Play Chuck or not doesnt affect our stagnant choking offense in 4th quarter. It will only add to it when the opponents load up on Yao or T-Mac. It's kind of give or take. The coach has to put his bet on it.
The Orlando Magic actually employed "hack-a-Chuck" just to give Rashard Lewis some breathing room -- and he promptly tied the game as soon as Chuck was out. Even fans who get to see Chuck every night still underestimate his defense. By the numbers, he *is* an elite defender at his position. He's right up there with the Cambys and the Garnetts in terms of how much his defensive skill impacts the team.
Hayes is a good defender, but he is undersized. He is like a shorter, inferior version of Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman. It's hard to believe he is going to improve much the rest of his career because his shooting form is SO bad. Right now he will win us more games, but in the long run it is hard to see us ever being contenders as long as he is our best option. Of course if we don't start winning more now we won't even make the play offs...
I was going to add ... during that Sixers game, I couldn't for the life of me understand why Adelman kept Chuck benched throughout that 4th quarter especially when we were giving up layup after layup. We needed a defensive boost BADLY and Chuck was just there riding the pine. A combination of Brooks and Hayes would have added enough speed and team defense to stop the fast break bleeding.
Come on, I love Chuck Hayes as a defender, but "Hack-A-chuck" was not used to get Hayes off the court. He is not that fearsome of a defensive presence. It was used because chuck is a horrible free throw shooter and hacking Chuck would ultimately get them back in the game quicker. If I was a coach I would do the same thing too.
Ben Wallace is as overrated as Chuck is underrated. He's a slightly better rebounder due to his height, but that's about it. His free throw shooting is just as bad, his jump shot is nonexistent and his defensive abilities (post, perimeter, team/help defense) are all inferior to Chuck's.
Adelman not playing Hayes in the 4th quarter was because he wants to give another offensive presence inside the painted area with scola. scola is not as great of a defender as hayes at this point, but he is way better in offense. seeing how our guards have problems getting the ball to Yao with double and fronting. adelman figure the guards will lop it to scola. our guards loss the game, period.
i mentioned this in another thread yesterday. to me this is the most important thing i heard during the interview. if next year the league starts to tilt the rules back towards where they were, by this alone our team will probably win a few more games because of yao.
Chuck IS an elite defender. The best coaches, GMs and scouts in the league say so. It isn't even debatable unless your definition of "elite" is different from everyone else's.
and yes, hayes is a great defender, but his offense is near non-existent (i don't care about the screens he sets for teammates, as even i can do it). scola is an average defender but very good on offense. hayes - defense 10 + offense 1 = 11 scola defense 6 + offense 8 = 14 too simple but you get my point - scola should start and play more minutes.
I disagree with this. The fast breaks that did occur would not have been stopped by Chuck Hayes being on the court. The incessant turnovers were what let them back in the game and let them continue to beat up on us. I think we had 9 TOS that quarter alone.
I would typically agree with this... but the thing was.. SVG did it with how much time left? We are not talking possession for FT here... mainly because it was the first team foul of the quarter. My theory.. and you can say whatever you want because I have the moniker of Hayesfan... is that Lewis said something along the lines of "Coach, Hayes is hanging on me like a bad suit" and Stan said.. "hmmm maybe I can get him off of you... go out and intentionally foul him maybe Adelman is too shortsighted to see he should be on the court defensively and take him out for fear we will put him on the FT line" I could just be overanalyzing, but I can't think of any reason why you do that unless you want the guy of the court. Wouldn't you want him on the court at the end of the game so you can foul him if it gets close.. cause you know he can't shoot them. Maybe I am too logical in that assumption.
Do They really? Do THEY? Where is his all team defensive award? Wouldn't an undersized elite defender come close to winning DPOY if he caused that much terror? You guys are drinking some strong Kool Aid
Well ... the fact is, as soon as Chuck was taken out, the Magic went on a run, and Rashard who had been cold the ENTIRE game scored like 5 straight points. *That* was why Adelman was forced to reinsert Chuck, and had he not been draped all over Shard like a winter blanket that driving jumpshot would've gone in, forcing overtime.
Honestly, if Rafer and Head continue to make those "spectacular" passes to the opponents, no superstar defenders can help. It's just like making back passes or bad passes to your opponent in soccer. Any team who make such passes would be made to pay dearly especially consecutive bad passes. I have seen it in soccer, in football (if you throw is intercepted), in rugby and in water polo. If you made sloppy passes straight to the opponent who will definitely mount a quick counter attack, well the results GOAL!!, TOUCHDOWN! whetever, is the outcome.
They do! I don't know. I like the fruit punch flavor. Again, maybe your definition of "elite" is different from many of us.
Okay, I can try and imagine that, but would you as a coach leave chuck in the game knowing that this strategy will occur. Knowing that you would have each possession come down to a historically bad free throw shooter maybe making one free throw each time. Your lead could easily evaporate in just a few possessions. A rival coach would employ this strategy to break up your opponent's offensive rhythm, "cool down" hot players on the other team, and allow time basically to plan each attack. Sorry, I still don't see getting Chuck out of the game because he is a defensive stopper as a reason to foul him on purpose. Wouldn't the coach also want Chuck in the game because he adds very little to the other team's offense?
