# Barrett about to talk about the first practice



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Just an FYI. He is on the Game right now, and is going to talk about the first summer league practice and how everyone looked. 

He is only a member of the media, so take it as such. This should not be taken as fact in any way


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

The only thing I don't like about MB, is that he LOVES everyone on the team ... I'm not saying he can't be objective(ish), but I'm not exactly expecting to hear anything ground-breaking.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

nikolokolus said:


> The only thing I don't like about MB, is that he LOVES everyone on the team ... I'm not saying he can't be objective(ish), but I'm not exactly expecting to hear anything ground-breaking.



You definately have to take what he says with a grain of salt. The one thing I listen for is the slightest bit of criticism for a player. If Barrett says a player struggled a bit, it probably means he stunk it up


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

mediocre man said:


> You definately have to take what he says with a grain of salt. The one thing I listen for is the slightest bit of criticism for a player. If Barrett says a player struggled a bit, it probably means he stunk it up


LOL. Kind of like his assessment of Sergio right around the 7 O'clock hour


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

He's also a Blazer employee... so I wouldn't really consider him media.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Bayless Summary:

Loved his shot
Loved his ball handling skills
Picked up on the easy offensive sets
Didn't change his form on his 3's (important)
Thinks he can easily play off the ball as well as with it


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Paxil said:


> He's also a Blazer employee... so I wouldn't really consider him media.



No rational person really would. But it's not like it's coming from KP's mouth


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Just an FYI. He is on the Game right now, and is going to talk about the first summer league practice and how everyone looked.
> 
> He is only a member of the media, so take it as such. *This should not be taken as fact in any way*


Unlike a post from the Oregonlive forum. 

Thanks for the heads up. I was able to catch MB's report on Bayless.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Way to preface that MM haha. Yeah, I heard that as well. Good to hear about Bayless.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Only interesting part is the ball handling skills since that was a little bit of a question mark... even though he has played PG his entire life except when AZ had injuries. I watched the highlights of every game he played at AZ (yeah... too much time on my hands) and he can definitely fit in with out team. I think he can push the ball as good or better than Blake... he has more quickness and he is definitely a threat to finish unlike Blake. He can create his own shot unlike perhaps any current Blazer... with the possible exception of Roy and Outlaw... but I think he may already be the best at getting his own jumpshot... stops on a dime and shoots over anyone. All the times Rodriquez or Blake throw up shots at the end of the shotclock... well Bayless will eat those up.

Yep... he is a scoring PG. If you don't like your PGs to score (and I think Nate probably doesn't) then you may have a problem with him. But I think having a PG that is a threat like that... can be a good thing. At the least... I think he is a Damon Stoudamire type player... without the height issues. On another team if he started... like Damon... he could be ROY. For the Blazers... we will just have to see. If you try to change the type of player he is like with Rodriguez... he might not be so impressive. Nate will bring him along... I loved that Nate gave him a hug when they first met instead of a handshake. Family already.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Also said he felt both Batum and Koponen would be here this season. Felt if Koponen goes back he'd get a 4 or 5 yr deal and would be 24 before it is over which in his opinion would be to old to come over and start his NBA career. What does that say about Rudy?


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Also mentioned that even though the Suns and Boston have been in contact with Darius, he thinks it's realllllly unlikely that he gets on any team. His knee is just too bad.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Paxil said:


> Only interesting part is the ball handling skills since that was a little bit of a question mark... even though he has played PG his entire life except when AZ had injuries. I watched the highlights of every game he played at AZ (yeah... too much time on my hands) and he can definitely fit in with out team. I think he can push the ball as good or better than Blake... he has more quickness and he is definitely a threat to finish unlike Blake. He can create his own shot unlike perhaps any current Blazer... with the possible exception of Roy and Outlaw... but I think he may already be the best at getting his own jumpshot... stops on a dime and shoots over anyone. All the times Rodriquez or Blake throw up shots at the end of the shotclock... well Bayless will eat those up.
> 
> Yep... he is a scoring PG. If you don't like your PGs to score (and I think Nate probably doesn't) then you may have a problem with him. But I think having a PG that is a threat like that... can be a good thing. At the least... I think he is a Damon Stoudamire type player... without the height issues. On another team if he started... like Damon... he could be ROY. For the Blazers... we will just have to see. If you try to change the type of player he is like with Rodriguez... he might not be so impressive. Nate will bring him along... I loved that Nate gave him a hug when they first met instead of a handshake. Family already.


