🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@JayHawkFanToo Did you mean "all" or perhaps "partially"?

What role does pre-tournament coaching, tournament preparation, player skill, in-game adjustments, and continuity contribute?

@jaybate-1.0 Which end? With this photo, you need to be specific.

Sorry, I linked this on another thread, forgive me for doing it again here. Don't ever accuse me of ignoring a theme-

[link text](

There's only two things from Texas, steers and ... well ... you know.

[link text](

@benshawks08 Well, I said "no reason they shouldn't ... " Purposefully careful in my wording there.

@cragarhawk Quite optimistic there .. but there's no reason why this team shouldn't do exactly what you said.

Solution = Win.

I figured I'd have something to say this morning. I don't.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

In three games, we have shot 34 three pointers total. And three of those tonight were in scramble time at the end -- when as @DoubleDD said, Self decides we need them.

Our problem offensively is undeniably our scheme.

We struggle offensively and not once does Self go to the four out, one in scheme that torched OU in the last four minutes and that routed ISU at home.

How do you NOT try that, and score 63 points?

How do you NOT try that, when Cliff continues to underwhelm?

I wonder who or what Self will blame tonight?

Kansas State just beat us by 7. Let that sink in. A team in disarray. A team that many were saying had quit. A team with how many top 100 players?

@drgnslayr will say, why not try playing small? Well, when you have Traylor and Lucas in the post, why would you ever want to put more skilled players on the court? That would simply be crazy when the pair combines for 3 points and four rebounds.

You shoot 20-25 three pointers per game because you get close to your average, the more you shoot.

Four of the last five seasons we've exited the NCAA tourney early, and lost to underdogs.

I need to go to sleep.

Ah, great topic, and as usual, great conversation starter from @drgnslayr.

Offense and defense. There is a difference.

Defense can lead to offense, but does offense ever lead to defense?

@jaybate-1.0 touched on this above.

The link is a weak one, though, Sure, there are some connections. Offense can affect defense. But really, not much. Wearing out the opposition? Sure. Making a basket to set up your press? Yep. But not a lot.

But defense directly leads to offense. Defense can be some of your best offense. It's how football and basketball are similar. I guess I am a big, big believer in defense creating offense (in both football and basketball).

I think though, in basketball, it's much more pronounced.

But very importantly, you don't have to give up one (defense) to have the other (offense).

I firmly believe that you can play a fast paced offense, shooting early in the shot clock, while still playing Self's way on defense. Perhaps combining Roy's offense with Self's defense.

Now, do they compliment each other? Maybe not. A faster paced offense might be paired better with a trapping, pressing, defense. If I knew what wines went with what foods, I'd give you an example, but I don't. You get my point.

Again, though, I think you can have both. Self's defense plus a more open, free, and frenetic offense.

In the final analysis, this season, I'd take everything Self teaches, and add in some specific scheming to get multiple three point looks each game, to capitalize on our strengths, and I think we'd be at peak efficiency.

Great quote from @drgnslayr: ""Fool's gold" exists any time when you don't play to your strengths ..."

That's a cut and paste right there. Literally.

@drgnslayr - Read that you have a brand new daughter. Congratulations. Enjoy every minute. Is this your first girl?

@BeddieKU23 I have a dream, and that dream is that we somehow reach a game against UK. And in that dream, coach Self goes four out, one in and it is a massacre. UK can't keep up. They try to match our three point shooting and get away from their size advantage inside. But it is only a dream.

@KUinLA - Hang in there. Bang away at what you believe. I've read your posts for years, and have enjoyed your candor and direct approach. And as you know, you and I have not always agreed. But you are right on target here.

I have found, sometimes, the best way to approach a post one might see as a touch rough is to first analyze whether the content is correct.

Regarding Kentucky, our game was clearly feed the post and what Self said it was, drive and dish. We did both -- we fed the post and we drove (but did not dish). Both were plainly evident against UK.

After the game, Self gave us the famous line about game planning:

“This game plan crap that everybody talks about; this isn’t football,” Self said. “We play to our strengths, and you don’t just change offenses because the other team is tall. Our whole deal early on was drive to pass. And we didn’t; we drove to shoot.”

If we can agree that throwing it into the post is a bad strategy against UK, who made that choice heading into the UK game? Coach Self.

Who, after the UK game, said "you just don't change offenses because the other team is tall"? Coach Self.

Who, after the UK game, mocked game planning? Coach Self.

I'm not saying you change offenses. I'm saying you adjust your scheme to take advantage of your assets.

I'm saying you do exactly what coach Self said that you do -- using coach Self's exact words -- "“We play to our strengths ... " And that is all @KUinLA is saying, as well.

However, while we here at kubuckets.com had already posted multiple times regarding focusing this team on the perimeter game before the season even started, coach Self chose his tried and true. And really, I have no issue with that early in the season. No way to know, for sure, that it was not going to work. We could only speculate (of course now, it is not speculation).

Now, cast your crimson and blue colored glasses aside, and ask yourself this question:

As we stand here now, does anyone think it wise to run our standard offense and focus on throwing the ball into the post against UK?

I'm interested if anyone that posts here thinks that our standard, feed the post offense is the way to beat UK?

If you answer "no", you are venturing into red pill territory. You are questioning authority. You are challenging the monolith. You seek the truth.

And I will offer an alternative to some comments above. It is not just whether we win ugly, or lose. Those aren't the only choices. You can win pretty. You can win going away. You can win by exploiting your offensive resources and kicking the other team's a**. We can win "play(ing) to our strengths ... " Or you can win ugly, at home, against TCU --- shooting 10 three pointers. Or you can lose on the road at WVU, shooting only 11 three pointers.

22-5, winning the conference all these years, provides evidence.

Getting upset in the NCAA tourney ahead of "chalk" on the bracket -- beaten by a team that we are favored to beat, four of the last five seasons -- also provides evidence.

