Oh, I think Hayes is often over praised and I wouldn't give him all the credit for that team. I think Fitch was a heck of a competitor as was Daniels, plus you had Bogans talent. Estil also had a career year making the most of his ability. My main point is I don't understand how that team fits in with the rest of the Tubby era. He seemed to kill the offensive ability and strangle the joy of nearly every player who came here. His recruiting while not Cal was not as bad as some people think. Wasn't he responsible for Patrick Patterson and Meeks or was that the name that shall not be mentioned? Plus Bogans, Prince, Rondo, Fitch, Hawkins, Daniels, Hayes, are pretty good recruits and most of those spent time in the league.
-
Originally posted by John Stuart MillRIP: Charlie Munger​Originally posted by Robert “Hoot†Gibson -
Gillispie signed Patterson.
Tubby signed Meeks.
I don't think the argument about Tubby was that he couldn't recruit. It's that he often didn't spend a lot of time in the upper echelons, and the five-star, blue-chip players he did make runs at--Hansbrough, Brandan Wright, Brandon Rush, Kevin Durant--usually ended up elsewhere.
There were recruiting successes, though. He had the #1 class with Morris, Crawford, Rondo, and Bradley. But he didn't spend a whole lot of time making runs at can't-miss guys who often end up in the first round of the NBA. I personally heard him say once that his staff took a form into every living room; on that form was a line that said something like "Life Aspirations." If the player could only come up with basketball, then Tubby stopped recruiting him.
Cal has completely turned that on its head. Many times he's spoken about the prodigy-like talent his players have.Comment
-
One of the things I disliked about Tubby was how he took a very gifted recruit in Rajon Rondo, and stifled his talent by handcuffing him and not allowing him to be the talent he really was. I think that started his downfall in recruiting elite talent. Of course Rondo was a problem also.John 3:3
Comment
-
I've said on this site that Hayes is easily the best "slightly above average" player in program history. Put him on a team and you understand his value. Put him in a skills challenge and it's embarrassing. As for his accompanying members, each of those players had off the court issues that had to be reigned in and it happened to occur during chuck's time.
Rondo seemed to half way behave...until Chuck left and then it was obvious that he despised the style of play and his teammates.
Sparks? Hmm. Seemed markedly different in year two.
If I remember correctly, Daniels would be considered maybe a low 4 star/high 3 star prospect today. He's a guy that had a growth spurt and took a while to figure out how to mix the guard skills with his new size.
Chuck was great with his teammate Daniels, and I think at least 2/3 of his contributions were foundational, off of the court measures that allowed for the chemistry to develop or perhaps at times persist.
What those three teams did was play defense with a consistency and concentration that was and still is rarely seen on the college level. They seemed like 25 year olds at times, imo.
What I think Schrute invited, though, is the natural question as to why in the world could our coaching staff not relate to the six other teams from the era that did not, at least, feature Hayes.
That issue was magnified greatly by his number one class, unfortunately. Laugh at me if you want, but at the time that ole Alex Legion still was a coveted recruit, he stated the answer quite concisely when he said it was like you couldn't recognize Joe Crawford. We know there are some objective reasons why that happened, somewhat outside of Tubby's ability to reconcile or patch, but hey...perception means A LOT, and that was our perception during much of that era. Actually most.
Confirmations like botching your starting lineup against #1 seeds doesn't help defending these facts.
Comment
-
Hayes was quite a bit better than average.
Guy played 11 seasons in the NBA. You don't do that if you're slightly above average.
It is true that some of the things he gave couldn't easily be measured and you would often watch a game and not realize he was actually doing them. He was the bizarro Malik Monk. With Monk it's obvious what he's giving; Hayes would have a profound impact on the game and score 9 points and pull 8 rebounds.
He was the second best defender I've ever seen here behind Anthony Davis.Comment
-
I'm going to ask my boss about Patterson next time I see him. The truth certainly is that Tubby did at least two thirds of the work with that recruitment. What I want to know is where would Patterson have gone if Tubby definitely would have been back for at least two years, say. I think it's easy to realize that he was at a disadvantage with the fury over his status at the time. Hard to land PP if you might be fired soon.
Obviously Gillispie somehow held it together, went in with his head on straight, and re-recruited him.
On the subject of importance of basketball, I think that is the root of his problem. First, he insults these recruits and their families by suggesting this either wasn't a legitimate goal for which the child should aspire. You're insulting their ability in essence. Second, you suggest that basketball is INFERIOR to other career paths.
Tubby himself would likely say he only wanted to ensure that they were taking the opportunity for a scholarship seriously and that by asking this question he was surveying the maturity and responsibility characteristics of the recruit.
I argue there are other clues.
But hey, start the wrong Perry. Show us how seriously you took THIS opportunityComment
-
Will, we've actually discussed this before. As far as objective measures, I don't think Hayes was anything special. He had great footwork and timing, he had adult core strength, and he always had his head in the game. He was a great college player and was on an NBA roster for 11 years because of the things that happen in the game and off of the court.
He truly is bizarro Monk...for the time being. Malik is going to be a lot of people's worst nightmare in a few years. Let him fill out just a littleComment
-
Monk is going to be a superstar. That wasn't my point. All I'm saying is that the stuff Monk brings is right out on the surface. Doesn't do a lot of "little" things right now. He will, but not right now.
Hayes (Fitch was like this too) brought a bevy of little things. But in this sport little things are almost always big.
Hayes has always been sort of sketched as this everyman with a big heart. That's wrong, IMO. He was extremely talented, just in different ways than your normal can't-miss players. That's why we won so much during his era: because, very simply, the guy was a great basketball player. Not good, not average, not just okay, not overrated...GREAT.Comment
-
There were a lot of situations where Chuck Hayes looked like a fish out of water. We've had some guys with Cal that seemed like they could do a little of nearly everything in terms of skills.
I feel like I can understand how Chuck's elite list of intangible qualities made the difference in him being a limited, average player versus the guy we had.
My best example of that was when I called Patterson another Chuck Hayes, but actually physically gifted.
Hayes would have literally assaulted Monk a couple times this season. That's all that would have been needed before he started impressing us defensivelyComment
-
Chuck Hayes might have been 6'-6". I don't think he was. But he was wider and far more menacing than, say, Jason Parker ever dreamed of being. Just a big guy.
A lot of people at the time thought he should have stuck with football. His dream school was Kansas but something about Kentucky apparently clicked for him.
I'd say Chuck flattened a few people. Probably several "Rooks". After that, I think a mean glance probably sufficed.Comment
-
I guess I fail to see how Chuck Hayes wasn't physically gifted.
The guy was as strong as an ox, could outsprint most guards, and could guard all five positions on the court. You could stick him on any size and type of player and you were usually going to get positive results.
You don't do that by smoke and mirrors. That's physical dominance.Comment
-
Outsprint most guards? He was quick laterally which allowed him to defend well, but......Comment
-
For the record, physically gifted compared to blue chip recruits like Cal brings in. Like Pitino brought in.
Not in comparison to Will LavenderComment
-
Was surprisingly fast for a guy that big, which is part of the reason many in the NFL were so interested in him.
Not a good leaper and not long. Had a habit of getting swatted against the backboard. Not a whole lot of offensive skill.
But not physically gifted? That isn't right. Strength, leverage, stamina, brute power, lane speed...all crucial physical gifts.Comment
Comment