[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

You can see why people wanted Bayless at 6 when he dropped
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
7/21/2008  2:30 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by newyorknewyork:

If Bayless was drafted by the Knicks, what role would have have on the team?

He would be the best guard--we dont have good guards--our frontcourt is way better than our backcourt. He would give us the guy who can penetrate and move the ball up quickly and hit the open J and a higher rate than our chuckers can.

I don't see that being worth using our #6 pick on especially from a value standpoint.

I don't see Bayless as a player that we can't find in future drafts in the mid to late to 2nd rd. Gilbert Arenas, Monta Ellis, Delonte West, Leanardo Barbosa, Louis Williams, Mario Chambers, Rajon Rondo, Nate Robinson, Jordan Farmer, Daniel Gibson, Tony Parker all were mid to late to 2nd rders.

His potential as a high level passer & if he has leadership qualities is what I would be looking at from Bayless at #6.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
AUTOADVERT
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/21/2008  3:09 PM
Posted by fishmike:

did anyone hear say Bayless cant play? I think everyone in the world knows he can score. The debate (about his value) revolves around his size and his ability to play PG. He's 6'2 and about 185 pounds. How many winning NBA have shooting guards that size? Maybe he can be taught PG? Like Monta Ellis can be taught? I dont know.. but is this guy a building block player at pick 6? Knick management see's Gallinari as a building block player.. whether its at the 3 or 4. A 6'10 guy that can score from anywhere with PG skills.

Only time will tell... Gallo might be the next John Wallace. Look at him score.. and thats all he does. I dont know, but Briggs I am getting this sense from you that Walsh made a huge mistake picking Gallo over Bayless and that seems horribly premature. Add to that Nate Robinson. Is Bayless better than Nate right now? Does he have more upside? Nate could really have a break out year under DAntoni.. why draft Bayless when there are equally good options in other areas?

Fishmike--I was just taking Walsh at his word in terms of this being a sfae type pick--somethingt hat cant go wrong the importance of the pick--then we draft a project player 6th who may haev had a pre-exsisting medical condition? Obviously there are different players that I wouldve taken but for this style of play doing what is right in terms of safety for the franhcise then you pick Bayless. If I wanted to go where I wanted to go then it wouldve been randolph I wouldve never picked gallinari--but the safe solid pick was Bayless and I think that is why Knicks fans were upset at the draft--not at Gallinari but at the Knicks
RIP Crushalot😞
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/21/2008  4:49 PM
I'm not sure I see why Bayless is safer than Gallinari. Gallo can shoot, is tough, has PG skills and played at a high level against grown men. Not NBA men but men nonetheless. He demonstrated toughness and produced. This was NOT a Skita/Lampe/Darko type pick where you had a Euro player who was good in youth leagues but otherwise totally untested but "uber skilled". Gallo's toughness has been tested and he has produced.

Also remember little to no guard defense is played in the summer leagues. The one guy who challenged Bayless (who came up small in big games) with NBA caliber defense was Westbrook, and Bayless looked like a MUCH different player when pressured. Bayless on the Knicks is a redundant score first small combo guard. Again... why not just let Nate take that job? You said Collins deserved the chance to compete for a job.. why doesnt Nate?
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/21/2008  4:52 PM
people were upset because nobody knew anything about Gallo. I wanted Alexander/Love/Westbrook (assuming Mayo was not an option). I didnt want Bayless because of the above reasons. I hated Eric Gordon and Lopez and knew nothing about Gallo so I really just didnt have an opinion there. I would have prefered Alexander but Gallo looks safer because of the skill level.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
playa2
Posts: 34922
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 5/15/2003
Member: #407
7/21/2008  5:07 PM
Posted by fishmike:

people were upset because nobody knew anything about Gallo. I wanted Alexander/Love/Westbrook (assuming Mayo was not an option). I didnt want Bayless because of the above reasons. I hated Eric Gordon and Lopez and knew nothing about Gallo so I really just didnt have an opinion there. I would have prefered Alexander but Gallo looks safer because of the skill level.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/news/story?page=DraftVideo-Beasley
I gave everyone a chance to see the lottery picks and some, you had a glimpse of what everyone could do so........

JAMES DOLAN on Isiah : He's a good friend of mine and of the organization and I will continue to solicit his views. He will always have strong ties to me and the team.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
7/21/2008  7:24 PM
Posted by fishmike:

I'm not sure I see why Bayless is safer than Gallinari. Gallo can shoot, is tough, has PG skills and played at a high level against grown men. Not NBA men but men nonetheless. He demonstrated toughness and produced. This was NOT a Skita/Lampe/Darko type pick where you had a Euro player who was good in youth leagues but otherwise totally untested but "uber skilled". Gallo's toughness has been tested and he has produced.