Sometimes the evidence is not crystal clear.

@truehawk93 I think you have identified my point exactly -- if we are to win Self's way offensively, then we need Cliff clicking commensurate with his #3 ranking. If not, then we can't win playing Self's way offensively.

Think hard about your post. You say that "Lucas can/will produce." There is no evidence of that. Lucas is a nice kid. Tries hard. But the evidence shows that his production is sporadic.

You said, "I think Mari has proven that he's our more experienced man that can play some energy mins." Energy and what? Have you read @Jesse-Newell's article last week? I get you think he'll have to "be our go to big." That, my friend, is scary. But it is also true. Thus, my point.

Each player could have a game where they do play really well ... Traylor won us the EKU game last season. But winning 6 games in March?

You also said, "A win is a win and at this point, I'll take it. They can win, period. However, you're not satisfied with winning, you're more concerned about who?"

My concern is whether we can win a national title. Really, more my concern has been "how" -- since really before the season started. Being satisfied with wins has little to do with whether we can win a national title. The Lucas/Traylor combo are certainly a fine 4th and 5th big combo, and even perhaps 3rd and 4th. But if either of them is the 2nd choice, using Self's offensive approach, it ain't happenin'.

@icthawkfan316 We can enjoy each game, and the wins. Sure. It's nice to see Ellis and Graham each have good games. These are all momentary instances of niceness that we can smile at. Embracing the good is, well, good. Consider it embraced.

My favorite moment of the game came at 3:25 of the first half. coming out of a timeout, Self called a set play. Greene came from the baseline off two screens, for a wide open three from the top. It was the first time since the first half of the Utah game that we ran a set play like that to get Greene an open three.

When I see that play, I enjoy it. I embrace it.

But I see all that is lost, all that we are leaving on the table. The simple act of scheming to our strength comes together in one very simple, very beautiful play. But it is the next, most obvious question that takes the joy of the moment and jolts me back to reality.

A team that should be shooting 20-25 three pointers a night -- not as a panacea, but as part of a tactical gameplan to focus on our exceptional skills -- instead, continues to focus on elements of our game that have been proven failures all season long. Fleeting instances of success, while enjoyable, provide me little comfort when I look into the crystal ball that is March.

And to me ... understanding that folks differ on this ... winning a national championship is all that really matters.

Great comments and discussion.

@MoonwalkMafia hit on this yesterday or Friday, I believe, and it underscores my thoughts as well. It's not that Self is absolutely wrong in not playing Cliff. It's more that Cliff, for whatever reason, is not where we need him to be. Would I simply play Cliff and take my medicine?

That is not as simple as it seems.

The better question is, "If I were dogmatically committed to throwing the ball into the post and refusing to scheme to capitalize on my team's strengths, would I simply play Cliff and take my medicine?"

That answer is yes.

The reason why is simple. We cannot win a national title with Jamari Traylor as our #2 minutes post player.

As I've read comments, no one disputes that.

It is just that simple.

Of course, an 11th Big 12 title is nice. It seems about like 9 or 10 to me, and kind of like 12. It's how spoiled I am. @ParisHawk mentioned John Wooden and the conference streak -- Wooden's greatness had little to do with winning those conference titles. Otherwise, Mark Few would be mentioned in the same breath or whoever coached Gonzaga. It was Wooden's national titles. That and only that. @ParisHawk also said, "Maybe Self cares more about #11 than investing in Cliff for March." The idea of this makes me want to throw up. But maybe that's a correct statement. Self's doing what he thinks is best, to win the game at hand. He has always done that. That translates to conference titles and good NCAA seeding.

Regardless, Kansas needs to win national titles. That is greatness. Given our coach's offensive mindset right now, and with Traylor (or Lucas for that matter) being the #2 minutes guy in the post, the hopes for a national title are dead. It is just that simple.

Now, could his offensive mindset change ..... ?

Today with Graham seemed like nothing more than the hot hand thing, as others have mentioned. Nice to have that option. I couldn't be more comfortable with our PG situation. Terrific players.

Last season, the key to our season was Joel Embiid. This season, our season continues to ride in large part on the development of Cliff Alexander.

It doesn't have to be that way, of course. It makes no sense that this team's future would have to ride on Cliff Alexander. That has been the subject of a lot of type space.

February 21, 2015 -- the day the season died. And we aren't singin' "bye, bye, Miss American Pie." What we're singin' is "why, why, can't Self let big Cliff fly"? Today, is the day the season died.

Against West Virginia, the pace of the game was supposedly all wrong for Cliff. Against Baylor, it was that Cliff wasn't as good against zones.

Today, well, I just don't know. This seemed like the perfect game for Cliff to fly. Instead, our prized recruit -- the #3 player in the country played 11 minutes, at home, against TCU.

Perhaps Cliff's injuries are more significant than we know. I don't think so. Self didn't give him much cover, saying he didn't think he was limited. Self mentioned that all guys have aches and pains. If Cliff was that hurt, why would he start? Why would he play at all? Injury ain't it.

It appears to me, with now just four games left in the regular season, that the season that was riding on Cliff's development, will die a premature death, short of the final four. He apparently isn't developing at a sufficient rate.

Today, on a day when Cliff seemed to have a great opportunity to shine, it was Jamari Traylor who played 24 minutes. And those 24 minutes were typical Jamari Traylor, highlighted by a whopping 3 rebounds. There were multiple moments today that demonstrated why he is so bad on the glass. He gets pushed under the rim, even when he decides to try to block out. The student manager that got in near the end of the game could find his way to 3 rebounds in a game, if he got the same 24 minutes. It is absolutely embarrassing.

But to the point -- we cannot get to the Final Four with Jamari Traylor as our #2 post player. We shouldn't hope it, we shouldn't wish, we should dream it. It is dead. Heck, the way Traylor is playing this season, I question whether we could do that even if Traylor was our #3 post player. But 10-12 minutes? I'd feel much better.

