pedigree and age. But posters annoiting Bayless as the future PG are forward thinkers . . . because only forward thinkers would truly understand Bayless and that he is going to be a starting PG? And anyone else with a different opinion must be ignorant. (The ignorant opinion being it's too early to tell if Bayless can transition to an NBA PG)

This PG debate is so old. Posters were saying the same thing about Sergio 3 years ago . . . and I was saying the same thing, PG postion in the NBA is the hardest postion, IMO, and it's hard to determine if he is the future PG based on one year. But I know, Sergio didn't have the "pedigree" and I was probably ignorant back then too.

So let me try your style: I hope Bayless is the PG of the future, but declaring him as the future starting PG on a playoff team is an ignorant thought that lack any observation of his play this year.

bet you love me too after that . . .

 

i think judging bayless based on this years play, while limited, and his time in the SL is alot more telling than what he did against some high school kids. he has struggled to run the point, it's not a shocker, as i agree with GO, that is the toughest position to learn. add on to the fact that he was never a true point in college and he's having to start (basically) from square one, with a coach that has a short leash on his PGs.

 

They sure look that way this year.

 

please tell me what any these guys have won in their careers? i'll give gordon a pass since he's a rookie but even he seemed to underachieve after a great start with the hoosiers.

randolph and davis are classic, get mine type of players that never seem to be on winning teams. they get the stats but in the end their teams go no where.

 

What does this post have to do with anything relevant? Is it that we should have kept Mike Taylor in hopes of a 35 point game to anoint him the PG of the future? Otherwise I don't see what the point of this thread is.