🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Well worth the time to read from start to finish, from @Jesse-Newell.

KU Review- Response to Bill Self's 3 point Comments ↗

Here's a few highlights:

“(Making 3s is) fools’ gold. You can’t bank on making 55 percent or 50 percent of your 3s."

Have to stop briefly here for a second. Who is arguing KU has to shoot 50 percent on its 3s every game? Let's say KU made 40 percent, its season average. That would be 8 of 20, meaning nine fewer points, meaning KU wins by 13 instead of 22. Thirty percent? Six of 20, so KU still wins by seven (the spread was 12). These scenarios also don't account for offensive rebounding (one of KU's strengths), and based on the numbers, we'd expect KU to get one or two extra possessions based on the scenarios above.

In any case, KU is attempting its most effective way to score, opening things up better on the inside and also working to better avoid turnovers.

"You want to (make 50 percent of 3s), but if that's what you play to, then you're not going to be able to hang your hat on that if you play a team that takes away the 3s and forces you to score inside and things like that, and you can’t do it. You’ll end up going home sad."

What should happen if a team forces you to score inside? You adjust accordingly. The inverse, of course, is what happens when a team forces you to shoot 3s?

That would basically be last year's Stanford game, where the Jayhawks tried to jam it inside against the Cardinal's length. The result wasn't pretty: KU made 19 of 58 field goals (33 percent) and also was just 9-for-22 (41 percent) on shots at the rim while attempting only 16 3s.

The Jayhawks' 0.826 PPP that game ended up being their lowest mark of the season.

@drgnslayr - You said "None of us want Self's head on a stick. We just want him to step all the way out of his comfort zone and take advantage of this very talented team!"

Very well said. But guys like @JayHawkFanToo, like a lot of guys at the old site used to do, make into something it's not. It's not a tactical, schematic, or strategy discussion, everything is an attack on a God.

@wrwlumpy: To answer your questions:

Do you want coach to apologize to the players for saying "Fool's Gold? No, I want him to stop making comments that demean his players' abilities -- those same abilities that are our only chance at a national championship. Our ONLY chance. (Does anyone dispute that with this team?)

After last night are you convinced he's washed up? No.

Is Self Anti three point shooting? Yes, he despises it. It's a third or fourth option.

Has he really cheapened anyone? Yes. Brannen Greene is "Fool's Gold." Best offensive weapon on the team, if that matters.

Are there no easy baskets inside? Very few with this team. Or have I missed something.

@JayHawkFanToo - No one has said that we don't want a credible inside game, have they? No one has said to abandon the inside game.

You said, "We would all agree that they went insane; being one dimensional in sports is a recipe for failure...you have to have a complete game in order to be successful; it is no different for basketball."

No one has said that. The entire point is scheming to the strength of your team.

@Jesse-Newell had a great article this afternoon. He asked a good question. If you can play inside-out, why not outside-in?

Of course, you can play outside-in. Did you see our four out/one in offense? That's how you can get more inside post scoring. Isolation and spacing.

You fall into your continuous and impossible trap. You think that teams just tell us what to do. You said, "Look what happened at OSU. KU was shooting great from the outside (7 of 9) in the first half and then OSU adjusted the defense and got on the grill of the outside shooters and they could no longer score like they did in the first half (3 of 11)."

Again, I would implore you to follow along here. What did we do to scheme to get open three point looks? Nothing. Unfortunately, I rewatched the game. There was no change in what we did. This is where many fail to hold Self accountable -- it is a coach's job to adjust to OSU pushing our offense away from the basket. There was no schematic change. No adjustment. We just started a bit farther away because OSU changed their approach. So because OSU says so, we're going to go 3/11 from three? This is what you will never concede. You will never concede he did anything wrong, or that he failed to do something he should have, or could have. As you said in another post, you won't second guess him. That creates the cocoon from which you operate.

If a team pushed your offense away from the basket with tight pressure, what would you do? First thing I would do would be to go to a back cut game, but I digress.

Your point is good, in part. We shot 10-20 for the OSU game, right? That is terrific. I'll take that. But that just goes to what Self has said in the other elements of the game, and the need to improve. And that goes to your point, I believe. It is best to be a complete team (although no one seems to be saying anything to the contrary).

But it also bolsters my point, and the point of many others -- scheme and shoot more threes. Just not shoot them. Scheme to get three point looks.

@wrwlumpy: You had part of the quote. Self said "We had no low post game." He mentioned, too, "scoring off the pass." I have listened to coach Self very closely, and even in the past few weeks he's talked about throwing it inside to get easy baskets.

I will correct one item, my cut and pasted was partial -- I referred to delusional both regarding back to the basket and shooting 30% of attempts from three.

May I ask, you did not answer my questions -- could you indulge me?

I ask you then, is there any evidence now, on February 10, with seven regular season games left, to suggest that this team can get effective, reliable scoring the back to the basket way that Self prefers?

If the answer is "no" -- which I assume that it is -- is it not delusional to believe that something is suddenly going to change in that regard?