I think a Blazers PG is going to have to be a very serious scoring threat to be effective at all. Nobody is going to be rotating off Roy or Aldridge to defend Oden. If Martell / Outlaw / Batum are hitting 40% from 3, defenses aren't going to be rotating off Blazers SFs either. Martell hit 38% and Outlaw is hitting 39.6% from 3 last year. No reason for the Blazers to not believe they can plan on Webster and Trout consistently hitting 40% from 3 in a couple of years. (Batum hit 27-29% from 3... he needs a little more work). If defenses don't fear a Blazers PG ability to score, they are going to rotate off a Blazers PG to double team Oden every time Oden touches the ball. 

In order for the Blazers to go to the next level and go deep in the playoffs, the guy on the floor playing the PG slot has got to make defenses pay for rotating a double team off him. They don't have to have the whole pure PG skill set. They just need to be a ball handler on the fast break (which was the big hole in Jarrett Jack's skill set) and have good enough handles to bring the ball up the floor against a press and then hand off to Roy to set up the half-court offense.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Hephaestus said:


> I think a Blazers PG is going to have to be a very serious scoring threat to be effective at all. Nobody is going to be rotating off Roy or Aldridge to defend Oden. If Martell / Outlaw / Batum are hitting 40% from 3, defenses aren't going to be rotating off Blazers SFs either. Martell hit 38% and Outlaw is hitting 39.6% from 3 last year. No reason for the Blazers to not believe they can plan on Webster and Trout consistently hitting 40% from 3 in a couple of years. (Batum hit 27-29% from 3... he needs a little more work). If defenses don't fear a Blazers PG ability to score, they are going to rotate off a Blazers PG to double team Oden every time Oden touches the ball.
> 
> In order for the Blazers to go to the next level and go deep in the playoffs, the guy on the floor playing the PG slot has got to make defenses pay for rotating a double team off him. They don't have to have the whole pure PG skill set. They just need to be a ball handler on the fast break (which was the big hole in Jarrett Jack's skill set) and have good enough handles to bring the ball up the floor against a press and then hand off to Roy to set up the half-court offense.


Great post! For the most part I agree. Having a PG that is a scoring threat will help open thing up even more for the other players in our line-up (as if having Roy, Aldridge, Oden isn't enough). Can't wait for the season to start.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I hope Bayless isn't one of those guys like Clyde who have a harder time hitting open shots than guarded ones. =) You make a good point Hep... Blake didn't get any respect last year... and to his credit he hit open shots when left... and no one had to leave Jack... he wouldn't pass when he gets it into his mind to score. Bayless CAN run... we won't have a problem there... and teams will have to guard him because he can flat out score. His ability to penetrate will also cause defenses to collapse. Rodriguez got backed off of too... teams will have to guard Bayless.

As for Bayless not being a PG... I didn't see that at all. He passed up MANY shots for open team mates... including many where he already started to shoot and hit someone cutting.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

There is nothing wrong with a scoring point guard so as long as it's best for the team.


----------



## Bob Whitsitt (Jul 12, 2007)

Hephaestus said:


> I think a Blazers PG is going to have to be a very serious scoring threat to be effective at all. Nobody is going to be rotating off Roy or Aldridge to defend Oden. If Martell / Outlaw / Batum are hitting 40% from 3, defenses aren't going to be rotating off Blazers SFs either. Martell hit 38% and Outlaw is hitting 39.6% from 3 last year. No reason for the Blazers to not believe they can plan on Webster and Trout consistently hitting 40% from 3 in a couple of years. (Batum hit 27-29% from 3... he needs a little more work). If defenses don't fear a Blazers PG ability to score, they are going to rotate off a Blazers PG to double team Oden every time Oden touches the ball.
> 
> In order for the Blazers to go to the next level and go deep in the playoffs, the guy on the floor playing the PG slot has got to make defenses pay for rotating a double team off him. They don't have to have the whole pure PG skill set. They just need to be a ball handler on the fast break (which was the big hole in Jarrett Jack's skill set) and have good enough handles to bring the ball up the floor against a press and then hand off to Roy to set up the half-court offense.


