The people here always need someone to complain about... when I first got here.. it was Ryan Bowen, then Juwan, when he started doing well when Yao was out, it was Rafer... I am sure the list won't end here... Eventually, it will be Chuck, unless Steve Francis or Mike James starts out the season with an attitude problem. Then they can be the "scapegoat". Chuck was given his role last year by Van Gundy and he did what he was told. End of story. Scola has more natural talent, obviously, but you Chuck haters really would have detested our performance last year without him. This year he will do the same thing, whatever Rick Adelman tells him to do. If you have five people on the court together that need to have the ball in their hands to create its going to be a long, and probably losing, night. Chuck has limitations, but that doesn't mean he is a huge liability on the offensive end of the court. Hopping back on topic, Scola shows a definite high bball IQ and some very nice passing and offensive skills. I didn't think he was horrible on defense, but he wasn't great either. I am actually looking forward to the next group of games, because I can't see either Mexico or Panama being too much of a challenge for the Argentina team.
Yes and that stat claimed Rafer Alston was part of that. Case closed on that stat IMO. As to Chuck himself, he's great as a backup PF. As long as he does what he does best and keeps within himself then as 15 minutes of the bench he's great. No complaints at all from me. But the way Van Gundy used him was absolutely absurd. Having him as your starting PF in a playoff series in the Western Conference and playing big minutes and against a front line like Kirilenko/Boozer/Okur is completely stupid. He shouldn't get more than 15 minutes a game in that situation. I'm not comparing him to Rafer because Rafer just had a bad year last year no matter how you look at it, but in the cases of both JVG clearly was a fan boy and not rational with how he judged them or used them. Chuck to me is great as the backup PF for D and rebounding but he HURT the team last year period. You couldn't win a playoff series in the West with him as your starting PF it's that simple. So what happened last year is not to his or Rafer's credit, it is to Yao's and especially T-Mac's (because Yao was out so much) credit that they managed to do so much despite the crap at PG and PF. The team won despite Rafer and Hayes being starters. Yet we have some fabs arguing the team won partly because of Rafer or Chuck or both. Not at all, the stars had to do so much just because the worst starters in the whole league were at PG/PF. Really Hayes should be 12-15 minutes backup PF.
As opposed to what? You think we had a better chance with Juwan starting? Did you follow the team at all last season? And yet, we were a couple minutes from doing exactly that, even when Yao, T-Mac, Luther, Rafer, and Juwan all underperformed on offense. And you want to somehow pin the whole thing on Chuck and say we can't win a playoff series with him? That doesn't make sense. It only makes sense to say we won "in spite of a player" if that player is worse than your average player at that position. I consider Chuck to be an above average PF in terms of on-court effectiveness, though perhaps a below-average starting PF. Did his limitations hurt the team? Yes, but you could say that about every player. Battier's limitations also hurt the team. You could even say that about T-Mac and Yao. But I think Chuck very clearly helped us more than he hurt us.
I'm optimistic on Scola but it's hard to evaluate him against this level of talent. Even when he plays the U.S. it's hard to say (look at VSPAN). Certainly once in the NBA he'll face scouting and defenses that will adjust to take away his strengths. Also, we haven't seen him against the physical large NBA bodies he will play against. It will be interesting to see.
Why do so many people here assume what someone is saying? Where did I say Van Gundy should have played Juwan more? See this is why so many people here have never heard of the term logical debate. Just because Howard was the backup Pf does not change the fact that Hayes is not good enough as the starting Pf and that it did hurt the Rockets having him as the starter. Just because Juwan was even worse does not change the other truth. But yet someone like you will always use things that don't even matter in arguments. It's really quite insulting IMO. It's an underhanded tactic and reeks of politics.
This is what you said: "Having him as your starting PF in a playoff series in the Western Conference and playing big minutes and against a front line like Kirilenko/Boozer/Okur is completely stupid." If there is no alternative, is it logical to say that a decision to start Chuck was "completely stupid"? You're just repeating yourself, without addressing any of the points I made. Uh huh.
You didn't make a point, you have no point. You don't even get it. Just because a player sucks less than another player does not make him a legit starter. That however is your "point."
Things you haven't responded to: Continue to ignore these points, if you like. I'm happy to end the discussion. BTW, you remind me of a past poster. Did you used to post here under a different name?