Again, this is limited to back to the basket stuff.

He is allowing the offense to open up by allowing Greene on the court.

@wrwlumpy Uh, nothing. My comments were related to the "fool's gold" garbage. Or was that not clear? It has nothing to do with other areas of improvement, or with defense, or with rebounding, or ball-moving, or what have you. It is related Self thinking this team can somehow magically start to score, back to the basket.

I chose the word "delusional" very carefully as I'd used it a couple of months ago.

I ask you then, is there any evidence now, on February 10, with seven regular season games left, to suggest that this team can get effective, reliable scoring the back to the basket way that Self prefers?

If the answer is "no" -- which I assume that it is -- is it not delusional to believe that something is suddenly going to change in that regard?

@DCHawker said as follows: "Self is correct that we're not going to make 50+% of our 3s every game (last few games notwithstanding). But, if we make only 33%, we still have a better effective FG % than we do from 2 pt range - arguably, even at the rim with this team."

This is a great point. Of course we're not going to make 50% as a team from three. That's a straw man argument.Those happen here and there. But we are a 40%+ shooting team from three. That is fact.

Could we go 4/20 from three on a bad night? Absolutely. Three point shooting is not a panacea.

But with this team, the only real takeaway here is that the better roll of the dice offensively is to embrace the perimeter game. Don't put on the shackles, focusing on 30% of total shots being from three. Embrace it. And most of all, scheme to get those looks. Not just within the offense. Work to ensure your team gets those looks.

That can come from throwing it inside, to be sure. There was a beautiful sequence in the 2nd half where the ball went in to Lucas on the near block, he threw it to the opposite wing, and the ball rotated back to the near wing, and Greene (or maybe Selden -- sorry, notes not with me) hit a three. Perfect.

Here's the thing .. I generally agree with coach Self. It's back to the "this team" thing. I cannot imagine this team winning a national title unless it is shooting the three ball real well, and at a high rate. Can anyone? I'll take feed the post with 65% at the rim. If we're shooting 32% as a team from three, and don't have the best shooter in America, I'd be happy to complain about something else.

The delusional thing, guys, is solely about Self thinking this team can somehow magically start to score, back to the basket, and treating this team as he does prior teams on his three point attempt desires. And worse, expending precious energy beating our head against the wall trying to figure out how to score back to the basket. As I've said, the only way that happens is if Cliff makes a leap. That might help Perry, like Embiid helped Perry.

There will be nights when we can throw it inside and score. But so far, those games -- really, those moments -- have been few and far between.

And I admit, I get very irritated when coaches do what he did last night in post game comments. It's one thing to grump around, and never be satisfied. That happens all the time. It's another thing to clearly devalue and minimize the strengths of many of these players right after a very impressive performance.

It is also important to remember, just for context, that teams win national titles doing things all sorts of different ways. Self's way is one way. He won one his way. Self's way is not the only way, though.

Teams have won national titles shooting over 34% of their shots from three -- UConn last year, Florida in their back to back titles. Others, below 30 %. Some right at 30% (Louisville).

Jayhawk 007 - How do you see flexibility offensively? I'm curious. The only flexibility I've seen is the sporadic use of the four out/one out here and there. Haven't seen it in two games.

About two months ago, I believe after the Utah game, coach Self sat and watched his team play a beautiful perimeter game in the first half. Forgive me if my numbers aren't precise, but of our appx. 39 first half points, only 4 were scored near the basket. Something like that. Built a 20+ point lead. Then, in the second half, it was pound it inside. Our offense stagnated. And we almost lost the game.

After the game, Self pulled out the "fool's gold" comment, and directed it to Ellis. Saying his scoring away from the basket was "fool's gold."

I said at the time that Bill Self was delusional. That he was in need of psychotropic medication. That his team was not an inside-out team. That it was a perimeter team. He could wish for it to be otherwise, but that won't make it true.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as follows: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein was smarter than Bill Self, for those that put Self in the genius category.

Of course, Bill Self -- the man himself -- admitted that this is not an inside-out team.

@Jesse-Newell said it best last night: "Self asks what happens if an NCAA tourney team takes away 3s. I would ask, 'What happens if a team takes away 2s (Stanford)'."

Exactly.

Self laments a fiction. That team can't rely upon threes because teams could take that away, or you could have a bad shooting night, as if that can't happen underneath.

But whether you believe we lost to Stanford because of their interior defense and contesting of shots (taking it away), or because we missed "bunnies" (bad shooting night), the fact is it can happen with interior shots as well.

It is a flat fiction. And Self says this stuff as if those that are listening are stupid. No one in the media challenges him. No one in the media asks the obvious questions.

Read Rustin Dodd's article this morning. Read what others write. Heck, listen to the game announcers last night.

Read what we wrote at kubuckets.com in the first month of the season -- glad to see the rest of the basketball world is seeing what we have seen for quite some time.

Self said, speaking of three pointers, "It's fool's gold. You can't bank on making 55% of your threes." If you rely on threes, "you end up going home sad."

