Imagine that.. its better to have at least 1 of your 2 best backcourt players on the court at all times.
Personally, I would have rather traded Bayless than Blake (probably not a popular opinion) but I doubt the trade would have worked contract wise, and I'm glad they made the trade. I've never been as high on Bayless as many here, but I'm hardly going to hate on him for a few bad games. He's better than he's played the last week.
This would be pretty odd considering Nate played with Gary Payton who took a good 3 years to really get going and that was with substantial playing time. I am not saying Bayless will ever be half the player the Glove was but some point guards take awhile before they get a handle on the NBA game. If Nate is thinking Bayless will somehow transform into a floor leader while getting inconsistent minutes in only his second year then Nate is fooling himself.
Not that I'm much in the habit of defending Nate, but really, how would you really have Bayless play differently? Bayless' strong suit is: 1. Finishing on the fast break 2. In the half court, driving into the middle and drawing fouls/finishing at the rim We definitely could run more, but I think the team is doing a better job now (since Blake left) of getting it to him quickly on the rebound. After that, it's up to him. As for #2, well, there's only so many opportunities in a game to take your man off the dribble and drive the hole. (Those opportunities are fewer if you haven't demonstrated a consistent outside shot.) I don't think Nate has done anything to change this aspect of Bayless' game. Teams have just scouted him and are playing him for that more. I'm happy with how Bayless is playing. He's inconsistent, but he's also really young and lots of young guys are that way. Given that he's nearly doubled his PER over last year, I'd say that if anything Nate's been a positive influence over him. As for Nate forcing point guards to play "his way," I'm not really sure that's such a bad thing, especially when dealing with mediocre-to-bad point guards. Blake, Telfair, Jack, Rodriguez and Ridnour all had their best or near-best PER's under Nate. That's pretty much every point guard he's coached in the NBA. Right now, Bayless is a mediocre-to-bad point guard. I like him, and I think he has a very bright future. But for all the problems I have with Nate, how he develops point guards really isn't one of them.
My own diagnosis is that Bayless needs: 1. A LOT of practice at running pick-and-rolls. 2. To figure out what the hell happened to his perimeter shot. He's got a nice handle and he doesn't mind playing in traffic, so you'd think it's really a matter of getting the timing and passing accuracy down to make #1 happen. As for #2, well, I keep telling myself he'll get there. I don't know how or when, but it will.
Some folks on this board need to learn to have patience. Here is the problem as I see it: 1. When players are drafted to Portland, a certain amount of the fan base tends to immediately put unreal expectations out there because now they are "Blazers". 2. When those guards receive almost no playing time, and then when they finally play and aren't up to what some Blazer fans dreams were, they turn on them. This is all IMO, because a lot of the fans don't take a look around the league and pay attention. Young guards need time to learn the game. Many of the young guards we are watching flourish around the league, all had their stinker year a year or two ago. It was mentioned above Payton took years to develope. There were times in his first 2 years where fans in Seattle were screaming to trade him. So did Billups. He was traded ever year for his first few years in the league because folks had no patience. Westbrook-Have you ever looked up the stats from his first year of playing time? They flat out stink. He is kicking ass now. None of those things means Bayless will become a good player. But the fact are, it wasn't going to happen with Blake here. Blake stinks, and will always stink. Bayless may or may not become a good player. But we had to find out, so that we can either commit, or move on and find somebody who does fit. The only way we find out if by letting him play and watching the results. Basically we went from a team that was playing a guy who stink and was never, ever going to get better, to a team that has a chance to get better.
Blake did not stink - but I agree with the idea, at large. Bayless is green. He is going to take time to develop - and it is beyond stupid to give up on him when he has shown great progress from year one and has shown that he can be an explosive scorer. It will take time - and it might fail - but generally speaking JB has the athletic ability, work ethic and scoring ability to be a good player in this league. It's just going to take time - both calendar and play time.
I totally agree with this, my only question with Bayless is whether or not what he provides (and hopefully will provide) is what this team needs from the starting point guard position once Dre' is done here. I'm just not sure.
Fair enough - but there is no way to find for sure without giving him the time and letting the chips fall as they may.
Dang, I guess Bayless needs to bitch more much like Rudy (and just to clear something up, I am not saying it is fact that Rudy was ever upset because I don't know, but at the same time, it isn't a coincidence IMO, that once that report came out he got nice playing time even in games he sucked like against Chicago).
Bayless will never be a "pure point guard" or "true point guard." As long as he can defend opposing point guards, I don't think the shape of his production matters, just that he IS productive. I mean, I'd be fine with Aldridge and his production at point guard...so long as he could defend point guards, which he can't. Having Roy felt like a problem when evaluated against having a pure point guard because Roy wants to control the ball, but so will the true point guard. However, we can also see Roy as a luxury...he frees us from needing a true point guard. Let him control the offense, let the other guard just be productive...in any way. It doesn't have to be passing/setting up the offense (though any passing would be nice). What Roy can't do is defend point guards. So we need the "other guard" to do that. I think Bayless can be a perfectly effective defensive point guard with his athleticism, size and work ethic.
I've always said that I've envisioned Bayless as the Byron Scott in our not-quite-as-good version of the 80's Lakers. There were no illusions about him being a point guard, no efforts to shoe-horn him into a mold which his game didn't fit. I hope that someday we do the same.
Although I generally think along the same lines, having a PG who can lead a fast break would be nice, too, since it seems to be a weakness in Roy's game. Not saying Bayless can't develop that to a certain degree, but he's far from a natural at it.
Time for Diener. Trade Bayless for Blake. I've never seen any PG play from Bayless, even in his summer camp when everyone was praising him. I said even then that he was terrible. Even if you don't like Blake, you have to admit he plays a well-defined position. Bayless just doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
you weren't even registered here during this last summer camp... do you imagine we were pirating your thoughts via short wave radio or reading them on the imaginationet? STOMP
His first summer camp, 2008, I was saying it on BBB. This is a bad night for me to have gone after Bayless. He's doing alright in his 11 minutes. Early 4th quarter now.
