At the end of his rookie contract in another 3 years, what do you expect out of Bayless? I see lots of people slamming Bayless bus I see a lot of potential in him and think he has not only great potential, but a great likelihood that he reaches that potential since he is the picture of a gym rat and takes the game so seriously. He needs to regain his shooting ability and improve at dishing ,but his defense and intensity are rarely seen in rookies. He has the speed also that seems to be more and more needed at the PG spot with all the young PG's that are taking over the NBA at the moment like Paul, Parker, Brooks, Robinson .... And, he can finish close in better than most PG's. On the downside, his shooting really needs a big improvement and he needs to learn how to feed the post.
I picked "Be a good starter with the Blazers." That's my expectation of where he'll be in three years. I think he has star upside, though. Whether he'll get there is hard to say.
This team can only have so many stars. Roy is one. Aldridge is going to be one. Oden.... who knows at this point.
He's definitely got the raw physical tools to be a 'star' but based on the personnel the Blazers already have, I voted that I think he'll be a good starter, since I tend to think he's going to end up deferring to Brandon an awful lot in his first few seasons in the league. Jerryd's a tough one to peg; tons of potential, lots of unanswered questions.
I sadly voted "good starter on another team". Just a gut feeling I have that the Blazer brain-trust sees him as trade bait.
be a star on the Blazers..KP knows he will eventually step it up and will hold onto him. Bayless has too much talent and work ethic to be anything else.
I really don't see much good coming out of the Bayless experiment. I suppose he might learn to shoot against NBA-level defenses, and learn to execute a few set plays. He could earn some PT as a backup combo guard that way...
I can't really answer this unless you specify at what position he's supposed to achieve the level in question. I don't see him every being a true PG, but he can be somewhere in the Eddie House-Monta Ellis-Allen Iverson continuum. But that kind of player doesn't do it for me. The absolute best ever was Iverson, and he had to have the entire team built round him to make it work. I don't think that Bayless could be that good, and even if he could, it would be stupid to try to build round him when we have a good team already.
I think Tony Parker is a much better example of that continuum than Iverson, as it relates to Bayless and his potential. A player who creates off his own offense by drawing the defense and kicking to open teammates. He didn't need the team to be built around him.
No, Tony Parker is Isiah Thomas - somebody with natural PG instincts who can also score (see also: Chris Paul). Bayless is Allen Iverson - somebody who is all about scoring but can once in a while offload the ball. It also helps that Parker has had Ginobili all this time, who has PG skills both in passing and ballhandling. (Rudy is no Ginobili when it comes to ballhandling. Roy is good, but no Ginobili when it comes to court vision.)
Yeah, I can't say I agree with that. Parker is no more a classic point guard than Iverson. He's a scorer first and a distributor off that offense. I don't think Parker compares well with Paul, at all. Paul is basically a freak...both a brilliant passer and a great scorer. Paul is a classic point guard who just happens to also be a great scorer. Parker is akin to Stephon Marbury...a talented scorer with passing skills. That's what I think Bayless is.
I said average starter for the Blazers. He certainly has star potential, but I am not seeing it so far. He needs to polish up that jumpshot and read the court a bit better. I see him staying here because I think that, while he may end up being average overall, he will be a defensive nightmare. Seriously, he plays aggressive D like you owe him money. Plus, he isn't scared to drive like everyone on this team not named Brandon Roy. And I agree with Minstrel's assessment above.
Minstrel: you are WAY underrating Parker. Parker was as young as/younger than Bayless as a rookie, and yet GREGG POPOVICH handed him the keys to the Spurs' offense. Are you really saying: 1. That Nate is stricter on rookies than Popovich? 2. That Popovich would have done the same for Bayless? Parker is NOT a ballhog and never has been. Bayless couldn't even handle PG in Summer League.
I said good backup for the Blazers only because " good backup for another team" was not a choice. No way he ever starts for this team at any position, and I don't see him being content to be 3rd SG. Given that choice he's the kind of guy who'd rather be "the star" on a crap team going nowhere.
I don't know what any of this has to do with what I said. I didn't compare them in ability and I didn't say Parker was a ballhog. I said his style is to create for others off his own ability to score. I don't think that's a bad thing (I don't use Stephon Marbury as an example of evil, as some do). I think Parker is a phenomenal point guard, because I think his style of creating offense is extremely effective. if Bayless ever became close to as good as Parker, I'd be thrilled. But I think Bayless' skillset is similar to Parker's. Bayless may be rawer at a similar age, and I wouldn't project Bayless to be as good as Parker, but I think they're similar types of players.
We really need to give him the main back-up duty next year behind Steve, or whatever, or swap their roles. I want J-Bay to dominate. we need another person to drive to the hoop and the freaking playoffs showed that. Free Bayless... cant wait for next year already.. lol
This is really tough. I simply can't answer this because I need to see what we do this offseason. It all depends if we bring in a PG, and who it is. But I'd say good starter... IDK if its on the Blazers or another team... will after this offseason. If we get a vet PG Bayless will be the Blazers' future. If we get a young PG like Sessions then he will be on another team.