This brings back memories of Brady Morningstar. But this discussion is in a different league. At least with Brady, there were some tangible skill sets to debate. There was glue. With Traylor, there is nothing. Just a below average player that is on Kansas' roster solely because we got stuck after guys turned pro, and Self was apparently surprised by defections. A guy playing solely because we have nothing else (or the "something else" doesn't meet our coach's requirements for playing time).

This is how seasons die. When a player like Traylor is viewed as a better option, when a player like Traylor plays big minutes ... seasons die. And we're left, like all "good old boys, drinkin' whiskey and rye." It's about all that will help.

@konkeyDong The dreaded "glue" comment .. it's the kiss of death, isn't it? You have compared him thus to Dr. Glue, Brady Morningstar. God help us all.

But I can't argue with your analysis. In Self's shoes, you have to gamble on Selden vs. Svi this season, if that's the choice. Svi wasn't hitting shots. That made it an easier choice.

I would note one statistical item -- Selden is not a better rebounder than Greene. Greene has a much higher rebounds per minute played than Selden. Rebounding and Selden -- an obvious oxymoron.

@Crimsonorblue22 Come on, you love Selden. I know it. Maybe you just like Svi.

I love Svi. I admit it. Guilty. Don't tell my wife.

@Crimsonorblue22 Svi hater .. or Selden lover?

Remember what we saw of Svi at the beginning of the season?

Nothing has changed.

The only thing that has changed is that Self had to make rotation decisions.

My question is -- If Self had chosen Svi over Selden, would we be better off right now?

That's a legitimate point of speculation, given what we've seen from Selden.

Despite the WVU lapse, I do think Selden is trending upward.

There's a good chance Svi could end up being our best player next season. If he's here.

@icthawkfan316 I tend to agree with the consistent approach -- but like you said, "not rigidly without any adjustments."

Do you think Self is overly rigid?

I did some peeking around last night just to see what others had said. I'm not even sure some of the folks making silly comments were KU fans anyway. Someone mentioned that there are always 10-15% of any group that is irrational. Might be a bit higher.

Perry's defense has improved significantly this season, and that has to be due to his effort. Anyone watching the guy go for rebounds can see that he's really giving high effort in that area, too. To me, everything Perry can control, he's gotten better at. He is clearly working hard.

Any part of his game that we find insufficient, in my mind, is solely due to his natural limitations. That discussion is no different than the "I wish" discussion on many players. We have seen the guy be spectacular when his skill set is utilized.

When discussing players, there is a difference between 1) Perry can't score over long and athletic guys and 2) Perry doesn't block out on rebounds. .

Of course, Perry does block out on rebounds. The point is that point 1) is not really within his control while point 2) is.

Anyone that has played the game has missed the exact layup that Perry missed -- high speed off the catch. Not much time to think. It's just an unfair criticism to lay on a player, particularly in the last seconds.

The real issue from the end of the game I'm curious about is why Perry didn't step in to stop the penetration by Staten. That's a more fundamental item that was completely within his control. Then we backtrack to how Staten even got to that position, which is the real item of discussion in my book.

Everything at the end of a game is hyper-focused. It's kind of funny, actually. I saw a comment that said that Perry missing that last shot didn't lose us the game. Now, I don't blame Perry at all for the miss -- but it almost surely lost us the game. If he makes it, we're ahead. It's like not suggesting a bad late game call didn't cost a game. Sure it did. Everything that was done was done by that point. So the next event is the only thing that controls the outcome.

So sure, Perry missing might have cost us the game. But so could have Lucas' missed free throws, or the missed three pointer in the first half. We just know on Perry's that the likelihood of winning would have been extremely high if he had made it, while the missed three pointer in the first half, there is no way to quantify with the amount of time remaining.

But that doesn't mean he deserves any criticism for missing the layup at all.

@DoubleDD - pretty funny. Read this in your link, "Systems have their advantages. The continuity from year to year means only a few new players have to learn it each year and, due to experience, the returning players are better at it. The coach, in running it year after year, gets better at making in game adjustments. The negative is that the system doesn't always fit the personnel. Players that are mismatched for the system won't play to their potential and will find it very difficult to fit in. Systems are great but unless you have an established feeder system or you can recruit players that allow you to choose the ones that are best suited for your system, the system becomes very difficult to continue."

And there you have it.

Ok, semi-blind resume.

@icthawkfan316 I guess I am a little biased in favor of the high/low scheme ... after the discussion this season, I bet no one saw that comin'. But I love the scheme. It's portable, and pliable.

However, my personal opinion is that Self's implementation is inflexible, unnecessarily devalues the three point shot, failing to fully embrace the #powerofthree, so to speak. I guess a better way of saying it is that it is just too hyper-focused on the post feed. The three (which is really the perimeter shooting) can be embraced within the system, and that's been my sole issue this entire season.

Seriously, if the Fool's Gold mentality could just change a bit, just embrace the perimeter game when appropriate with his personnel, and then happily (not grudgingly) exploit it, we'd write about something else.

I respect his opinion on what wins. He needs the right personnel. He needs that big dude that can score inside. The match up advantage.

It's like throwing a dude on the mound that throws 88, who relies on his change, and asking him to be a strike out pitcher because "that's what we do." Ellis is the guy that throws 88. Let him pitch to contact and he'll get ground ball after ground ball.

@DoubleDD said, "Hell yea I think HCBS should change the high/low at least for this year. He is wasting the best offense KU has."

The operable phrase is "for this year." That is the discussion. Adjust to your personnel. Exploit your talent. Give yourself the better chance to win.

@Crimsonorblue22 This from the "just sayin" category -- blind resumes:

Coach A: Elite 8 in 2010, Final Four in 2011, National Title in 2012, NIT 2013, and Title game 2014.

Coach B: 2nd round in 2010, Elite 8 in 2011, Title game in 2012, Sweet 16 in 2013, and 2nd round in 2014.

