🏀 KuBuckets Archive

FarmerJayhawk said:

We all should maybe pump the brakes a bit on Enaruna.

Here, here. Just some patience is all. If he contributes nothing this season, he could still be a complete and wild success at Kansas. We get guys like this so they can develop. If he's good enough to play, great. If not, he's still a tremendous guy to sign and have moving forward.

Self is an amazing defensive coach. But Germans attacked through the Ardennes forest, they did it fast, they had high mobile troops and tanks. It was a new age. New weaponry and new schemes. Self has to be aggressive and recognize that defending the three against some teams IS the priority.

@KUSTEVE I don't know why it's become passive. But I'm all in on the 3-2. You can always have one big near the bucket.

@kjayhawks @BeddieKU23 I hope Self isn't banking on the line moving back, being a big change.

@mayjay To defend the three and play man, our bigs will be away from the basket. Rebounding has to be a team venture. But your mention of our bigs being 10 ft. from the bucket is correct .. they either need to be defending the line, or near the bucket. If they are on-ball from mid range, then give some space and get a hand up. We want that shot.

@approxinfinity To me, there is no doubt that by contesting the line, you decrease the quality of looks, and you can decrease the numbers. Again, imagine if you played a five man zone at the line and work back from there. Sure, you'll run into guys that are so hot they be hitting hook shots if they took them, but give me the stout D at the line and I'll take my chances against some of the better 4/1 teams.

@ajvan I just wish he'd try the 3-2 ... like @KUSTEVE said, how perfect would it be with this roster?

Had a good conversation with @Crimsonorblue22 regarding three point defense and personnel. Clearly, our best lineup will be a 3/2 with Doke and SDS manning the post.

So what happens when we face a 4/1 team with excellent three point shooting -- even one that has all five guys that are threats from the arc?

Do we adjust to them? Do we relent? Do we now play Garrett at the 4 spot and substantially compromise how WE play?

No. That's a clear way NOT to win a national championship.

This requires coach Self to adjust and change. He has to get away from the standard defensive principles that he has relied upon for years. Those principles compromise the ability to guard the line.

Self's defensive principles are inside out. That is, the most threatening spot is nearest the basket and that progressively works out. His entire defensive scheme is premised upon this outdated philosophy. He has attempted to make adjustments, but we have seen, we constantly give up open three point shots.

We've seen it in action. The most clear and obvious example was the absolute thrashing we received from Villanova in the 2018 Final Four. The question we all asked, "How were their shooters so wide open?"

It's easy. We were playing inside out defense. Self is a master of that philosophy. But it is suicide in certain games.

Let's start with the first, most easy way to guard the three point line. You would play zone, position five defenders on the line and cover every shot like a blanket. Of course, then, you'd give up easy buckets at the rim. That's the starting point.

I've long since believed the best way to guard the line is a 3-2 zone with the perimeter guys and a one post defender (depending on the side of the ball) attacking those shots. But Self won't play zone. Heck, when only a three point shot could TIE us at the end of a game, Self was still guarding guys inside the three point line (see Michigan 2013). He'll never go zone.

So what do we do? The fact is, you can play man and guard the line. But you have to be willing to give up uncontested two point jumpers, and you have to understand, that at times, we'll give up an easy bucket at the rim. You sacrifice. This assessment has to be game by game, situation by situation.

To beat the best 4/1 teams, you have to limit three point attempts AND contest those attempts.

But here's how you do it.

1. You have to scrap double teaming in the post, and collapsing in the post except in certain circumstances.

2. You can’t hedge out top or double the pick and roll. Good three point teams make you pay for that.

3. You have to create conditions that invite the two point jumper. That means attacking the three point shooter (selling out) and giving up the two point jumper, and also slacking off off guys in that two point range in favor of shutting off the drive. But you can’t regularly help with the perimeter defender on drives. Leave open areas on the court for jumpers if necessary.

4. You have to incorporate zone principles off the ball. So when the ball is on one wing, you’d have a defender focused on the near corner, one out from the near corner at the top of the key, one at the far corner top of the key, and another near the far wing. If there is a post man, that defender has that responsibility, but you don’t shade to help there. You shade to help the perimeter.

5. You can’t help from a shooter that is one pass away. Huge. As an example, and we see this happen, screen high, hedge, defender from the wing slides up, and his man slides down a bit and is open for three in the deep wing or corner. Heck, Svi did that for us all the time when teams made that error.

6. Very importantly, we can’t help from the weak side on drives from the strong side. Right, there is an open three point shooter.

7. And as a basic principle, you have to switch every screen on the perimeter. Period. You then work to re-switch into your favored match-up. Getting over screens is just too slow much of the time.

How much of that seems counter to what Self does? Pretty much all of it. That’s my point. Think about that. Think about Self's defense.

I’m not suggesting perfection. I’m not suggesting that there aren’t exceptions. And there are varying degrees, of course, on how you approach each item. You can gameplan and scheme to permit certain guys to shoot threes. All of this is macro in nature.

