Rudy was a rookie last year and he hit a ton of threes. But he got consistent minutes and was allowed to get comfortable on the floor, night after night.
According to your logic Brooks should not be as good as he is. Look where he was picked in the draft. Sometimes GM's are smart enough to draft a player in a high position knowing that he is not quite ready, but is still worth the investment. Sometimes they can't afford to wait. When your team is winning you can afford to be patient. Where the fuck were you last year when people were popping off that he was not a PG? Where was he going to play the 2 ahead of Roy and Rudy? What a fucking joke when posters come in and say how things were "obvious' to those with two eyes. Nate had him standing at the 3 pt line last year???? You seriously missed him trying to take it to the hole over and over and not getting the calls from the refs? And for you who want to quote Barkley then be consistent when he talks about how Nate is one of the best coaches in the league. You guys are always so "convenient" with your quotes. Look I love Bayless' game. I love his tenacity. I love his work ethic. I want him in a Blazer uniform for the next 10 years. But this crap in always having to blame someone in sports for everything is absurd. You people can never be happy. MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS!
Hmm... I agree with several points within this thread: 1. He's demonstrated he can produce now, at a very young age. How is this evidence of stunted growth? 2. I don't know that coaching has made him better than he was in college or last year... it seems like we don't have enough information. People often confuse development with production. Players can develop (physically, emotionally, and in practice) without ever getting minutes in games, and I don't think that it's necessary for a guy to get lots of minutes as a teenager to emerge as a force later in his career. Ed O.
+1. I notice that a lot with the media, when they say something people like, everyone says See, even so and so knows. It's like when Quick will say something they want to agree with, they'll trot out oh, Quick said, blah blah blah. But when it's something they want to ignore, they trot out the Is Iavaroni our coach yet? Haha! LOL!!1! People like other's opinions, generally, that validate their claims. Bayless looked really good at times last season. And other times he looked lost. Problem is, so many Blazer fans got so used to losing, and being a losing, developing team, that they lost sight of, and still sometimes seem to, lose sight of winning, and focus on just throwing the young guys out there. Maybe Bayless helps us win a few more games last season. And maybe he helps us lose the same amount. There's no denying that hus jump shot looks light years better than it did last season. And his decision making as well. Maybe he makes those improvements even if he was allowed to play 35 minutes a night last night. Or maybe being benched pissed him off and caused him to work harder. We have no way of knowing.
Everyone's favorite example, Jermaine O'Neal. His growth should have been stunted, shouldn't it have? Sitting on the bench for 3 or 4 years should have made sure he never became an all star.
Yeah that was a bit of a head scratcher. I'm not sure when 600 minutes in a season has ever been called "a ton"
Are you discriminating against people with just one eye? You eyeist bastard. Bayless posted a PER of below 9 last year and was a major liability on the defensive end (his defensive rating was horrendous of 111 points per 100 possessions, a Roland rating of -8.6 and an on/off court rating of -1.7 and +6.7 http://www.82games.com/0809/0809POR.HTM http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bayleje01.html Most people would agree that winning a championship usually starts with a team's ability to defend and to that end Jerryd was not ready last year. Nobody on this roster aside from Roy and Aldridge performed very well in the playoffs and the Rockets flat out worked and out hustled the Blazers, the fact that they were able to take it to 6 games was pretty remarkable for a super young team that had never been on that stage before. Sure, Nate isn't perfect and I'm still not convinced he's the longterm coach for this team, but this is hardly the reason why. Not only is this classless, it's completely clueless. Batum in the rotation does not equal 60 wins, Miller and Roy being forced to "work it out" doesn't equal 60 wins, and even though Bayless probably was ready for a larger role, veteran starter's don't just lose their rotation spot unless they underperform -- which Blake and Miller have done, thus we now see Bayless playing. Rudy is too helter skelter for a lot of coaches. His turnover rate this season is double what it was last year and he was making some truly terrible decisions with the ball when he was trying to create off the dribble before he got hurt. Secondly, there's a difference between taking chances and being sloppy. I'm no Nate apologist, but your assessment of his coaching abilities and ability to set people up for success rings pretty hollow considering his track record with the team so far -- and I say this as somebody who thinks his offense is fairly predictable and unimaginative and could stand some overhauling -- but his (and his coaching staff's) track record with developing players and putting them in a position to succeed is pretty good so far. But leave it to people to bitch about Nate after a night when he outcoaches Pop, and gets maybe the best road trip out of this team I've seen in twenty years (considering the circumstances) minus half of his rotation and his best player. Priceless.