Also remember little to no guard defense is played in the summer leagues. The one guy who challenged Bayless (who came up small in big games) with NBA caliber defense was Westbrook, and Bayless looked like a MUCH different player when pressured. Bayless on the Knicks is a redundant score first small combo guard. Again... why not just let Nate take that job? You said Collins deserved the chance to compete for a job.. why doesnt Nate?

I pretty much asked that same questions. Guys are wetting their pants about bayless scoring 36 points in SL, but nate scored 45 in a NBA game vs bayless current team, yet most in this forum brushed it off as a meaningless regular season knick game... LOL.. go figure...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/21/2008  7:25 PM
Posted by playa2:
Posted by fishmike:

people were upset because nobody knew anything about Gallo. I wanted Alexander/Love/Westbrook (assuming Mayo was not an option). I didnt want Bayless because of the above reasons. I hated Eric Gordon and Lopez and knew nothing about Gallo so I really just didnt have an opinion there. I would have prefered Alexander but Gallo looks safer because of the skill level.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/news/story?page=DraftVideo-Beasley
I gave everyone a chance to see the lottery picks and some, you had a glimpse of what everyone could do so........
so.... so what? You tube video's dont mean crap amigo.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/21/2008  8:05 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by fishmike:

I'm not sure I see why Bayless is safer than Gallinari. Gallo can shoot, is tough, has PG skills and played at a high level against grown men. Not NBA men but men nonetheless. He demonstrated toughness and produced. This was NOT a Skita/Lampe/Darko type pick where you had a Euro player who was good in youth leagues but otherwise totally untested but "uber skilled". Gallo's toughness has been tested and he has produced.

Also remember little to no guard defense is played in the summer leagues. The one guy who challenged Bayless (who came up small in big games) with NBA caliber defense was Westbrook, and Bayless looked like a MUCH different player when pressured. Bayless on the Knicks is a redundant score first small combo guard. Again... why not just let Nate take that job? You said Collins deserved the chance to compete for a job.. why doesnt Nate?

I pretty much asked that same questions. Guys are wetting their pants about bayless scoring 36 points in SL, but nate scored 45 in a NBA game vs bayless current team, yet most in this forum brushed it off as a meaningless regular season knick game... LOL.. go figure...

Nate's a good little player but I don't see how people are comparing one and other because they won SL MVP. First off Bayless is only 19 a legit 6 inches taller than nate and 30-40 pounds heavier--completely two different players.
RIP Crushalot😞
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/21/2008  8:06 PM
If Bayless could play point he would've went top 10. He can score, but there's a reason we weren't the only team in the top 10 that passed on him.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
7/21/2008  8:40 PM
Nate's a good little player but I don't see how people are comparing one and other because they won SL MVP. First off Bayless is only 19 a legit 6 inches taller than nate and 30-40 pounds heavier--completely two different players.

Nate Robinson 5'9" 180 pounds,

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/nate_robinson/

Jerryd Bayless 6'.75" 200 LBs according to NBA combine
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/DX-Measurements-Combine-Database-Expanded-Significantly-2930/

C'mon with the hyperbole BRIGSS!

oohah



Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/21/2008  9:06 PM
there you go... 3 inches and 20 pounds and I bet Nate is twice as strong as he is. Whoop de doo.

And yea.. they are different players but their ROLES are EXACTLY the same. 6 feet and under scorers lacking PG skills. Why add another? I like Nate, but one is enough.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/21/2008  9:08 PM
Posted by oohah:
Nate's a good little player but I don't see how people are comparing one and other because they won SL MVP. First off Bayless is only 19 a legit 6 inches taller than nate and 30-40 pounds heavier--completely two different players.

Nate Robinson 5'9" 180 pounds,

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/nate_robinson/

Jerryd Bayless 6'.75" 200 LBs according to NBA combine
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/DX-Measurements-Combine-Database-Expanded-Significantly-2930/

C'mon with the hyperbole BRIGSS!

oohah

Nates 5-9 in your dreams--hes lucky to be 5-7

Bayless was measured at 6.175 in bare feet 6-3 204
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/

give it up
RIP Crushalot😞
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/21/2008  9:10 PM
Bayless is still really short for a shooting guard.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/21/2008  9:41 PM
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Nate-Robinson-67/

Nate's 5'8... with shoes (NBA adds 1.5) thats 5'9

Doesnt matter... Neither guy is tall enough to start at SG in the NBA and Nate is much stronger.