Choose the more masterful one.

@jaybate-1.0 - Traylor has always been a horrible rebounder, not just this season. Granted, this season is worse. I have seen nothing to indicate that he's injured. He still jumps around and flies in to block shots. He runs the floor. I don't think it's anything more than his skill level is a bit inferior, he's undersized down low, and he doesn't give effort rebounding the ball.

@icthawkfan316 You said in response to @DoubleDD , "Also, you keep trying to characterize the hi-lo offense as "complex", yet assume that an offense designed to maximize three-point looks can just be thrown together on the fly and easily picked up."

One thing I would say is that within our current high/low system, I think there are many really simple tweaks that we could use to actively scheme to get three point looks. I've mentioned a few of those before. One, for example, is simply a rolling double ball screen on the wing. High post ball screens the wing, with the point guard following with a screen. Might get the right look a third of the time.

But this leaves our offense in the same alignment if it fails.

Another would be a non-ball screen by the point guard to the wing after the post entry, so the wing could get free for the kick out from the post.

Of note, how many kick-out threes have we seen this season? Meaning, from the post out directly to the shooter? Not many.

@wrwlumpy I would caution you to not discount the coaching involved at UK. Actually, Calipari is a masterful coach. He is in the same league as coach K, Boeheim, Pitino, Self, Williams, Izzo, and the other top guys. Look at what he did with UK last season. Heck, in the title game, they were on the verge of getting blown out and he shifted to a zone defense, which got them back in the game.

But more to your point, a "dribble-drive" offense is not simply throwing the ball on the floor and saying "play ball." It certainly isn't the way Kentucky plays. It is ball rotation, creating angles and gaps, and screening. And like most offenses, it's about spacing.

A key element (usually) is that the post man/men will set up on the opposite side of the ball initially. Some do it differently.

A dribble-drive offense is truly an outside-in attack, wherein the focus is on the perimeter player and the slash to the hoop. If you want to get really perimeter oriented, there are some cool dribble drive offenses vs. man defenses that are a five out, none in set.

But it is, of course, just another motion offense with rules. Those rules, depending upon the coach, can be strict or loose.

So I think that's really the key. Is a coach loose with his rules, to exploit the talents of his players? Or is a coach strict with his rules, so as to rely upon the system for the success? And there is a range in between. You can win both ways.

But a dribble drive offense IS an offense. It's not playground ball -- and certainly not the way UK does it.

Not to be contrary, here, but how has UK taken the "Joy and Heart" out of basketball? Isn't that comment really about Calipari out recruiting everyone else? And then coaching his talent to a high level?

I don't like him either. But it's more of an irrational distaste (I have to admit). He's the enemy. We want the national title. He's got the best team, and has taken UK to a higher level in the past few seasons.

@RockChalkinTexas Easy .. just kidding around. I was just interested if you knew something we hadn't heard. I have no issue with your JMO.

Other possible nicknames for those that aren't too sensitive -- I considered Jerrancejuana and Hemp Howard. To be blunt, though, I kind of like Coach Cannabis the best.

Any guess who's driving the van?
link text ↗

@DCHawker You are exactly right on Traylor. Actually, I was not able to find a post player under Self, that played any significant minutes, that was worse than Traylor rebounding the ball (other than Justin Wesley, as I mentioned above). Traylor is just a horrible rebounder. Numbers don't lie there. As I noted above, @Jesse-Newell said, ""So hard for KU to get a defensive rebound with Traylor in. 11.4 D-board % has to be close to worst ever for a Self big at KU." This is a point I've been curious about. Traylor is an energy guy, I guess, making a few highlight plays here and there. But my opinion is that he is really a lazy player much of the time. Rebounding is a good portion "effort" -- with his leaping ability and athleticism, and proximity to the post, it's not unreasonable to question his effort.

On the other hand, he is playing pretty much to his ranking and expectation. Maybe even a little higher.

But your point on Selden is very good. He is the worst perimeter rebounder. At 6'5" and with his build, that's surprising.

@drgnslayr You said, "But it became obvious by watching this game, that we should have gone to a smaller lineup. Perry in the middle, and 4 guards. It gave us a better chance to rebound because we had quicker guys on the floor. It gave us faster legs to attack the rim on offense. None of this game was played above the rim. None. It was completely a game decided by x-axis tactics. I feel confident we would have started fouling out their interior players much sooner. Their weakness was post defense. And we were able to spread their defense effectively."

Your entire post was excellent. I'm always in for playing small to test the waters in games where we don't overwhelm. Like four out, one in .. why not throw out a line and see what happens? But this game did cry out for playing small, and seeing how WVU reacted. Particularly when you rely on low talent guys (Traylor/Lucas).

Again, you have much more talented players on the court. Better weapons.

@RockChalkinTexas -- So you think missing coach cannabis affected this team? I guess I don't know any back story on his "energy."

Of course, my take is a touch different. Here's my view:

1. Wayne Selden: From an individual standpoint, Selden was the biggest culprit last night. But we knew it going in. Unfortunately, he played 32 minutes. He can't handle the ball. He contributed nothing offensively. Self said he sat Cliff because this type of game was "too much for him". This type of game was too much for Selden. I have noted Selden's uptrend, which has continued through last game. This game exposed him further with the ball. As Self said, he's a "big wing."

2. Devonte Graham: For all of Self's talk about wanting ball handlers in the game -- this is how we play best, is what he said -- Graham's minutes were limited. He would have been a better option than Selden.

3. Offensive Scheme: Here we go again. Talking about offensive scheme is, well. offensive. Please trust me here, folks. I beg you. Go look at my post on Sunday about how we schemed differently and adjusted against Baylor, changing our zone attack. My mind is completely open -- I want it to happen. We were 6-11 from three last night. Just 11 attempts. Most everyone agrees that it is our best offensive weapon. The typical response is the as noted above in posts -- basically, "don't tell me that Self is stopping guys from shooting threes." That is not the point. The point is that we are doing nothing schematically to get three point looks. Two different questions. I rewatched the game bright and early this morning, sound off so it wouldn't wake up my wife. This is what is killing this team offensively from a macro perspective. Each game we can say "we didn't rebound", or "we turned the ball over", or "we missed free throws." Those ebb and flow. Something different every game. The scheme, though, is constant.

4. Brannen Greene: The point above was made that Greene can't get/create his own looks. Exactly. He can't. He needs the coach's help.

5. Type of Game: This was an up and down kind of game, so if we can get layups, we should take them -- over three pointers. No doubt. But how many real opportunities did we get? Self had said we wanted to attack the press. Huggins thought otherwise. He cut off our down court passing lanes -- I mentioned yesterday that we liked to attack with passes down the sidelines and wondered if Huggins would shut that down. He did.

6. Greene Light?: Fran said that Greene has the "green light." Try again. For those that think Self isn't discouraging them from shooting threes, go back and watch after Greene's lone three point attempt (yes, the guy that is the nation's best shooter played 12 minutes and got one three point shot). After Greene shoots, way early in the shot clock, and misses, watch Self yell at him. We all know what he was saying, right? Self was mad. Greene nodding. As Greene has said, we can shoot "within the flow of the offense." If a Greene hits the shot, Self says nothing. He misses, and you get the negative reinforcement because it's early in the clock. Stated another way, does anyone think that Mason, Greene, Oubre and Selden can take an open three whenever, wherever? Without running the offense? Come on. Self has pulled Oubre in prior games for shooting an open three early (and missing). He sat Mason immediately after one, too. The infamous quick hook.We know coach Self, don't we? Reactionary much of the time to negative results -- not choices, but results.

7. End Game Screw Up I: I had no problem with pressure at the end. Actually mentioned it before it happened on the cjonline blog. It's the right move. But Self went with man pressure AND ... and this is a big AND ... he tried to deny the ball coming inbounds. The tactics combined get you out of position very easily. Case in point, last night -- Self said after the game that "it was on me." But then he also blamed the execution -- the execution obviously was blown, but it was a very risky set-up. He knows that. Self knows what happened and why. The much, much better plan was to apply token pressure to eat a bit of time, then flex back and trap softly. I saw where Fran something to that effect this morning. It's text book. Self ran a riskier scheme solely to deny Staten -- the rule of unintended consequences reared its ugly head. Remember, even if we win, it's still a bad call -- like betting $1000 on number 12 in roulette. If you win, great ... but it still wasn't logical. I don't understand that set up.

8. End Game Screw Up II: Of course, the two guys near the bucket have to stop the penetration. That was inexplicable. I have no idea what Ellis was thinking there. Self has a right to be very upset with that. I junior high player stops that penetration. Brain cramp. Now, Staten could have dumped it off, or drew a foul, but we go back to what is the best play. Best play is to stop the pressure. We could still lose.

9. Jamari Traylor: He is really trying his best. He just isn't very good. I understand completely with pace of game, why Cliff sat. It's just too bad that a team can put one of our best players on the bench solely by their scheme -- notice the importance of scheme. @Jesse-Newell noted during the game that Traylor looked like a "rag doll" on the defensive glass, and also said "So hard for KU to get a defensive rebound with Traylor in. 11.4 D-board % has to be close to worst ever for a Self big at KU." I could only see that Wesley might have been worse. Traylor is what he is. But he is such a liability. And he is pretty poor much of the time defensively. I would have rather had a real rebounder at the four ... like Oubre. Heck, playing small might have been a nice adjustment. Won't happen.

10. Breaking the Press: I mentioned these two points yesterday, but there were two big areas breaking the press -- First, getting the ball in quickly after a made basket. We don't let the closest guy throw it in immediately. We have a designated guy. I saw Traylor run away from the ball after made baskets. Two times though Cliff threw it in quickly. Don't know if that was planned, but that was it. It's a crucial "fail" in my book breaking a press. Second, returning the ball to the inbounder quickly. I don't have my notes with me, but we started doing that about possession #15 or so (I'm guessing there), and it worked quite effectively. I have no idea why we weren't doing that from the get go.

11. Small Or Four Out-One In: Two options last night were playing small, say Oubre at the four, Ellis at the five; or playing four out, one in offensively. We saw neither. We don't play small offensively because Self is paranoid about our defense. He is too worried we won't be "able to guard anybody" (quote from preseason discussion). I don't know on whether going small would have been the answer. But last night, we don't even break out the four out, one in look? Not even to see how it will work? I don't understand that.

12. WVU Won Because of Their Scheme: This was not a game we should have lost. WVU was a vastly inferior team. A team that won because their coach has adjusted their scheme to fit their team. WVU won because of their scheme, right? Think of it this way -- do you think we lose if WVU doesn't play the press/pressure game? Right. The power of scheme. The power of coaching.

This baby tends to make anything mobile into scrap -- A-10 Warthog. Do we have a Gatling gun on this team?

!A-10 Warthog.2.jpg ↗

!A-10 Warthog.jpg ↗

@BeddieKU23 made a great point on another thread ... pressing off a missed basket is bad a** in my book. If you're going to press, then that is a must. WVU does that. High tilt pressure.

Here are some important areas for tonight, in my book:

1. Quick Inbounds: One very important area for tonight's game to watch -- How quickly do we get the ball inbounds off a made basket? This is critical. Our standard formula is to wait until the designated guy throws it in. This lets the press set. The better move is to have the nearest guy to the ball get it and throw it in quickly. I've advocated this so we can play faster all the time, even when there is no press.

2. Ball Handler Inbounds The Ball: Your best ball handler should inbounds the ball a number of possessions. Not all the time. You can do a quick return pass and let him then get up the court. Sticking with point #1, if Mason or Graham is the closest, then throw it in. Don't wait for Traylor, or Ellis, or whoever to lumber over and toss it in.