Why not JH and Chuck play together last year. I think they can go small and play Chuck as a Center an run. They did good last year. Chuck played defense to player like Duncan and did good. When teams go small, like Dallas when they play Dirk as a center or GS, Pheonix, etc. They can go small with Chuck and Scola problaby 5 to 8 min per game, when Yao is not playing.
No but I read the board since 2002. Look durvasa, I AGREE Chuck is a good backup PF how many times I have to say that? I just am insulted when someone insults my intelligence like you did. You did it and you know you did it. Then you act all full of it. Chuck Hayes is not good enough to start at PF in the West in the playoffs. It's true, we all know it. Is he good enough to get 15-20 minutes of PT off the bench? Of course he is. Now you jump in with, hey there's Juwan behind him. You see this my friend, this is a very insulting and underhanded tactic that is used by people. It's called POLITICS. If you want to get much further in life take my advice, drop the political BS. No one here is arguing Juwan should have started or gotten more PT, or at least I haven't seen anyone, I surely am not. You are taking two things that are different issues and using it for some argument to be created out of thin air. Apparently, it doesn't sit right with you that the team had bad PF's so you can always use the "hey but Juwan was the other guy" card. See I never said anything about Juwan. It's absolutely astonishing that with these types of tactics and posts people wonder why the term "JVG lover" appeared.
There's no reason either one could play C in a small lineup. In fact it would probably be good against the Suns.
If all you said was that Chuck Hayes isn't good enough to be start for us this season, I would have no reason to bring up Juwan. But that's NOT what you said. You said it was "completely stupid" to allow him to be starter for us last year. That implies making him the starter last season was a bad decision -- i.e. there was a better alternative. What was that alternative, if not Juwan Howard? I don't know how much more directly I can ask that question. You're pissed off that I brought up Juwan, but there's a good reason for it: Isn't it natural to infer that you think JVG shouldn't have started him last season? And doesn't that beg the question -- who should have started instead?
I really liked what I saw from Scola. I think he really has most the good qualities of a little bit younger Howard and Najera rolled into one. Excellent midrnage, plays to his strengths, smart player, hustles, and sneaky get under your opponents skin and get away with it kind of thing. This makes a good thing and a mjor contributer. But I have concerns. 1) I think he will really get in foul trouble. First he is really going to have to adjust to what is allowed in terms of NBA picks. He is going to get a lot of offensive fouls early on, but he should be able to adjust over time because he is BB smart and a competitor. Second, defensively I see he getting lots of fouls (point 2). 2) I think he will be far less athletic than most NBA 4s he face and will be defensively subpar. He is going to deal with guys who can jump out of the gym, and who many of whom will be stronger than him too. He is going to have trouble with positional defense, and with recover. (But like Najera I think he will gamble and get some steals and irritate opponents to his benefit) Personally I'd like to see Scola get about 26-28 MPG and Chuck about 20-22 MPG. I don't see either playing anything but PF. Neither big enough or a shotblocking presence to back up C and neither is remotely an SF (plus we are stacked there). I would prefer Chuck to start because this will help both Scola and Yao (not picking up on fouls on Scola's man blew by, overpowered, or where Scola gambled) stay out of foul trouble. I also think Scola could really do more damage after Chuck has made the opposing PFs soften up a little bit and Scola can clean up the back-ups and wearing starters. Also, by starting Chuck than you can be sure to have a fresh and hopefully out of foul trouble Scola to finish. My position is this right now. I think the offense already will get an extra punch from James/Francis starting at the PG and with Adelman, so save Scola a little bit. But maybe Scola will adapt to the NBA faster than I think.
durvasa I don't have issue with you. But you use bait and switch a lot here. You are the best one here at it. It doesn't work with me, accept it.
What switch are you talking about? When I brought up Juwan, it was in response to this quote: I don't think I ever disguised that. If I'm to believe what you say here, than JVG should not have started Chuck last year. Or is that the wrong interpretation? Are you going to clarify what you meant by that, retract it, or continue to be evasive? And if you choose the third option, who's Mr. Politician here?
EEUU is the USA. It stands for Estados Unidos de America. It looks strange because the E and U are doubled.
For some reason...I don't think he will start at the first of the season...but he will be by the game 30-45. I think he may end up as 3 or 4th best player on the team with few 20 and 30 pt. games.... We looked like one of those Trailblazer teams from few years ago. I hope it pans out.
You are not being overly optimistic, it is just that adelman may want to start chucky instead, so that he has more offensive production when he subs. think about it, if mutombo is subbing for yao, who would you want next to him, scola or hayes?
