In Hindsight: Jerryd Bayless

[Kabookalu]

He is the Jason Maxiell of PG's, much better as a starter, but not good enough to start.

I disagree with that, he's shown he can be a capable starter, it's whether or not he could be more of a playmaker than scorer. Which I think could have been possible if we were committed to him, given the strides that his fellow draftees have made as point guards Westbrook and Rose.

[sca]

Bayless had his chance in TO; did not fit in. Time to move on folks.

Geez, some of you must be really bad at break-ups...

When given playing time (30+ minutes) he's proven to provide a solid 17/7 with good fg and 3pt %, again, he was poorly used here and was not given a fair chance with Casey's love affair for Jose.

For the 82913rd time, this is BS.

Back-ups are given ample PT ONLY when they're playing well, which skews their PER36 stats. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Scase]

He is the Jason Maxiell of PG's, much better as a starter, but not good enough to start.

I disagree with that, he's shown he can be a capable starter, it's whether or not he could be more of a playmaker than scorer. Which I think could have been possible if we were committed to him, given the strides that his fellow draftees have made as point guards Westbrook and Rose.

They made the strides they did because they are better players period.

Again it's been 4 teams and the same story, these excuses are bordering on Bargnani excuses.

[Kabookalu]

For the 82913rd time, this is BS.

Back-ups are given ample PT ONLY when they're playing well. Why is this so hard to understand?

This is also BS. The majority of times he's played over 30 minutes is when he started where he would get those amount of minutes regardless if he was playing bad or not.

[Kabookalu]

They made the strides they did because they are better players period.

They're significantly better players because they were given the free reign of their team's point guard position and responded by improving their games. Bayless suffered the point guard killer Nate McMillan for two full years. When you have Andre Miller and Raymond Felton, two solid point guards going on record with how badly their coach has handled them, that's not a Bargnani excuse.

[Scase]

They made the strides they did because they are better players period.

They're significantly better players because they were given the free reign of their team's point guard position and responded by improving their games. Bayless suffered the point guard killer Nate McMillan for two full years. When you have Andre Miller and Raymond Felton, two solid point guards going on record with how badly their coach has handled them, that's not a Bargnani excuse.

Jose has been given free reign of this team's point guard position and he isn't Westbrook or Rose. Bayless wouldn't be either, you need to be realistic here. Would he be better with more time played? Yeah pretty much any player will be, it's not like it would make him a super star man let's be real here.

[Kabookalu]

Jose has been given free reign of this team's point guard position and he isn't Westbrook or Rose. Bayless wouldn't be either, you need to be realistic here. Would he be better with more time played? Yeah pretty much any player will be, it's not like it would make him a super star man let's be real here.

You think Jose has Bayless' talent level? And I wouldn't expect him to be a superstar, that's silly, but neither is Westbrook. However 15/7 is not unreasonable to expect from him, if things ever went in his favor.

[HEKTOR]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Lowry>Calderon>Bayless

'nuff said

[dTox]

Bayless had his chance in TO; did not fit in. Time to move on folks.

Geez, some of you must be really bad at break-ups...

When given playing time (30+ minutes) he's proven to provide a solid 17/7 with good fg and 3pt %, again, he was poorly used here and was not given a fair chance with Casey's love affair for Jose.

For the 82913rd time, this is BS.

Back-ups are given ample PT ONLY when they're playing well, which skews their PER36 stats. Why is this so hard to understand?

and for the 234923th time, this number isn't from his per36 stats, check what his averages are when he actually DID play 30+ minutes and then come back to me with answers rather than spewing stuff out with no research

[Morris_Shatford]

He is the Jason Maxiell of PG's, much better as a starter, but not good enough to start.

I disagree with that, he's shown he can be a capable starter, it's whether or not he could be more of a playmaker than scorer. Which I think could have been possible if we were committed to him, given the strides that his fellow draftees have made as point guards Westbrook and Rose.