3. Graham/Mason: Using Graham and Mason together may be a must for long stretches. I say that because Selden is a ball handling liability, and neither Greene nor Oubre are stellar, though both seem serviceable. I noted that in other press situations, Selden has been moved to the 3 spot like he was last year. Having Graham and Mason in together could compromise some of our offense -- as Selden of late, Oubre and Greene have been important offensive weapons. Time possibly for Graham to shine.

4. Mason On The Break: This is a more big picture concern, that could be highlighted tonight -- Mason, for all of his positives, just isn't very good running the break. He doesn't deliver the ball reliably, and has a clear preference to taking the ball to the hoop himself. Another thing Mason fails on is moving the ball to the middle on the break. He stays on the wing instead of getting to the middle where he has more options.

5. Scheme: I heard Self say after the Baylor game that we'll do what we always do against the press, and there are just a few tweaks. He also said he wants to attack the press. If I'm Huggins, historically, KU attacking the press is down the sidelines (vs. attacking in the middle -- when we go to the middle, we're slower). I wonder if Huggins will look to sit on those "attack" passes? Here's hoping a few of those tweaks involve some baseball passes, and perhaps some weave action.

If I had to bet now, I'd say that Cliff stays and Oubre goes.

Embiid was the exception to the post player rule. As @icthawkfan316 noted, guys take a touch of time to develop, but generally, it's worth the wait. Cliff's size concerns me at the next level. Looks like a possible three year player to me.

The reason why Cliff should stay, in my mind, is skill development. It's clear that he has the tools, but his skill level has not matured. He's way behind where Embiid was in literally all categories. The guys aren't comparable skill-wise. I say this without reservation -- Embiid was the greatest talent to play here under Self. I don't know if his health will hold up, but he is crazy special.

Back to Cliff -- Two areas that Cliff is significantly lacking 1) a go to move, and 2) footwork.

And I think the footwork needs to come first. Cliff was hurt for quite a while this summer. That could have set him back. Really, I think his footwork is atrocious. With an improvement there, we could see a guy that could really take off.

Once the footwork stabilizes, the go to move might appear. This is all normal, as the comments above have alluded to. He's a freshman. Just needs time. It it weren't the OAD era, we'd be pretty satisfied. It's only when we think he might be here just one season, that we become a little hyper-sensitive to this stuff.

Cliff presents an interesting OAD case -- for a top ranked guy, if we had him just one season, it clearly wouldn't be the return most expected. Perhaps a strong anti-OAD argument. On the other hand, I think we might be looking at a three year player here -- which is a strong argument for recruiting OADs.

@Lulufulu Right. After the Utah game, one thing I mentioned was that I didn't think Self would go four out, one in - at that time mentioning ISU as a comparison. I figured Self would stick with his two post guys. I assumed that if we were to play four out, one in scheme would be used playing small -- with Oubre, Greene, or Selden at the four. And Self had just mentioned that the "going small" talk before the season was premised on CF needed PT too. I actually was more envisioning the "pick and pop" four, playing the high post, like Andrew White did against Belmont in Dec./2012.

Self has obviously used Perry as the four in the four out, one in scheme with much success, and Traylor too (but that isn't as pretty).

There are many, many things we can do out of our regular high low to get three point looks, we don't need the four out, one in to accomplish that.

However, the reason I like the four out, one in with this team is that it exploits Perry's strengths, when he's in the four spot, playing on the perimeter. It was very impressive. It also drags a big away from the basket defensively so that our slashers can have more space. When we struggle scoring inside, it's a terrific arrow to have in the quiver.

Remember, though -- yesterday Baylor was in a zone. The high/low deal really is well suited to attack the zone, because the entry pass to the high post can set everything up. I wouldn't play four out/one in vs. Baylor's 1-3-1. Makes me wonder how ISU played it?

Also, one last point for those that watched the 30 minute deal on coach Self before the game. Self talked about Hank Iba striving his entire life to find the one offense that could be used against every defense. I'm wondering if that is why Self is so system oriented, meaning the high/low in every situation seems to be his go-to? That would be interesting to know.

@Hawk8086 - I certainly think that it is a better way. If you look at the second picture, think of all of the screening options on the back line. Another thing using an even front vs. odd (or odd vs. even) is that it creates more ready-made paths to attacking the creases off the dribble. I also think it makes it easier on the post men flashing to the high post, when the wing has to commit the more corner oriented offensive player. It requires the wing defender, on Greene's side (or whichever side that the "3" is on), to respect him there, which pulls him away from the middle. If Greene is in the position that he is in the first picture, the defender at the top of the zone is in a great position to help on Greene, so the wing defender can be more aggressive inside.

At 11:55 of the second half, you can go back and see how our offense sets up. Look where Greene, and where the defender has to play. This permits Mason to make the killer entry pass at the high post to Traylor. Oubre then slides down the wing as an option. On this play, Traylor drives and gets blocked. That one is on Traylor. But the function of it is perfect. I mean, this is exactly what you want. Traylor has multiple options, including a dump off to Lucas. Pretty cool to watch. Here's a photo of how it set up:
!photo (7).JPG ↗

We also run set plays off inbounds with similar spacing. Go to 14:00 of the second half. Oubre gets a three from the near corner, shaded a bit to the wing. When I've mentioned screening against the zone, watch Ellis and Alexander on the inbounds play. This is it. We don't see that in our regular offense, though. But it's used regularly in our inbounds plays. This is another instance where I think we can say that Self is looking to get three point looks for guys. Mason inbounded the ball over the top to Greene to the far edge of the top of the key, Oubre was moving to the far corner. After getting to Greene, Mason went hard to the near forecourt. Oubre then cut baseline to the near corner. This is the sort of stuff all basketball coaches should copy. Here's a photo that shows Mason getting the ball to Oubre, and Alexander and Ellis "walling up" in the middle:
!photo (5).JPG ↗