it's not "stunted." skip is a player who needs minutes and the ball in his hands to be effective. if he continues to start and drive to the basket you'll see more good performances. if he comes off the bench for ten minutes he'll be useless because he's not going to shoot 40% from three or be gary payton on offense. he didn't get "stunted" by not getting minutes, he just didn't get an opportunity to perform
Bottom line is do you draft a player in the lottery to be a bench player? (projected no. 4 no less). Most teams look to develop their investments in the lottery from the get go (evidenced by the crop of good young guards the past few years - didn't see many of them sitting on the bench). You can't expect a guy to improve or even show what he is capable of if he's only logging 3-8 mins per game or racking up a DNPs. Whilst Blake was having a solid year last year, he was/is never going to be the championship point for this team during their Finals runs. Surely you look to groom your future? So whilst many people argue that Bayless didn't display good enough play last season to warrant the minutes, I believe he wasn't given the chance. Heck the only reason we know for sure he's a baller now is because Nate has been forced to play him due to injuries. Nate most likely would still have Blake out there and Bayless on the pine if it weren't for extenuating circumstances. So to the question did Nate stunt Bayless' growth? Well I do believe Bayless could have been showing this kind of form late last season if given the chance. NBA players need experience to grow, and I think Nate has held that back from Bayless. So yes, to a degree, I do believe Nate has stunted his growth as a player. I'm sure Bayless could have taken away a lot from the series against Houston had he been part of the rotation.
the word "stunt" is most useful when it means impeded from obtaining one's full growth the way willg uses it, it merely means 'delayed' if the definition used is 'delayed' then i agree with willg, players need experience and not playing them will delay their growth but i don't think not playing bayliss much as a rookie has any effect on his ultimate ceiling as a player
You know I am not a big on Nate, but I cannot see how anybody could really know the truth to this one way or the other. I could see where it could have stunted his growth. I also see where it could have humbled him and made him work on his game, and made him more determined. We don't know which one of those is true. All I know is, I am happy with how it has turned out now.
According to basketball-reference.com, S-Rod won us 1.7 games. To Bayless' .3 games. So...yeah, I guess he was more ready than Bayless. I think you're selectively remembering the relatively few good things that Bayless did last year and forgetting the 36% shooting, the awful turnover rate and the marginal defense. He's a much better player this season, so he gets minutes. Not hard to figure out.
That's the problem, now that he is not on the team, it's easy for some to say oh, Bayless should have been in there ahead of Sergio, but how is it possible to say that, while simultaneously blame Nate for Sergio's development as well?
A lot of folks seem to have forgotten that Bayless put in a ton of work with Bill Bayno in the offseason. You know the same Bill Bayno that made Zbo the scorer he is. That made Lamarcus the scorer he is. We are very fortunate to have Bill Bayno here, he is one of the best individual offensive development coaches in existence IMO.
Both were young prospects to grow with playing time. So do you give the minutes to the guy drafted late in the 20's or to the guy projected to go 4?
You give them to the one who performs better in practice, easy. You don't hand something to somene based on where he was drafted. Look at Milwaukee. Mbah A Moute battles his ass off and is a solid defender. Joe Alexander is a lotto pick. Is Skiles an idiot for playing A Moute over Alexander? Why didn't Darko get to play in Detroit when he was drafted? He was the #2 pick! Should have thrown him out there. JaVale Mcgee was drafted higher than Brandan Haywood, and McGee has flashes of looking good. Why doesn't he get more minutes? Why would we think about playing Batum over Martell? One was drafted in the lottery, one was in the 20s. Look, I am in agreement that Bayless is a better prospect, and will be a much better player than Sergio. I hate partially playing devil's advocate in these arguments, because then people think you hate Bayless. That's not the case. But he was brought along, apparently, at a pace that helped him to work on his game, and develop to what he is now. Would he be the exact same if he started from day 1 last season? We'll never know. As was mentioned earlier, what we do know is the course we DID take, and that it appears to be working.
True, agree with your example, but we're talkin' Bayless vs Sergio. To me, atleast, one had clearly a higher ceiling than the other. For me it was that simple.
I think probably a lot of it has to do with everybody second guessing the management team as to their evaluation of the talent level. But you are right. Draft position has nothing to do with it. Look at Gilbert Arenas before the injuries. Wasn't he drafted like 58th or something crazy like that? 4 years later he is fighting for the scoring title.
I wasn't comparing Brooks and his draft position to how well he played, I was comparing how many minutes he gets to how well he plays. The draft position thing was in response to people assuming he wasn't going to be any good, and I always knew he was going to be. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I just agree with the sentiment that we should have played Bayless more in the past, and I agree that we wasted time on Sergio and kind of agree that we sort of wasted time on Miller, when we have had Bayless all along. This is a message board filled with a lot different angled opinions, so I'm not sure why you're getting all up in arms over this particular angle. go get an egg-nog w/brandy or something sheesh.