Just reading this post makes me excited to watch this offense for the next few years. But I agree, I think we can be extremely effective if Bayless just plays a lot like Tony Parker except with a little less of the scoring focus placed on him. I really want to see how this all plays out, I'm honestly hoping Nate doesn't try to force him to just be a facilitator, because that'll be a waste of talent - it's just not what Bayless is. 

Just thinking about the fact that we have so much talent that other teams can't double-up our 7' #1 overall draft pick warms my heart in ways you cannot understand.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Balian said:


> There is nothing wrong with a scoring point guard so as long as it's best for the team.


Terry Porter was a good example of that.


----------



## odenisgod (Oct 28, 2007)

Yeah I hope bayless is not like clyde either. WTF??


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

If Bayless can have a career that mimicks Terry Porter.. I'd be ecstatic.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

alext42083 said:


> If Bayless can have a career that mimicks Terry Porter.. I'd be ecstatic.



Ha that is an understatement!:biggrin:


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

hasoos said:


> Ha that is an understatement!:biggrin:


No, we're talking about Jerryd here, not Ha.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

hoojacks said:


> No, we're talking about Jerryd here, not Ha.


You know I had completely blocked Ha out of my memory banks until you restored the link. Now I have to work on Ha not being there anymore. :biggrin:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Our PG needing to be able to score is Why IMO Blake really isn't a good fit int he starting rotation. Sure he shoots decently but he is hesitant to pull the trigger. SOmethig of note, Koponen is also a PG who scores. He was the 11th leading scorer in his league, all of the top 10 are former US College players.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I just want to ad to the Koponen thing a little. I realize that we could let him go back to Europe and sign a 4-5 year contract. The thing I see though is if he looks like he is going to be a significant player at either level and the Blazers really like him and think he has a future it is probably worth the expense and the roster spot to make sure he is here.If he goes over for 4-5 years and is definitely looking to be a NBA player, then he is also going to be looking at choosing between a much larger contract to stay in Europe or to put money low on the priority list and come to the US. Not every player is going to pull a Rudy and do that, and I don't think you can plan for that. So The Blazers IMO would be best served to simply sign him now, they could decline his team option after his 2nd year or simply buy him out if he isn't looking like he was worth the investment.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> You know I had completely blocked Ha out of my memory banks until you restored the link. Now I have to work on Ha not being there anymore. :biggrin:


I dare you to stare at his face for 10 seconds straight. Then try and go to sleep tonight. :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Felt if Koponen goes back he'd get a 4 or 5 yr deal and would be 24 before it is over which in his opinion would be to old to come over and start his NBA career. What does that say about Rudy?


Either there's a magic cutoff between age 23 and 24, or he wasn't really thinking clearly.

In any case, though... what about Manu? He was *25* when he came to the Spurs and that's worked out halfway decently for everyone involved...

Ed O.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

How old was Sabonis when we got him? Would you have preferred it if Whitsitt had said "screw it, he's past it now"?

How old was Kukoc when he came over?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> I dare you to stare at his face for 10 seconds straight. Then try and go to sleep tonight. :biggrin:


Crimson the Cat for the win!:biggrin:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Balian said:


> There is nothing wrong with a scoring point guard so as long as it's best for the team.



Agreed. I'm happy with a scoring PG as long as he's actually _scoring_ rather than bricking. Part of what makes Nash so effective is that guys can't cheat off of him. Same with Parker.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Bayless is starting to remind me more of Jason Terry.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

2k said:


> Bayless is starting to remind me more of Jason Terry.


What because he went to Arizona and was a guard? Comon!:biggrin:


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

ha is a god


----------



## DonCorleone (Jul 1, 2005)

Paxil said:


> I hope Bayless isn't one of those guys like Clyde who have a harder time hitting open shots than guarded ones. =)


If you believe some of the reports that leaked about workouts for various teams, Bayless made 30 NBA three-pointers in a row during his workout with the Knicks. Of course, that is a much different setting than an actual game, but I don't think anyone has to worry about his ability to make a good percentage of open shots once he becomes comfortable in the NBA. Needless to say, his shot mechanics are much better and more consistent than Clyde's.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Well I should think that answers the question about him being able to shoot when open. =) I know he can shoot fine when guarded... in fact like Roy he seems to be able to just jab step and shoot anytime he wants. Outlaw does that too I suppose but once he starts to shoot he can't react to anything else.

Mechanics don't matter so much if it goes in. Bayless does have a bit of a different shot... not silky smooth like Webster... but it isn't ugly.


----------