In contrast, at 12:35, we went back to the first look -- odd vs. odd. It's pretty easy to see how this aids Baylor in putting the clamps on our perimeter players. Really, it plays right into the hands of a 1-3-1. If you're coaching the 1-3-1, isn't this exactly what you'd hope that your opponent does? Further, look at Ellis and Alexander. When the ball goes to them, that sets up the trap perfectly because they're only two guys on that back line. When our 3 moves lower, when we attack with an even front, it flattens everything out when the ball moves there. When the third guy isn't on the backline, it allows the zone to stay more three dimensional. The photo below shows us going back to the odd front -- Ellis then gets the ball, drives, gets stymied, and turns it over on a pass. Putting Ellis in a spot where he just isn't going to be successful most of the time. Heck, Baylor didn't even trap him there:
!photo (6).JPG ↗

And here's one I think really shows the even front at it's best. Mason attacks the seam, middle man steps up. Wing defender has to help. Selden in the corner. Mason then kicks it to Selden who then attacks to his right on the dribble getting fouled at the rim. Mason was able to break down the zone on the dribble because he had a seam, which left the defense out of sorts for Selden's drive.

By contrast, go back to what I mentioned with an odd front. The top defender could guard the wing if it were an odd front, and our wing guy was higher. Here, he can't do that. Here's the photo:

!photo (4).JPG ↗
I will say, though, that if you're going to use an odd man front, you have to screen like crazy to create the seems, which we don't do. Really, I think our change in approach much of the second half set up our impressive offensive performance.

Sorry for all the photos .. I just find this stuff really cool. And this was one of those games where I was worried based on what we did in Waco with the odd man offensive front. Personally, I think the even front changed the game.

@wrwlumpy - Not yet, but thanks for the reminder.

@jaybate-1.0 - After two games against Baylor, I have to admit that I'm pretty impressed with Scott Drew. He has played us tight both times, and his zone is pretty darn good. I love the 1-3-1 and it really seemed that it was well coached. I contrast that to what we saw from Baylor's zones a number of years ago. I think that stemmed from the fact that Drew kept moving between zone and man. No identity. But committing to the zone, I think they have gotten much stronger with it. I was kind of surprised they didn't trap hard out of it. I was wondering if they'd pop that on us.

Question, though .. what about neutral site?

@JayHawkFanToo Here's a deal for you ... I'll delete my entire post. I'm going to start over with you. Do as I would do with someone I might know personally. I apologize for my part in this silly back and forth. I extend my hand to you, and we can start over. You'll see my post is deleted above. If you want to delete yours, you can, or not. We'll start a new narrative tomorrow.

@approxinfinity Great topic .. and @Crimsonorblue22, you are exactly right. We aren't talking about Perry's defense, are we? Perry has made obvious strides on the defensive end. But what I'm even more impressed with is his aggressiveness rebounding the basketball. His rebounding numbers are just slightly better, but it seems as though he's going after the ball with real authority.

One of the areas of concern that @icthawkfan316 mentioned on another thread was, "I think the frustration a lot of fans have is that they don't think we work on, game plan, or scheme for 3-point looks."

This is the heart of the discussion we've had on our offense.

In the Baylor pregame thread, one area I was concerned with was that our zone attack was based on utilizing a an odd man front to attack and odd man front defense. Baylor's so-called 1-1-3, which is really a 1-3-1, caused us difficulty in Waco getting open looks from the perimeter. Many times, we were left passing the ball aimlessly around the perimeter, and making futile entry passes.

But today, Self changed that attack. And I do think it was in large part to try to get three point looks. When Greene entered the game, Self went to an even man front.

The first photo shows our standard attack, with Mason out front -- odd man front. You'll see how easy it is for Baylor to guard our perimeter.

!photo (2).JPG ↗

The second photo shows our modified attack with Greene in the game. See how Greene is on the baseline and Mason and Oubre are up top -- in an even man front vs. Baylor's odd man front zone. Using a shooter like Greene on the baseline against a 1-3-1 is certainly an effort to get looks for Greene. This scheme didn't get the desired result, but it was a clear effort to get different looks. We didn't do this once when we played at Baylor.

When Selden was in later in the half, he took Greene's spot in on the floor. We did this though much of the second half, and it also seemed to change the dynamic a bit overall. It also set up our set play lob to Selden out of the half. Anyway, thought it might be interesting for everyone to see.

!photo (3).JPG ↗

Post Deleted -- Modified. Tomorrow is a new day!

Baylor tomorrow.

Remember the last Baylor game? Baylor's zone defense was pretty darn good. In the past, I had really been critical of Scott Drew's zones. Seemed, well, kind of like Rick Barnes' zone was when we played Texas -- amateurish. Non-Boeheim like.

Our offense was pretty stumped. Ellis got some easy hoops inside, then he got into foul trouble. When he returned, Baylor didn't permit the same path to the hoop. We should expect that from the start.

In the Baylor game, the color guy said that KU needed to do "more than pass it around the perimeter."

Given how we attacked Texas, I expect that we will.

I grumped a bit the last time because we simply didn't set any screens against Baylor's zone. Seemed as though we got stymied much of the time, and did have the ability to hit the creases.

I'm hoping that if we feed the ball in, we get some nice kick-outs for shots. But what would you do if you were Baylor? I'd play our bigs straight up, which means there will be two defenders near, and protect against any kick-out. Will be interesting to see of we can go from ball side block to far wing with any passing if that happens, or if we can play some big to big -- DJack/Arthur style (best play of OT vs. Memphis, if anyone recalls).

Another item to watch -- against the TT zone, I noticed that we had one man out top, and two wings. TT had an odd mad front. So that was a bit unconventional. Baylor also has an odd man front. I don't recall that we used an odd man front against Baylor's odd man front -- don't think that we did, but can't remember.

