NBA Champion Tom Thibodeau on Charles Edward Hayes Jr.

Nice.

 

I think it's a very weak comparison. You spend a lot of time analyzing Bowen's role on the Spurs, but no time saying why Chuck is "effective" in Houston. Also, you fail to mention that Bowen starts, while Hayes is now 3rd string. This leads me to my next question: If he's so valuable then why is he our 3rd string PF?

The only reason he started and got mins last season was because both Scola and Landry were unproven rookies who were adjusting to the NBA game. Once they got comfortable Chuck was relegated to the bench. Again, I see him as nothing more than a 3rd string back-up.

Because I'm sure somebody here would've pointed it out. If you know anything that the rest of us don't know, please enlighten us. I'm pretty sure the reason that nothing has been posted regarding other teams being interested in Hayes is because there is no real interest. It's just one way to determine a player's value or lack there of in this case. I do hope we can move him and get something decent in return, but I'm not expecting much. He'll just be a filler in a package deal if anything.

 

becuase once youve been on the board for a while you've pretty much got this NBA thing figured out.

 

I've posed that question around 3 times already. The pro-Hayes crowd will just ignore it and rave on about how he is one of the leagues top defenders and oh so valuable....even though he rides the pine behind two average PF's. I could see if we had Elton Brand or something......

 

There is no doubt that he is the 3rd string PF,but Luis gets in quick foul trouble,and Carl also needs to get better on the defensive end. Hayes can still give some valuable minutes. There is no doubt that offensively, we become a 4 out of 5 team,and sometimes a 3 out of 5 team as well with Rafer/Battier/Hayes,but it's not as bad as when Juwan was there by himself.

I'm sure a lot of us would like Brand but we can't get him as you have said.

 

I could have sworn there were videos of Chuck hitting jumpshots in college (without that nasty hitch). Whoever coached him between college and now should be fired.

 

Really, trying to describe Chuck is hard to do, considering that I cant recall any other 6'6" power forwards other than Barkley. He is a third string PF now, but I wouldn't really say he's "valuable"... more like he has value. He's a third stringer because of the simple reason that Scola and Landry are better than him. While I would say Chuck has better defense than the two of them, Luis and Carl have a better balance of offense and defense which is why they're ahead of him.

Where Chuck has value is that he can be a specialty defender if we face the likes of Carlos Boozer or Tim Duncan, etc. And he can an effective "extra body", considering that we don't want to wear out Yao or Scola on defense. Like I said in a previous post, Chuck doesn't have to play big minutes or even has to play every game. He's a nice veteran player who can come in if called upon and you know what you're gonna get from him: defense, rebounds, energy. And if injuries come about (which normally does), Chuck is a guy who can play more minutes and won't decrease the team's production (see what he did during the streak). He knows the players on this team, he knows how to play in the offense, he knows how to play in the defense. I would say he's a good player for the price we're paying him. Chuck is by no means a player who makes or breaks this Rockets team; he's just a role player who knows how to contribute.

 

there is a reason why chuck was not drafted.

there is also a reason why chuck signed his current contract at a certain price tag.

 

There's also a reason why the Rockets signed him.

 

lol...so chucks a frickin anomoly...........


so let me get this straight...........hes a walkin contradiction.....lol

hilarious...poor chuck

good guy, bad player, good player..........lol

<a href="http://smileyjungle.com"><img src="http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/confused12.gif" border="0"></a>

 

Dorsey is going for center minutes. And if you want to bring up someone potentially even more of a drain on offense than Hayes, he might be your guy (I think Dorsey was like a 40% FT shooter),

1st of all, right now we only have one of those two signed right now. And if we get the other one signed, we have to see if he can play more than a half season without being injured and gets his athleticism back. We also have a starting center without a great health record. Not many teams have a 3rd PF who can step in and be an effective player.

It would be great if Chuck Hayes only sees limited minutes next year. That would be a good thing, because that would mean we have really good (and really healthy) bigs across the board. None of that means Hayes doesn't belong in this league however, or wouldn't improve most NBA teams bench. Right now, in our health situation and contract situation, it is nice to know Chuck Hayes is a Houston Rocket.

 

Name some players that have significantly improved their defense. I can assure you the list is much shorter than the list of players that have improved their offense.

 

I love Chuck...but the writing is on the wall for Chuck after Joey was drafted...

 

Kind of a pointless question, since there are no good stats(short of the geeky kind that half the board hates) which can depict defense well.

For example, Lebron improved a lot on defense over the years, but how many people actually bother pointing that out? When they can point to Lebron's ppg/rpg/apg/clutch-shots/etc.

 

Regarding Dorsey replacing Hayes...

1. Dorsey will probably be playing a significant portion of his minutes at the 5
2. Dorsey hasn't played a minute in the NBA so saying he's going to replace rotation player is a bit premature.

 

Wow youre right. What was I thinking? Chuck should be an allstar!

Dude jsut admit that you everstated youre case and whent way overboard on your assesment of Hayes. Yourestarting to make youreself look foolish. :ROLLEYES:

I bet I have watched twice as many games as you have. I hae probably missed a totol of 5 or 6 games since we drafted Ralph Sampson. Let me tell you what I see. I see an undersized PF that plays above average D for his size. A guy who will get you hustle rebounds and a strip or 2 every now and then. However he will get consistanty shot over by the taller PF's and is so horrible on offense that he is actually left unguarded because teams know he will miss a very high percentage of his shots outside of 5 feet of the basket and wiil miss a good share of his layupps as well. Thats what I see but hey what do I know according to you he is the next Bill Russel on defense.

 

As part of the pro-Hayes crowd, here's my response.

He is valuable in that even though he is the backup to the backup, the difference in production between him and the other two PFs is relatively small. So, if our PF rotation is Scola/Landry, if Scola were to get hurt, our rotation would be Landry/Hayes, which is far from the end of the world. In this case, the difference in production of 2nd PF rotation is the difference in production between Scola and Hayes, because basically its Scola out, Hayes in.

Why is this a significant point? Look at our point guard situation versus Utah this past season. Our typical PG rotation is Rafer/Jackson, which is respectable given our team structure. However, when Rafer went down, Jackson had to take Rafer's spot, and freakin' Aaron Brooks took Jackson's spot. In other words, we replaced Rafer with Brooks. That is a significant dropoff in production.

So, if this were a card game, our typical PF hierarchy is Queen, Ten, Nine. If our queen went down, the ten holds down the fort for the queen, and the nine is slotted for the ten. However, our typical PG hierarchy is Queen, Nine, Three. When our Queen went down (rafer), the Nine took the queen's place, but the freakin' three took the Nine's place. We can't afford that.

In summary, what's nice about Chuck Hayes as our third stringer is how he's fairly interchangeable in case of emergency (PF or C), and that he does this on a very very cheap contract. There aren't many other ways to spend 2 million dollars for a player of his production value. Ignoring the overpaid stromile, Darko, Kwame, the most similar player to Hayes' production is Joel Przbylla. His stats are similar to Hayes, just a bit more rebounds, blocks, but less steals, except he gets paid 4 million more dollars.

Cliff's notes: Hayes is paid small, but plays big. He's the anti Ben Wallace.

 

Agreed completely.

He's arguably the best defender on this team. Only one who might be better is Shane Battier. That fact alone makes him one of the VERY best defenders in the NBA.