What additional commitment did we need to make?

[dTox]

He is the Jason Maxiell of PG's, much better as a starter, but not good enough to start.

I disagree with that, he's shown he can be a capable starter, it's whether or not he could be more of a playmaker than scorer. Which I think could have been possible if we were committed to him, given the strides that his fellow draftees have made as point guards Westbrook and Rose.

What additional commitment did we need to make?

Not starting Calderon knowing that he didn't have much of a role on this team for the longterm, especially since he actually played better than Jose as a starter.

[Duffman100]

Ultimately, there's a difference between putting up good stats as a starter on a bad team and being an effective starter on a winning team.

[Kabookalu]

What additional commitment did we need to make?

It sounds like you think we already committed to him enough? I'd say that's far from the case. The team obviously recognized Bayless excelled more as a starter than a backup, and insisted on keeping him on the bench anyways in favor of a point guard whose been wholly ineffective as a starter for the past three seasons. Experimenting with him as a shooting guard and combo guard off the bench, any role BUT point guard, is anything but commitment.

[pkiskool]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Lowry>Calderon>Bayless

'nuff said

^This.

[dTox]

Ultimately, there's a difference between putting up good stats as a starter on a bad team and being an effective starter on a winning team.

Fair enough, but when you constantly have a losing team with the same starter as your pg, its fair to think that a change needs to be made no?

[Kabookalu]

Ultimately, there's a difference between putting up good stats as a starter on a bad team and being an effective starter on a winning team.

As much as I like him, I don't think that as of now he would be an effective starter on a winning team, but he could have been, I mean he was only 23 with us. If he was 30 like Mike James there would hardly be a whisper about him.

[dTox]

What additional commitment did we need to make?

It sounds like you think we already committed to him enough? I'd say that's far from the case. The team obviously recognized Bayless excelled more as a starter than a backup, and insisted on keeping him on the bench anyways in favor of a point guard whose been wholly ineffective as a starter for the past three seasons. Experimenting with him as a shooting guard and combo guard off the bench, any role BUT point guard, is anything but commitment.

Exactly, and this year we're trying to play that same damn pg as much as we can even if it means playing him at the two guard position.....this coach simply just doesn't get it

[Morris_Shatford]

As a general reply to the both comments;

We were something like 4 - 8 with him as a starter last season (?), granted we weren't exactly lighting the world on fire overall but we were not much better with Bayless starting and the first go around he lost his starting job after a three game stretch where he went 17/49 and lost three in a row.

His personal stats were much better as a starter; he tossed up 23 shots and 10 from long range to get himself to 30 points in a loss to the Wiz last season and 3 assists in a game where Kleiza, Johnson, and DeRozan were all shooting better then him, its tough when you are 6' 2" and have a hard time passing up shots to be significant in this league.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that if he was given the green-light to start he would have put up impressive numbers, but I don't think we would have won many games nor do I think he was our solution at the one long term, or anywhere better then Lowry.

Bayless is nothing more then a more talented version of the Omar Cook / Andre Barrett debate.

None of them where the solution, they just appeared a better option when compared to the other options on the team.

Was Bayless better then Jose?
Was Jose better then Bayless?

Who cares?

Neither is a starting PG on a winning team, they just a product of the type of discussions we need to have when our team is terrible.

[Kabookalu]

6 of those games were when he was playing as a shooting guard though.

[whatamoron]

They made the strides they did because they are better players period.

Again it's been 4 teams and the same story, these excuses are bordering on Bargnani excuses.[/quote]

It is obvious from your continuous diatribe, where as you repeatly restate your position without variance.
That you are incapable of comprehending the possibility that a Raptor team with Bayless at point guard, plus the financial resources to plug holes in other areas of weakness would be more competitive than the current team's composition.
Do you ever wonder what the Raptors would be like if they had held on to Kris Humphries and traded
Andrea Bargnani?