Anyway, this is significant because the perimeter defenders in the 1-1-3 that Baylor runs will match face up to our perimeter players (just like a 1-3-1 would), which is different than if we ran a two man, or even man front vs. the zone.

Playing against Baylor, after what I saw last time, will present a big challenge. Hope the Fool's Gold mine is producing.

@icthawkfan316 I grant you pretty much everything you have said. Good shooters certainly can be guarded well. I'm not painting with an all encompassing brush. I just think that Reddick is an interesting case study.

Over the course a year, one of the best dual threat guys -- 3 pt/FT % -- got off over 1,100 attempts.

No doubt, you can work to take one guy out of a game. You could play the "extra help" game where the nearest off defender prioritizes help over his own man. But over the course of a season, it just won't happen that way.

Further, as is obvious, when you really take a guy away, the Red Sea parts elsewhere. Particularly with more talented teams.

You will also have games when there is truly a lockdown, 1 on 1 defender that wreaks havoc -- I think of a long Brandon Rush type guarding a Reddick.

But over the course of a season, one guy won't be taken away.

I really like the shots per minute comparison there ... the "per minute" thing is real important in my thinking on stats.

**Also, I am curious about your reference to Reddick losing to KU his senior season in the tourney. We got bounced in 05-06 vs. Bradley. What were you referring to?

The one thing about Traylor are the peaks -- he flat won us the EKU game last tournament. I've been disappointed with the regression, as @wrwlumpy mentioned. I had viewed him as the perfect big off the bench coming into the season. I just don't quite know what to think of him now.

I saw @Crimsonorblue22's comment on Traylor. I wanted to make sure, if anyone had the TT game still on the DVR, go look at 10:56 and 1:48 of the first half. This is what puzzles me about Traylor. The first one he didn't block out at all and the TT guy got an easy follow up lay in; and on the second one, watch his no effort for an offensive rebound. This past game, it was, what, 19 minutes, 0 points, 2 rebounds.

We have gotten on Ellis for being soft or finesse. But that guy has really been aggressive on the boards this season, and is playing much better defense than last season.

I just see Ellis giving way more effort than Traylor many times, despite the highlight reel stuff Traylor produces from time to time.

On this topic, it's very hard.

MU didn't fire Pinkel because of the DUI. The DUI is worse than this, related to the deed itself, in my book.

I struggle with two things, 1) he didn't tell Self. Dishonesty by omission. And 2) the example he is setting for the players.

This is about Self's program. Truly a trust Self moment.

For those that think teams can just stop your three point shooting if you're trying to shoot them, do this -- think about who was the best three point shooters in recent memory? Guys you don't want to have the ball. And guys, like Greene, who are deadly from the three point line as well.

One might be JJ Reddick, right? In his four years at Duke, Reddick shot 238, 258, 300, and 330 three pointers in the years he played. Do you think teams tried to stop that dude from shooting? I would think so. And he shot over 40% for his career. So don't tell me that Greene won't get good looks if teams try to stop him -- if we're scheming/working to get him looks. And do you think, possibly, that coach K schemed to get Reddick open looks? Maybe? Greene shot only three, three pointers the other night. Best shooter in the country.

@JayHawkFanToo What I think is most irritating with you is the shallowness of your responses, and the inaccuracies of your attempts to challenge statements here. You say right out of the box -- "There is no question that KU is playing from the outside in and that the inside game is not doing well .."

KU is playing from the outside-in? You do see the high-low we played 100% of the time the past two games, right? You do see the constant focus on feeding the post, right? You did see Selden say right after the last game the following - "we like to play inside-out, that's how we play." Kansas is running the same offense they always have. They are taking appx. the same rate of three point shots. I don't even know what to say this.

It's not that you disagree. It's how you try to disagree. It's that you disagree and you make red herring statements like "Our 3 point shooters have their limitations ...", as if that means something.

And you don't magically improve the inside game with 7 games left. Please explain to me how this changes now? Game to game, match ups might help. But beyond that, this is the offensive team we have. But keep trying to "improve" as you say? It's not about that. It's about scheming to your strength (again, I think you misunderstand that. It doesn't mean shoot all threes, or 40% of your shots as threes. Or a set number. It is attacking teams trying to get those looks, and then capitalizing when either they don't stop it, or they try to stop it. You might scheme to get threes and not even shoot one for quite a while in a game. I mentioned back cutting when team pressure out. Just one of many options. I have said many, many times that I'll take the reliable scoring at the rim any day of the week.).

This is a perfect example of the shallowness of your replies. You say, "KU is most definitely scheming to shoot the three and it has more success with some teams than others depending on how well they scheme to stop our outside game."

Of course, you never say how. You never point to a change in their scheme. You never, ever come here with a review of the game to demonstrate that (or anything else). Nothing.

You attempt to prove the point that Self is supposedly scheming to get threes with the following, "Why do you think Coach Self is on the sidelines, red in the face screaming at players?...do you think he is telling them...good job, you are doing exactly what we planned?"

That is simply useless.

Brannen Greene said just last week that he is free to shoot within the flow of the offense -- again, within the flow of the offense.

There is nothing .. zero .. that has changed in their offense to get more three point looks. From a set-play standpoint, I noted a specific play against Utah where they got Greene a three point shot. It was very obvious. V-cut to and from the baseline with a screen. Has anyone seen that since?

You said, "You make it sound that if players are give(n) a set play they will hit the 3 every time? No, they will not."

I'm sorry, I have no idea what planet you live on. It isn't a basketball planet. And it isn't a reading comprehension planet. Someone please enlighten me, have I ever made it sound as if we'll hit "every" three? Or even 50%? I've talked plainly about 40%.

You said, referring to yourself, "Again, I know a little about basketball but not enough to be even dangerous, let alone good at it ... "

With that, I conclude.

Ollie says, "Kiss the ring."