What about Nate Robinson? Doesn't help defensively but might be a nice fit next to Roy. They also played together back at Washington. Thoughts???? Again I'm not saying he's the answer but.....
I can't envision any scenario under which KP would make moves to get Krypto-Nate. Besides which, I watched enough players shoot over Damon to ever need to see that again.
In the game where he played 22minutes he had 14 points and 3 assists. So it's probably fairly accurate to assume!
garbage time doesn't count the same as a tight game! These comparisons aren't convincing me about Playless! Miller / Blake / Playless = Not the answer The answer is sitting behind our bench, in street clothes, and is 2 years away from being our PG of the future = Patty-0-Mills!
The reason Bayless doesn't play more is the fact he's a poor PG and both Blake & Miller are better at running that position. Why would we want a bad PG playing PG? It's been stated repeatedly that his natural position is SG, but he's not only too small for that position, but has both Roy & Rudy easliy ahead of him on the depth chart. Bayless, therefore, is a combo guard (PC name for 'tweener'). Not enough PG talent to be a PG and too small to be a SG. To be sure, he can do some very good things on the floor at times, but he has to have the right situation for that. And that doesn't come up every game. I agree that Nate doesn't use him enough when those situations arise, but for anyone to think Bayless has some huge future in thie league is pretty comical. Unless he gets a LOT better.
Come on, how many times has it been said and I think correctly that we do not need a classic PG to play with Brandon? Look at the issues we are having with Miller. We need a guy who can guard PG's, play off Brandon, and hit the outside shot and at least be a decent ballhandler. IMO the only question on Bayless is whether he can eventually consistently hit the outside shot - he has improved on that this yr in the limited minuted he has had. Amd Bayless add the ability to go inside and draw fouls - something Blake simply cannot do. The big key will be whether he is a good enough shooter - he deserves a chance to show what he can do.
Lorenzo Romar benched Brandon all year in favor of Nate, Will Conroy and Bobby Jones when Roy was a junior. He played the Ginobili role.
Fixed it for you. Now, it is possible we can have a team without a true PG, but it's not enough to just walk up the floor everytime, drop the ball to Roy and watch his magic. That "PG" would still have to be able to run some pick & roll (Bayless can't), would still need to get the ball to the right player at the right time where that player likes it (Bayless can't) and still need to ensure players are spacing well (Bayless can't) and play some QB. Lastly, do not misunderstand me. While we have built a running team around a non running player (Roy), we can still be a good 'walk it up the floor' team. I also think it is possible Bayless could someday be that "PG", but he's at least a couple of years away from that. As for me, I think we need to take advantage of all running opportunities.
You keep SPECULATING that Bayless can't, I say he can and has shown reasons to believe he can, certainly overall as good or better than Blake who has simply been awful. If you don't give talent a chance to blossom why bother acquiring it?
That's a lot of conjecture to derive from a VERY limited sample size. You said Bayless can't play the pick and roll, but he's already done it once this season. In the Utah game he lofted a very nice pass to a rolling Oden in traffic that was caught and dunked. Blake NEVER does that and with playing time that would make Bayless wet himself. It's hard for me to take your opinion seriously when you base it on almost nothing but prediction and when you ignore entirely evidence that does exist.
Bottom line. There's a reason Bayless isn't playing much. He's not yet good enough. Yet. Period. When he shows he can play better in practice, we'll see him get moere minutes in the games. Until then, he'll sit. Lastly, I know a lot about the game- more then most of the kids around here. Played in HS, played in a league with numerouos NCAA players, and ref'd in OSAA. Bayless has some skills, but he's not there yet for the NBA. You can want him to play, and translate that 'want' into saying he oozes talent from every pore in his body, but wanting and getting are two different things.
"Bottom line. There's a reason Bayless isn't playing much. He's not yet good enough. Yet. Period. When he shows he can play better in practice, we'll see him get moere minutes in the games. Until then, he'll sit" Then why is Blake playing so much? He's played horribly and yet gotten a lot of minutes. What is the real "reason" for that"? Perhaps a coach that refuses to give a young player a decent chance and for some unknown reason stick to playin a guy like Blake who is playing so badly. It's beyond understanding.
Practice. We talkin' bout practice. Not a game. Practice. Maybe Blake is really good in practice. Not a game. Practice. What we talkin' about here? We talkin' about practice. barfo
Have you ever played with Bayless? I played basketball in HS and against future NCAA players. None of them were lottery level talents after their freshman seasons. Did you play against lottery level talents? Did you ref Kevin Love? Because he's the only prospect from Oregon who could be on par with Bayless. It's irrelevant anyway because I don't think any of your qualifiers make you a better judge of talent. Your argument that he'd be playing if he proved it in practice isn't a very good argument either. You don't know what he does in practice, so you cannot say whether or not he is deserving of PT in relation to the other PGs. To be fair, I've read nothing but glowing reports of what Bayless does in practice. I infer, also, that McMillan prefers to play Blake because he is comfortable with him. This, like your reasoning, is a close-minded approach to getting at the truth of what Bayless can do. Whatever. Have a good day.