Different player, same role.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
7/21/2008  9:52 PM
Nates 5-9 in your dreams--hes lucky to be 5-7

Bayless was measured at 6.175 in bare feet 6-3 204
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/

give it up

I heard Bayless was really 6'7" 292 of solid bulldog muscle, measured a 98" vertical leap and bench presses 1200LB 50 times --> one-handed.

Meanwhile Galinari is actually 6'4", jumps 6.7 inches, and succeeded in bench pressing the bar without any weight 3 times.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/21/2008  10:54 PM
Posted by fishmike:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Nate-Robinson-67/

Nate's 5'8... with shoes (NBA adds 1.5) thats 5'9

Doesnt matter... Neither guy is tall enough to start at SG in the NBA and Nate is much stronger.

Different player, same role.

Bayless is better than any Knick guard point blank imho--you can have a difference of opinion--you can believe 5-6 inches of height for a guard is no big deal and nate and bayless are essentially the same player--if that is what you believe.
RIP Crushalot😞
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
7/21/2008  11:04 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Nate-Robinson-67/

Nate's 5'8... with shoes (NBA adds 1.5) thats 5'9

Doesnt matter... Neither guy is tall enough to start at SG in the NBA and Nate is much stronger.

Different player, same role.

Bayless is better than any Knick guard point blank imho--you can have a difference of opinion--you can believe 5-6 inches of height for a guard is no big deal and nate and bayless are essentially the same player--if that is what you believe.

you see briggs, this is where you lose me with stuff like that... what makes bayless better, considering he has not played one NBA game.. Honestly, I am willing to bet he isn't better at the point than jamal is... Nate already scored 45 points in a nBA game, vs the blazers, nates first year or maybe second in the league, he went head to head with his idod Iverson and dropped like 34 points... nate can play, and I am quite sure he is every bit the scorer bayless will be... Nate has pro numbers to prove he can score big... all you have are personal aopinions of what bayless will do...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/22/2008  12:25 AM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]Posted by fishmike:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Nate-Robinson-67/

Nate's 5'8... with shoes (NBA adds 1.5) thats 5'9

Doesnt matter... Neither guy is tall enough to start at SG in the NBA and Nate is much stronger.

Different player, same role.

Bayless is better than any Knick guard point blank imho--you can have a difference of opinion--you can believe 5-6 inches of height for a guard is no big deal and nate and bayless are essentially the same player--if that is what you believe.

you see briggs, this is where you lose me with stuff like that... what makes bayless better, considering he has not played one NBA game.. Honestly, I am willing to bet he isn't better at the point than jamal is... Nate already scored 45 points in a nBA game, vs the blazers, nates first year or maybe second in the league, he went head to head with his idod Iverson and dropped like 34 points... nate can play, and I am quite sure he is every bit the scorer bayless will be... Nate has pro numbers to prove he can score big... all you have are personal aopinions of what bayless will do...

oh tkf--you think nate and bayless are the same talents--lets find out during the season. ill bet you a hamburger that you may be a tad off.
RIP Crushalot😞
playa2
Posts: 34922
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 5/15/2003
Member: #407
7/22/2008  6:34 AM
Nate robinson has one thing going against him (the thing that sits on his shoulders)

So to compare him to Bayless is silly.

Bayless will be a cut between tony parker and mike bibby.
JAMES DOLAN on Isiah : He's a good friend of mine and of the organization and I will continue to solicit his views. He will always have strong ties to me and the team.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/22/2008  8:01 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by fishmike:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Nate-Robinson-67/

Nate's 5'8... with shoes (NBA adds 1.5) thats 5'9

Doesnt matter... Neither guy is tall enough to start at SG in the NBA and Nate is much stronger.

Different player, same role.

Bayless is better than any Knick guard point blank imho--you can have a difference of opinion--you can believe 5-6 inches of height for a guard is no big deal and nate and bayless are essentially the same player--if that is what you believe.
how many times do I have to say it? differnt players same roles. Bayless will look like a squirrel against NBA guards on a nightly basis. He is not a strong player. He's a skinny fast player. Maybe he's a poor man's Monta Ellis. Every year you see undersized shooting guards that were great college players being touted.. how many are in the league and playing at a high level? 2? 3?

Briggs.. all through the NBA finals your going on and on about size and toughness. So we took a forward with a reputation for being a tough guy that doesnt back down and your pissed we passed on a 6'2 shooting guard? I dont get it

If this is the level of patience Knick fans are going to show with draft picks than we really should just trade them for NBA vets

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
You can see why people wanted Bayless at 6 when he dropped
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy