The coach lumped that output together with the numbers produced by Lucas, Bragg and Mitch Lightfoot, and arrived at 22 points and 16 rebounds in 50 minutes. ( With Doka's production added to this )
Ok, its not C5. Its C4 But still! WHat is going on here guys?
Will Coach let his post play come from 4 or 5 different guys?
It is really simple...If it ain't broke, don't fix it and...if you can't fix it , don't break it.
Why mess with what seems to be working just fine? if it stops working, sure, work on it, but for the time being working on improving the efficiency of Lucas, Bragg and Doke would seem the best way to go about it and the one with the biggest upside.
Composite centering works.
Think about USA electing to fight WWII with the small, primitive Shermans instead of introducing a tank superior to German and Russian tanks until way late in the war. Greater numbers allowed more flexible battlefield tactics, more replacement parts, and more mechanics trained to work one kind of tank, if USA TANK CREWS were willing to take the sharply greater deaths from thin armor, small gun, and hyper combustible gasoline. The simple, short, narrow relatively taller Shermans were easier to ship more of, and easier to get ashore, and lighter so they could cross smaller pontoon bridges. And so on.
Self lacks even the opportunity to introduce a superior tank. So he is making the logical move to go Composite, if he can sustain the numbers. If he cannot sustain the numbers, then it would be better to pick one now, rather than wait.
The question with it is the same as relying on 1 top center: is it sustainable through thick and thin?
@jaybate-1.0 Getting into the WW2 sidebar a bit: Hate to admit it, but the best volume tank of ww2 was the Russian T34. A rude shock to the blitzkrieging Germans in 1941, but only used in penny packet, piecemeal deployment, but almost needing point blank range to kill. All due to the revolutionary sloped armor. The T34 got upgunned to the 85mm from the initial 76mm. Initially the German Tiger tanks with their 88mm gun were superior machines, but overly complex. There were 10 T34s (and Shermans) for every Tiger. I once read a Tiger tank's commander manual, and it had a concentric circle of ranges, outside of which the Tiger could still kill the T34, but the T34s shell couldnt penetrate the Tiger's thicker frontal armor: "Ich kann dich, doch du mich nicht Abschiessen!" (I can get you but you cant get me). Michael Wittman's lone Tiger destroyed an entire Canadian armored column. Western formations were nothing compared to Soviet masses (the Russian steamroller...).
The most competent German tank was the Panther, fast, lighter, a deadly double long 75mm gun, but still overly complex, and a tendency to burn when hit in the rear. Never enough built.
Interestingly, through most of the cold war period til now, the US has actually followed the 'German' philosophy of 'quality beats quantity'. This applies to the M1 Abrams and F14s, F16s, etc, while the Russians have stuck to their 'cheap, effective quantity' plan. Put the Chinese in this same category of cheap quantity.
Congress and the USAF, USN, and USArmy have made a long habit of refusing cheaper simpler hardware that can be made in true quantity, always opting for the more complex, advanced weaponry. Its not like US companies havent tried to produce cost effective hdwe (Northrop F20 fighter is a famous example).
Interestingly, US tanks didnt become qualitatively superior until the M1 Abrams. The Pattons werent subpar, but simply on-par. The superlative German Leopard 2A6 shares some parts with its US Nato ally M1.
Brother and I used to have this debate ad nauseum about Sherman tanks, and all I would concede is that the M4A3E8 (EasyEight) with far better gun and suspension was a competent tank, but still cut too high a silhouette (easy target). Only Brit tanks were worse except for their Sherman Fireflys with there 76mm gun, as good as a Panther's. French tanks=laffable, as were Japanese tanks. German tanks (1 for 1) likely best, but simply couldnt stop steamroller qty. And all tanks fall prey to air superiority, as planes beat tanks.
Speaking of tanks during WWII, did anyone see FURY a couple years ago? Brad Pitt, Shia Lebouf? Very cool WWII movie. highly recommended
Air superiority trumped tank design, weather permitting.
The T-34 had a great front suspension roller designed/patented by an American engineer; that design was turned down by Pentagon and Detroit CarCos, because of patent envy. The Russians jumped on it.
The Sherman was as superior to Japanese tanks in the Pacific, as it was inferior to German tanks in Europe.
The Sherman was faster than some enemy tanks.
The gasoline engines on Shermans were easier for more soldiers to work on than the diesels.
Diesels burned more kinds of fuel in a pinch but in war torn France and Germany there wasn't much supply of cooking oil at the market to run a Panzer, let alone a Tiger.
While most US military personnel on ships, driving FUEL convoys, guarding fuel dumps and driving tanks bearing the risk of highly flammable gasoline would have preferred diesel, a little discussed advantage of using gasoline tanks in Europe was our tank fuel supply was useless to them when captured. It also could not be Black marketed to them for tank fuel, or stolen by civilians to run their building furnaces or farm tractors, either. Gasoline fuel and engines of that era were also was less negatively effected by cold weather; I.e., much easier to start. And so less prone to being left idling in order to prevent having to deal with cold restarts. It meant less gas wasted.
Engine and machine durability means less in war than reliability in awful conditions. Tanks in wars don't have long lives. What is crucial is that they work when needed, go where they need to go, are easy to repair, and are adaptable to carry different weapons. The European culture preference for over engineering and over building and specializing worked against them some in their armormants. They had too few tanks. Too many kinds to supply parts for. They grew too heavy to go many places. Each time we blew one up all the overengineering and overbuilding was wasted.
Would I have rather crewed in a Tiger than a Sherman? Tiger for sure. Regrettably, war fighting is not always about what is best for individual safety. It's one of the reasons I hate war. I'm for what's best for individuals.
Enjoying the military deflections.
Concerning post rotation... all our bigs deserve minutes and will have to be maintained to some degree all year to keep them from rusting and to keep the intensity building in the post all year. I'm afraid the biggest "victim" in the rotation will be Lightfoot. In a perfect world, he would deserve more minutes this year to help him develop for the future.
Landen looks like he is turning the corner on his early season funk. He had a solid game against Davidson, and was starting to really settle into his role during Nebraska.
But I don't see this as one of our best rebounding post teams. Rebounding will be a job by committee all year, and I'm not talking about "board members" only being post players. We have too good (and athletic) of guards to have them take plays off on the rebounding side. Everyone is going to have to step up and rebound. This may be our best rebounding guard squad since Bill came to Kansas. I don't think we can stress how important this area is going to be for us all year, and may actually be the area of our game that makes the difference in March.
Defense and rebounding are driven by synergy. Either we get together as a squad on hustle and focus or we melt away into mediocrity as a team because even though our offense is good and fun to watch, our offense alone doesn't stand a chance to go far in March and would be hard pressed to even win #13 in conference play.
I'm optimistic about this team NOT because they are so fun to watch (but enjoying that aspect). My optimism is high because I think we have a great group of guys who GET IT! I think this squad understands that it will be defense and rebounding that will make us unstoppable.
That second half against Davidson.... I haven't seen that kind of defensive intensity in a KU uniform since 2008! No one in college basketball is going to keep up with us as long as we bring that kind of defense. And the rebounding was much improved, too.