But if you want to really guard the three point line and still actively guard the rim, this is how you do it.

The counter position is to permit teams to make us play their way. To remove our core players. No way. We can passively just take it, and accept that we are weak. Or we can actively dictate and be strong. Easy choice in my book.

But it requires Self to adapt his defense to permit us to play OUR game. It also requires Self to CHANGE. How often to we double the pick and roll, help from the weak side on a drive, work over a screen, slack back in the lane, etc.? How often is a three point shooter left open because his defender is helping inside the arc?

This requires Self to change.

Sound familiar? We know the man can change because he has changed in other aspects. Remember when the three point shot was fool's gold? It never was fool's gold. It's a staple of modern basketball. Our coach took time to adapt.

Also, as an aside, I've always liked alternating defenses and scheme mid-game, and for certain possessions. This approach could be used even against inferior teams, or non 4/1 teams as a change-up.

I strongly think we should play a lot of 3-2 zone with this team. But that's another topic.

Regarding our man to man, the philosophical change mentioned above, for certain opponents, may determine our fate. Hot shooting does not just happen much of the time -- it can be created by a defense that permits volume and open looks from the spots the shooters are comfortable.

@Crimsonorblue22 Kind of like Nova the year before, right? I know you think the game might not have been winnable. You might be right. But I think games turn greatly on coaching strategy and scheme, and that can roadblock hot shooting.

Self is just behind the curve regarding three pt defense. That’s a theme here in the discussions on our poor defense. It’s a different strategy. It’s hard for coaches to change their spots. Like opening his mind to more three pointers, 4/1, etc. Certain normally reliable concepts don’t cut it vs some of these sophisticated three pt attacks. In fact, it exposes us vs some teams when schemed against.

Coaching is key. It’s why Boeheim can have a better 2-3 zone than anyone else. He knows how to coach it. It’s in his blood.

Self’s defenses have always been geared to defend inside out. To protect the basket. And he is a master at it.

@Crimsonorblue22 Ah, not true on the first two items I think. You need to play the right defense. The right scheme.

Let me ask this. If we line the 3 point line with our five guys. The played zone and covered the line like a glove, how many 3 pointers get made? Right, probably only a few. But we give up buckets over and over at the rim. A focus on the three point line is obviously not that extreme, but it’s a different mindset. A different approach. Dialing that back to a reasonable degree.

Getting Dedric back is really insignificant. That’s never his responsibility anyway. Now, of course, there would be times where that might cost us a few points. But it’s not major impact on the game.

The best way to beat 4/1 is a strong 3/2 scheme that plays inside out setting up a good rate of three pointers combined with the big advantage inside. And, in my humble opinion, a 3-2 zone vs the better 4/1 teams where you use the 3 top defenders and one low defender to rotate and force a higher rate of 2 pt jumpers. You can also play man and switch most everything in certain areas on the floor. Again, you expose yourself in other areas. But against the 4/1, 3 pt assasins, I like a different poison.

@Crimsonorblue22 Dedric at the 4, Doke at the 5. Dotson, Grimes, Vick. Just like we had early on.

KUSTEVE said:

@HighEliteMajor So, you think a Vick would've made all the difference in our perimeter defense against 4 out teams. Interesting. The year before, the "right minded" Vick didn't seem to help us much against 4 out teams, or 5 out teams, as was the case with Villanova. Our weak link over the years has been perimeter defense - last year was the worst. I'm going to have to agree to disagree on your assertion about fielding a competent lineup last year that wouldn't get buried from the 4 out. It's not every year we get drilled by 30 in conference play, and get down by 25 at the half in the NCAA tournament.

I’m not sure how you conclude that I would believe that Vick would make a difference in our perimeter defense.

I think a right-minded Vick would give us an explosive offensive force from three point range, as he did before he spiraled. Something we would need to compete more completely.

I also also believe that our defensive scheme ... how we guard the line ... was horrible as you note. Thus my reference to a better scheme.

I said a right-minded Vick AND playing the right defense.

KUSTEVE said:

We still would've been drilled by Auburn in the 2nd round and Doke wouldn't have made a difference. We were toast against 4 out teams last year.

Add in a right minded Vick and playing the right defense, 4/1 teams wouldn't scare me one bit. Now, Auburn in particular, that team was on a roll. If their big guy doesn't get injured, they win the NC I think. But I think with our full projected roster, we were the best team.

Marco said:

@Kcmatt7 I think it is priced about right. If too cheap we would have the most degreed waiters, waitresses and bartenders in the world, but it would do next to nothing for the economy or nation - could, in fact, even hurt both. But, yes, it is expensive....

There are some pretty crazy things said here, but this is pretty close my friend.

I can't even comprehend an appropriate response. I'll try.

Think about this -- America is about opportunity. We can't level playing fields. We can't give me Lebron James' talent, or Elton John's voice. We can't have every child born to good parents, or into wealth, or into common sense.

What we can do is work to create reasonable paths to achievement. While that path is open to anyone that will take it .. and it is unless your brain just isn't smart enough .. we can trim the lard from public institutions to make things more cost friendly, which widens the path on the front end and back end.

This is where real opportunity lies to help folks by paring back government (public institutions).

Private institutions, from my perspective, can charge what they want. But change can be effected there by more stringent limits on the public grants/loans for all institutions -- more related to educational path and ability to pay it back.

What it does is create more competition. Competition is good for our nation and our economy. I want everyone to be able to compete. That's how our engine chugs along the best.

Just my opinion. But your response, well, I'm befuddled.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Just because you THINK you know, doesn’t mean you know. Free your mind.

I regularly pointed out that playing Brady was a huge mistake. He proved over and over that he had a hard ceiling. When he faced a certain level of competition, he folded. Just because a guy can play well against Richmond (hit a 90 mph fastball) doesn’t mean he can do it against high level competition (96 mph fastball).

We talk about guys getting their own shot. Brady couldn’t. Against better defenders, he’d shoot highly guarded garbage. He shot well wide open. But in high intensity games, like VCU, his form went in the tank. He would lean forward, as if rushed.
And don’t give me that complete baloney about his defense. Again, he guarded some guys really well. But he just collapsed against higher level guys. His line of ability was clear and obvious, as much as anyone I’ve ever seen. When he was outmatched, it was really bad. It was a consistent discussion and observation.

Of course, Self relied on Brady, gave Brady big minutes, then shied away from playing him those big minutes vs UNI in the preceding year. One wonders why? All I know is I regularly criticized the high minutes distribution to Brady all season, and then when it counted, Self went another direction.

My issue was always what my eyes told me .. the guy couldn’t hang against high level competition, like falling off a cliff. That led to my sole point — he would cost us when it really counted.

Brady Morningstar never made one three point shot in our last game of the season -- NCAA losses to Michigan St., UNI, VCU. Not one. Against VCU, he could barely move -- he was 0-3 from three, and 1-4 from 2 point range. In total, in three season ending NCAA tourney losses, Brady made four total baskets, and not one three pointer. Total shooting 4-16 in our most important games of the season.

I’m sorry, I’ve won this argument too many times. I think I’m like 121-0 now.

By the way, I don’t blame Brady. He certainly tried his hardest and worked hard during his tenure here.

I blame Self 100%. He cost himself at least one FF relying on that guy after the evidence was clear he struggled against high level competition. But he then repeated his gross error with Landon Lucas two seasons in a row and LL was way overmatched and useless vs Nova and Oregon. That was observed and noted here before it happened. That error was even more costly. I think most now see the LL disaster. Some don’t care because they’re ok with losing in the tourney.

If Braun is Brady, his tenure here will not be a success.

Texas Hawk 10 said:

If Christian Braun is as productive as Tyrell Reed or Brady Morningstar over the course of his KU career, I'll take that right now.

That’s a pretty low bar. VCU says thank you.

@Kcmatt7 Great point about our in state universities. Base scholarships at KSU also are better. What I love about this discussion point (not holding my breath) is that many more kids would go to JUCOs or Community colleges. That's where the real value is, particularly for the first year (when you get TAs for the most part anyway at KU/KSU type schools). I've long said that every kid can afford to go to college. Work and go to school at a JUCO or CC for your first two years (or maybe first 50 or so credits if you need university credits as you get deeper in the process). That would really cut student loans, plus working while going to a JUCO/CC is much easier. Also, I'd love to see universities charge less for intro classes per credit hour. If you have a full professor, higher level classes, that goes at a higher rate (but should be less than it is now). Again, paring back the mission and thing universities have their hands in would create a more efficient and less expense product. The cost of living in a dorm, for example, is outrageous for mass housing in a public university setting.

@BShark Opportunity is as important as anything. You never know when and how that presents itself.

@KUSTEVE I think numbers get him, especially the Moss transfer -- as @BShark is suggesting with his little chance prediction. I just don't know. But I love hearing what other folks see/feel/believe on these guys. He's a pretty good ballhandler. I'll be interested to see what that might bring if he is the 2 or 3. Self loves more ballhandlers. When I saw him play a few times, he wasn't a PG type, that's for sure. He was mechanical with the ball, is maybe the best way to say it -- again, though, just an observation. He played for a team that was way better than the opponents. No stout pressure. When a defender got on him, he turned his back to the defender at an angle, which is not what really good ballhandlers do. He didn't make defenders pay off the dribble when he brought the ball up. But then again, he won't be a PG. Great guy to have as second or third option with the ball. He has time.

This is not that complicated. If a guy is a presumed OAD, you skip him. Period. McLemore and Arthur were not presumed OADs .. they were the perfect recruits. Highly ranked guys that were not presumed to turn pro after one season.

If there happens to be a player that comes in, not a presumed OAD, blows the doors off his freshman season, and then goes to the draft, that's the way it goes. That isn't really the issue. It's whether, as a program, we just say no to presumed OADs.

The point is that the garbage that comes with the presumed OADs -- the ones that everyone knows are just here for the season -- is not worth getting a guy that then stays two years, or whatever, here or there.

KUSTEVE said:

@justanotherfan I disagree with Selden. He was horrid his freshman year. Then they changed his shooting style, and his numbers dramatically improved. If Coach and staff hadn't changed his technique, he would've been the pre-Marcus Garrett.

Selden was quite the disaster, form wise. No way he gets to that 39.2% figure from 3 if there wasn't a wholesale change in form.

@KUSTEVE Well yes I read the article. But I was most interested in what you saw before the article that might separate him from the other freshmen. I really like the kid. I just see a guy much more likely to be a year two guy.

@KUSTEVE What objectively would cause one to see Braun as a sleeper here or underrated vs the other freshman? I’ve seen him play in person and while he is good, he seemed like a guy that needed a touch of time. Interested in what you/others see.

This OAD stuff is easy. When you don't have bright line rule, you leave yourself open to making poor, emotional decisions. Just say no.

Just look at as a scale. You put the positives on one side, the negatives on the other. Unequivocally, the negatives outweigh the positives. When folks talk about OADs positively, there is citation to remote examples. The remoteness of the positives and the conditions that might make a situation workable, demonstrates why it should not be a strategy.

I've long supported the idea of grabbing one if you have an opening/need, and you're not displacing the type of player that is the core of your program from the starting role. My position now has become even more strict on this. Easy. Just say no.

... and we should consider ourselves lucky as a result.

KUSTEVE said:

@wissox I was an original Royals fan until they decided to fleece the fans, and run out a triple A team instead of a major league team. And I lived in Houston for years, so it was a natural fit for me.

Didn't the Astros fleece the fans for while .. tanking, and building a championship level squad? They won less than 60 games in 2011, 2012, or 2013. Kinda like the Royals? We're big tent, us Royals fans, would welcome you back. But man, the Astros are fun to watch and going all in grabbing Greinke was awesome.

Poor to good is a really big leap. Poor being just north of Garrett.

Releford was never a poor shooter in my opinion. He landed here as an above average three point shooter. He had great form and made good decisions. Again, just my opinion.

Frank Mason, on the other hand, was a mess. The work done from freshman to sophomore season was amazing. He is the guy that demonstrates that fixing important small items can take a guy with talent and catapult him forward -- like not starting his shot while moving laterally or leaning forward, getting a consistent launch point (and from a consistent peak) and launch angle, and having a consistent lower body alignment, etc. Little things like that can really make an impact. And that was coaching.

Contrast Mason to a guy like Devonte Graham who really didn't appear to change anything. And always seemed good. Or guy like EJ who never really moved the needle.

Now, Chalmers was never a bad shooter. But that guy, as much as Mason, really improved. So that isn't poor to good. But I loved his improvement from good to assassin.

That all said, we haven't had too may just "bad" shooters (that were in a position to be shooters -- excluding big guys). Miles going from oblivion to 50% was the biggest jump I'd really seen. Crazy.

@FarmerJayhawk Likewise ... appreciate the conversation.

@FarmerJayhawk I'd be very interested in the info on the Pell Grant connection. Not something I'd seen before but would like to review, if you have it handy. If not, now worries. I'll look for it.

Just one article, this one from Forbes, that has some decent info.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/02/22/how-unlimited-student-loans-drive-up-tuition/#7bf4f75d52b6 ↗

@FarmerJayhawk See, you have no objectivity. You're taking it personally. You can't objectively look at the scam that is college education, and recognize the deficiencies. Please don't take it personally. No one is saying "all" of it. No one is implicating you.

And you gave a sentence to loan reform. Which is the point. Which is why college costs have ballooned. Easy money. It's simple economics, no different (generally) than when reason prices go up at an auction when there are more bidders. Rapids when the channel narrows. More available purchasers.

What we should do is govern the public institutions. Pare them back. Place significant limits. Understand that public institutions are like the government. They bloat. They aren't operated like private business (generally). Colleges are on the positive end of that, though, meaning, they adhere much better to the bottom-line than other government run ventures. But they are ever-expanding.

The fact is that the costs for a well-rounded education are now too high. There is value to four years, a broad scope of knowledge, the experience, maturing. We all agree there. But the cost now is too high. You're right, there is more to education than the dollars earned. But there is a point (that we are well past) where that consideration becomes minimized. Taking the useless classes now is not worth it given the cost, given the alleged student loan crisis. Heck, KU shuffles off many freshman/sophomore to teaching assistants. A glorified JUCO.

And look, I'm sorry, but for what "social workers" do -- they could take an 18 month certification program with a semester internship and be fine. But no, they need Algebra, they need two sciences, they need electives, etc. When college was reasonably priced, sure. Now, the money spent for that luxury is prohibitive.

And the only reason we have the Shoeco money is men’s CBB and football. It’s what we already know.Women’s sports are independently unsustainable. Meaning they lose money.

The main reason that tuitions have increased so dramatically is the easy money available through federal grants and student loans. The universities have a nearly blank checkbook. No standards on what degrees the money can be used for. Go major in classical dance and French literature, and then, amazingly, you can’t get a job worth squat (see, @FarmerJayhawk, your 10% stat is an AVERAGE. Many, many folks waste their time).

Now, supposedly, it’s a crisis (student loan debt). Folks using fed loans, to pay for useless degrees, and they can’t payback the money because they’re resulting jobs are inadequate vs the money owed.

Reminds me of the mortgage loan crisis ... when the government loosened loan standards so much that folks that had no business buying a home were given loans. When the rubber met the road, they couldn’t pay.

College is a scam — colleges paid millions in lobbying fees related to opening up and loosening student loan and grant standards.

@mayjay You’re intentions are good, but we’re going to put these institutions that scam regular students out of many thousands of dollars each, in charge of these certifications? Maybe at JUCO rates.

Just related to the athlete, I will always be opposed to adjusting for these prima donnas. Go pro. If college BB is so unfair, go do something else. If you want to come to college and be a student, then do that.

Why is it always the search for ways change CBB to fit the demands of a few, or to benefit them? Keep the focus on the Garretts and the Agbajis, and you have a wonderful sport.

College, at these exorbitant rates, with the easy grants and student loans, is the biggest scam going.

College is a scam. The more guys that realize that they don’t need college, the better it is for the college game.

BShark said:

It is now August. Do with this information what you will.

I’ve understood from most of the posts here that the NCAA has no case, no evidence, and that we’re going to skate. So I’m quite sure we have nothing to worry about ... right?

HighEliteMajor said:

BeddieKU23 said:

@HighEliteMajor

I'm glad you can even remember the game. I'm trying to remember which one it was for me but I know it was one where he took multiple shots in a 1 minute span where he didn't even look at the hoop before. Those were common so its hard to pinpoint which game it was

There was one game where he literally shot a 25 footer 3 seconds after he entered the game. The new Self though didn't yank him or flop around. I always (kind of fondly, kind of not) remember when Anrio Adams got in the game, was all excited, caught the in bounds pass, dribbled it off his foot, out of bounds. Maybe less than 3 seconds and done. Hook and out. Ah, those were the days.

And crap, I didn't know Moore's dad had cancer. Certainly a reasonable cause for distraction.

BeddieKU23 said:

@HighEliteMajor

I'm glad you can even remember the game. I'm trying to remember which one it was for me but I know it was one where he took multiple shots in a 1 minute span where he didn't even look at the hoop before. Those were common so its hard to pinpoint which game it was

There was one game where he literally shot a 25 footer 3 seconds after he entered the game. The new Self though didn't yank him or flop around. I always (kind of fondly, kind of not) remember when Anrio Adams got in the game, was all excited, caught the in bounds pass, dribbled it off his foot, out of bounds. Maybe less than 3 seconds and done. Hook and out. Ah, those were the days.

@BeddieKU23 It was the New Mexico St. game for me at the Sprint Center with Moore. That's was my "moment" of clarity.

BeddieKU23 said:

Enaruna's team was eliminated so he'll be in Lawrence in a few weeks when they come back from their break.

Tritan had 21 points, 13 rebounds, 3/6 from 3 and 2 blocks in the losing effort.

He did not shoot the ball very efficiently during the 4 games including some Charlie Moore like FG % from 2, 3 and the FT line..

He finished averaging near a double double 19.8 ppg and 9.3 boards. Tons of long range potential with him. Can't wait to see how Self uses him

Charlie was the "volume scorer" without the "scorer" part ... I wonder at what point coach Self thought to himself, "what was I thinking?"

Talk about Enaruna, Braun, Wilson, McBride -- it seems apparent that we might just strike gold this season with one of these guys. Meaning, the odds of one of them being a major player quicker than expected is pretty good. Not sure who I'd bet on at this point. I think McBride has the easiest path to playing time, though.

But the nice thing is that it is really likely that we will not need any one of them to be "gold" this season to win a national championship. This is going to be a good season ... need a cool "MF" patch to remember our lost friend.

I went through a little phase where I didn't like Max and Bob .. about ages 13 - 22. You know, when you think you know everything. It's why I hated Larry Bird. It's why I couldn't stand Marvin Hagler. Then, you realize what you weren't realizing before.

Just absolute treasures and we were so lucky to have those guys to listen to. Way too many games to recall. But one thing I loved about both were the way they conveyed their disgust with a call, or some turn of events, came through the radio. Made you "feel" the game. Yes, Max, RIP indeed.

drgnslayr said:

College basketball (as a hole) continues to decline.

I don’t know, I would think women’s CBB is considerably better if you’re focused on the hole.🤔

@Kcmatt7 Hmmm. Here's a question that can help with your opinion, this year in particular -- Who is our coach? Given the structure of this team, I have great confidence that it's going to be highly positive. Knowing our coach, and what he's proven in the past, the pieces that Self has (and their skill sets) makes this a really good match. That why I'm optimistic. I view this as a near perfect fit. Not perfect -- perfect would be a major league ball handler at the two spot. But pretty stout.

My main concern is speed of play and ball handling. Because if there is no back up PG ready to play (shaky with the ball/TO machine, etc), we change dramatically when Dotson is off the floor. Slower play with Garrett in that role and a much different dynamic on the offensive end. This could create a lot of vulnerability.

Texas Hawk 10 said:

The ceiling for this team is a national title contender. That's assuming everything goes well. That said, there's legitimate issues this team will have to overcome to reach their ceiling. Some of those issues are within the players control and some are not.

Team chemistry absolutely should be better this year without Vick in the mix. The counterpoint is we don't know yet how well Isaiah Moss will fit in on the court with this group yet because he's still finishing up academic stuff at Iowa. This is a question because Moss is the one newcomer who will be playing big time minutes this year and potentially be a starter for this team.

The next issue is shooting. Bill Self did a great job of bringing in players who can develop into great shooters. That's great for the future, but doesn't necessarily help with the upcoming season though. @BShark posted some stats from the scrimmages this summer and while not definitive in any way, can give some insight into progress being made. Dotson appears to have some gains, Silvio and Dave don't have three point range (I'll touch more on that later), Agbaji looks like he's still struggling from deep, McBride could earn some quality minutes with his shooting. Overall, with the three point line being scooted back, it looks like this team may be slightly better from deep than last year, but still nothing to brag about.

I mentioned Dave and Silvio's lack of shooting from outside, this is critical because it means neither really needs to be guarded closely outside of about 10'. That means opposing post defenders will be able clog driving lanes more effectively which will significantly hurt Devon, Ochai, and Garrett. Their effectiveness on offense is predicated by their abilities to drive into the paint. With those driving lanes clogged, the offense could actually take a step back this year because last year, Lawson was at least good enough from 3 that teams had to respect him out there. That doesn't appear to be the case with Silvio or McCormack at this point. I've said it before but, I'll say it again, this is a team that's going to play a lot of games in the 60's this season because of their offense.

The next area is defense. On paper, this appears to be the area where KU will make the biggest gains from last season. The combination of Doke, Silvio, and McCormack anchoring the paint is going to make life in the paint very difficult for a lot of teams. The concern with those 3 defensively is rebounding. Silvio is an above average rebounder so there shouldn't be an issues there, but Doke and Dave are not. Doke is a below average rebounder for his size and McCormack is just bad at rebounding for his size. Each are still doing a lot work on their bodies, so there is hope in that regard, but I wouldn't expect dramatic changes out of either of them though.

On the perimeter, the 4 guys who should get most of the minutes are all above average to elite defenders. Marcus Garrett is the best defender in the Big 12, end of discussion. Devon Dotson has the abilities to be an all-Big 12 defender. Moss and Agbaji are also both above average defenders. On paper, this is the best defensive team Self has had since the 2012 runner up team.

Those are all the things this team can control, the one thing they can't control and is the most concerning to me is health. Health is the one thing that can quickly derail everything this team has worked for (as we saw last season) and there legitimate reasons to worry about the health of this team.

Doke has never played a full season. We can say the wrist injuries were flukes and they sort of were, but Doke is definitely not the only person to get his hand caught in something and most people come away unscathed. Doke hasn't twice now. Doke also missed the B12 tournament in 2018 because of knee issues. Doke is a very large human being and for being as young as he is, his muscles, joints, tendons, and ligaments don't seem strong enough yet to support his frame. Doke making it through the season healthy is probably the single biggest individual factor in determining how far this Kansas team can go in the NCAA tournament.

That said, Doke isn't the only player whose health is a concern going forward. Marcus Garrett said in the middle of the Summer that he still wasn't a 100% from his high ankle sprain last year. Being brutally honest, if Garrett lost some quickness because of this and loses some of his defensive abilities, he very quickly becomes a pretty useless player to Kansas.

The other player with injury concerns is Ochai Agbaji. Are his shin issues chronic or a one time deal? If they are chronic and he loses his athleticism, he essentially falls into the same category as Garrett because Agbaji's game is based on his athleticism. Without his athleticism, he's not anything special.

Again, this ceiling of this team is national championship contender, but there are hurdles this team will have to clear to reach that ceiling and some of those hurdles are ones KU cannot control.

Great post .. I'll amend to say our ceiling is national title winner, but that's nit-picking. I feel confident, as well, that if Doke does get hurt, this team can still win the national title. The only truly indispensable player for that pursuit is Dotson, in my opinion.

While I'm very high on this year's team, sometimes all of the apparent positives don't translate to winning. We started off 10-0 last season. We had good pieces. We knew how to win when at full strength. We won close games, again at full strength. Sometimes teams that seem well bonded, work hard, etc., don't find ways to win. That dynamic is tough to put a finger on sometimes. Of course, sometimes they do have that dynamic.

I guess what I would say is that until we see how they perform together, in game situations, it's still very hard to tell. And very importantly, until we see how they handle late game situations, we just won't know. In CBB, those late game situations are the critical piece. At least we know we have a coach that has that element as a major strength.

But enthusiasm seems very well placed.

This is a terrific roster. Seems like a perfect fit for our coach (except for perhaps a speed guy who could handle the ball starting at the two spot alongside Dotson). But I ain't complainin'.

Oh, no, no .. we'll have a Grimes, or an Alexander, or an Oubre to save the day. Or will we?

There seems to me there are two types of chips .. those that are imbedded in DNA, and those that are artificially implanted. Wish the DNA type was more prevalent. Maybe there's a hybrid. One that is imbedded in DNA, but needs to be shocked out of hibernation. Everyone is different. But give me the "imbedded in DNA" type, every day.

@Crimsonorblue22 I think there is a really good chance McBride gets minutes IF he is a high level ball-handler that can handle D-1 pressure (low TOs) — something we wont know until he does it. Folks regularly underestimate the need for high quality ball-handling. I don’t know how many times I move heard, oh, Selden can play PG, or we could move Relford there, or you name it. I’ve regularly stated my opinion that such talk is just silly and that has always played out that way.

Ball-handling is an irreplaceable, required, high-level skill that can get an otherwise inferior player on the court. It’s a must-have skill. And it can’t be “pretended.”

The key I think is ifSelf thinks that Garrett is a satisfactory stop gap for 8-10 mpg. Garrett, however, is subpar with the ball. Not from a ball protection stand point (like Selden) — Garrett is actually fine there — but he’s slow with the ball, a “tail-dribbler” as my HS coach kindly referred to that type of PG.

Self likes playing fast. Garrett could get those minutes if Self is fine with a slower pace.

If McBride is strong with the ball and not a turnover machine, I could see 8-12 per game.

And let’s not forget, Self loves having more ball handlers on the floor. So if McBride is good, he and Dotson together for stretches is not that far fetched. This could let Dotson get some valuable off ball time.

I don’t think we enough solid info on McBride though to accurately project just yet. But I think we do know what will get him on the court.

Edit

I made long post basically saying that @Kcmatt7 was completely full of it, except of the "pc" part. Decided against leaving it up. Always the same leftist garbage.

I'll just say this.

It's easy for cowards to pile on him now. But he transformed KC sports radio. Before Kietzman, this town was stuck with a few hours of Don Fortune on 980 KMBZ.

Leftists themselves are cowards. They don't want debate or discussion. They want censorship. They don't want uncomfortable opinions voiced. They desire those voices to be silenced. Again, cowards.

And because Kietzman was not a leftist, leftists relish in the fact he has lost his job.

@KUSTEVE The $80,000 I was referring to was the money provided to Preston's mom.

Regarding SDS, a booster paid SDS money to go to Maryland. This makes him ineligible. It doesn't matter whether Adidas or some other third party paid Maryland or Kansas. It still makes the kid ineligible, and it still means we played an ineligible player. Further, it was our recruiting partner (booster) that did it. Gassnola. Our guy. Bill Self's guy. So we will be assumed to have that knowledge -- he's our agent. Acting on our behalf. But it's still a violation either way. @Marco, are you listening?

@Marco I'm pretty much done trying to explain this to you. You seem to simply want to ignore what I have said on this topic. And you don't understand the concept of "evidence." When someone testifies under oath, that's evidence. Text messages are evidence. The circumstances are evidence. And fact finders add up the evidence and come to a conclusion from the evidence. There doesn't have to be a video or audio. The conclusion is not a high standard, like a criminal trial is. It's a lower standard. But it's fine if you want to continue to claim there's no proof. Try thinking about this .. why was SDS ruled ineligible for a year if there was "no proof"? For nothing? Logic .. connect the dots. Our recruiting partner, Gassnola, testified that Preston's mom was paid $89,000. Try reading the definition of a university booster. It will help. Adidas called there recruiting involvements "Black Opps" -- one to many "p's", but that what they called it. And try to grasp this concept - if you pay a player to come to your college, it is still an NCAA violation even if he doesn't play (Preston). If other's pay your player to go somewhere else, and he goes to your school, he's still ineligible (SDS). Get it?

But I've said all this before.

Some snippets below -

Gassnola testified that he paid Preston’s mother, Nicole Player, and her partner $89,000 over the span of almost one year. That included a $30,000 payout made in early November 2016 at a New York hotel and $20,000 in January 2017 in Las Vegas. Gassnola, through his fiancée, wired $20,000 to Player’s partner, Timicha Kirby, in February 2017. Gassnola also sent Player $15,000 in June 2017 and $4,000 in late September 2017. Also Thursday, Gassnola testified he paid the guardian of current KU sophomore Silvio De Sousa $2,500 for online courses so that De Sousa could graduate high school. Gassnola also said he agreed to pay $20,000 to help the guardian repay a Maryland booster who gave him $60,000, but Gassnola never paid, he said.

In the case of the first KU player referenced, whose family was alleged to have received $90,000, the indictment states the agreement to pay the family was made in or around October 2016 “shortly after the student-athlete, who was considered one of the top recruits in his class, unofficially committed to attend the University of Kansas.” On Oct. 1, prized recruit Billy Preston attended KU’s Late Night in the Phog event. He then officially committed to KU in November.

In the email, Gassnola said he attended “Late Night in the Phog” on Oct. 10, 2014 and “met with Coach (Bill) Self.”

Self was asked during KU’s basketball media day in Lawrence about Gassnola’s email, which, according to Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel, also included that Gassnola “talked recruiting targets” and “assured (Self and his staff) we are here to help.”

“No I don’t have any response,” Self said when told of Wetzel’s reporting on Gassnola.

On Monday, they presented text messages to the court between Gassnola and the Kansas coaching staff, the most damning of which came on Sept. 19th, 2017, just days before Kansas — who is supposed to be the victim in this ordeal — announced that they had agreed to a 12-year, $191 million extension on a sponsorship deal with Adidas.

After Gassnola texted Self to thank him for helping get the deal done, Self responded by saying, “Just got to get a couple real guys.”

Gassnola: “In my mind, it’s KU, Bill Self. Everyone else fall into line. Too (expletive) bad. That’s what’s right for Adidas basketball. And I know I’m right. The more you have lottery picks and you happy. That’s how it should work in my mind.”

Self: “That’s how ur (sic) works. At UNC and Duke.”

Gassnola, after acknowledging that it works like this at Kentucky, too: “I promise you I got this. I have never let you down. Except (Deandre). Lol. We will get it right.”

@Texas-Hawk-10 I'm sorry, who are we talking about, and when did he play at KU? And why do you like the word d*** so much?

Marco said:

@HighEliteMajor Which I understand. But what do they really have? They have squat, that's what. What do you think our punishment will be?

They've got more than squat. A lot more. I'm not sure why a recruiting partner paying a player $80,000 to attend is note considered more than squat. I'm not sure why a player getting suspended for a year for violations is not considered more than squat. I'm not sure why folks can't look at the NCAA definition of a "booster" and see that the Adidas folks plainly qualify. And I'm not sure why folks don't see the strong possibility that the NCAA is ticked off over the FBI/DOJ mess that was highly embarrassing, created bad press, brought more public scrutiny, threatens their existence etc. And I can see why folks don't think it a strong possibility that the NCAA is hoping to drive this down a more strict path of enforcement.

I think we lose our FF, we vacate wins, we lose two scholarships for two seasons, and we don't get to play in an NCAA tourney.

The reason I have that thought, and why I've had that thought, is that I believe that the NCAA is serious this time. MU's punishment was a precursor. If the NCAA isn't serious, then we skate like the vast majority here believe. I recognize that possibility. I fear that we are an "example to be made."

Texas Hawk 10 said:

I have never claimed to be a moral compass, however I will call out someone for being an asshole unnecessarily when I see it happening. I criticized Grimes plenty here because his on court play fell well short of expectations. I don't have an issue with calling a player out for that. Grimes wasn't the first player to fall short of expectations and leave and he won't be the last at KU, he's just the most high profile player so far to fall I to that category.

Grimes also never got into any off court trouble and never bad mouthed the program during this process. He ended up not being a good fit at KU and moved on, it happens. Grimes situation is identical to Malik Newman's situation. A 5 star who failed to live up to expectations at his first school, tested the draft waters, ended up transferring and played a very major role in getting KU to the Final Four.

Being a dick about Grimes transferring is something I would expect to see at KUSports or the Phog.

@Texashawk I would respectfully offer that the post I just cited is quite a different approach, save the last sentence, vs. referring to someone being a d*** as you did twice before.

I would suggest that someone is not being a d by offering some humor as some did, nor do I think offering an opinion based on factual observation is "d" like either.

jayballer73 said:

HighEliteMajor said:

@Texas-Hawk-10 Yea, you're the moral compass around here. What a joke.

happen to agree with Texas. - -why talk crap on the kid just because he didn't feel better? - make people feel more macho - -more of A MAN ? - - dies it feed into the self ego? - so he didn't work out -- So what? - -shit happens. - never have figured out why people feel the need when someone doesn't work out or picks another school WHY?

We'll remember this moment when you're talking c*** on someone, which you, of course, have never done.

I just suggest we not come out and suggest someone is being a "d***" -- a term he seems to like to say since he's now said it like three times in this thread -- solely for expressing an opinion that many share (and as @dylans did, with some humor).

Grimes was waste of a scholarship. Waste of time. The entitled prima donna. Glad he's gone.

I've now forgotten who we are talking about.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Yea, you're the moral compass around here. What a joke.