But here's even what's worse - Bill Self's comments last night cheapen and devalue what the team has accomplished. Imagine if you're a player?

Imagine if you're a father. Your kid is great a soccer and is just so-so at basketball. But you hate soccer. And you tell your kid, "Hey, that's great, but try playing a real sport like basketball, and I'll be impressed." Horrible, right?

The lynch-pin that exposes the flaw in his thinking is thaw are just not capable of being the type of team that coach Self wants inside. That's all. On another team, in another year, it wouldn't be that way. Ellis scored at like 64 % at the rim last season. Embiid at 76%. That's what makes Self's ramblings absurd. We aren't going to magically start scoring at a high rate with our back to the basket. To think otherwise is delusional. If it's not delusional, show me any shred of evidence.

Instead of providing inspiration and positivity, he cheapens and devalues their efforts and team strengths. Imagine Brannen Greene. "Hey, buddy, you're fool's gold." Comes across that way to me.

But guess what, coach -- we don't believe you. Just because you say it, doesn't mean that it is true. Just because you aren't either smart enough, or secure enough (which could really be the underlying issue), to be flexible and adapt, doesn't mean that Jayhawk nation has to buy what you're selling.

Again, back to what @Jesse-Newell said -- how ironic is it that Self talks about the NCAA tourney and the risk of three pointers when our most recent early exit was because of missed two pointers?

The man only sees what he wants to see.

He point blank says that shooting 41% of your shots as threes is too much, and we should be around 30% like usual. Totally disregarding the strengths and weaknesses of his team.

That is delusional.

@RockChalkinTexas Excellent post.

“We’re kind of a weird team,” Self says. “We have to score points on the block by driving it. We don’t score it by throwing it inside and guys scoring it.”

Yet, as we've seen, he continues to try to throw it inside to score as the first option.

Our supposed best post scorer scores at the rim at a rate of 54.3%. Compare to Perry last year at 65% and Embiid 76%.

The question is, if you can't get easy baskets inside, do you change course to try to succeed, or do you die trying?

@globaljaybird Thanks ... much appreciated. I think my wife would prefer if I was a blue pill guy. Life would be easier from Nov - March.

@JayHawkFanToo -- But of course, Self did NOT foul under 7, up by three against Utah, remember? They shot a three and missed with four or five seconds left. It's a no brainer. Why do it one time and not the next? I assume you think Self is right both times. Of course, my response to @MoonwalkMafia was referring to his Trey Burke comment when we didn't foul and we got knocked out of the NCAA tourney. There is no Self defense on that one. That was the big one. That came after seeing Memphis lose on the same deal in 2008. And Self took no responsibility for it. Why foul at Baylor, but not vs. Utah or Michigan?

Now, to substance. I do think @JayHawkFanToo has hit on something here regarding Traylor. His discussion of Traylor identifies Traylor's ability to drive the ball. This is really the best explanation for why Traylor may be playing vs. Cliff. If Self sees us as not being truly inside-out, and that our inside baskets may be more from driving the ball, then Traylor is the choice. It may explain Self's preference -- the explanation for the inexplicable. Really, this is the best explanation. It fits. Not saying I would agree with the choice to use Traylor more than Cliff even with that, but it does at least give a possible explanation.

@JayHawkFanToo -- Two questions. Is it possible that there are not intangibles at work here? And other than the general "energy" deal with Traylor, what intangibles do you note? Anything?

Regarding Cliff, there could be some crazy back story that we don't know. But if it is the doghouse, then he should be suspended and not play at all. The only credible back story to me could be an injury we don't know about. One that Self says, "let me know how you're doing." It seems odd that no one has mentioned anything -- Newell, Dodd, Bedore, Keegan. And we've seen nothing on the bench with Dr. Randle or any of the staff checking or talking to Cliff. Cliff doesn't appear or act injured, he doesn't wince in pain.

I think it is simply that Self prefers Traylor -- one of those deals that only Self can explain. Which, of course, he never will. Much like the inexplicable use of post feeder deluxe Brady Morningstar. But guys, this is worse. Much worse. EJ and Releford were expectancies. Meaning, we thought we knew what they could do. Now, we were right, of course, on what they could do. That was proven. But Cliff is showing us what he can do right now. And he is flat out better. Not even the biggest Self defenders can deny that, or create what-if scenarios to cover the obvious. Cliff is just better.

@MoonwalkMafia You'll be happy to know that coach K just fouled, up by three, under 7 seconds on the clock. That guy has almost twice as many wins and four times as many national championships than Self, if we are to cite resumes. He also adjusted, and has played zone this season when the match-ups dictate. He's also been known be flexible with his system to adjust to his talent. The most three pointers shot by any player under Self is 205, by Sherron Collins in 08-09. Coach K let JJ Reddick gun 238, 258, 300 and 330 in each of his four seasons at Duke.

Some folks are calling Greene the best three point shooter in college basketball right now. But Self has him shooting within the flow of the offense -- the structured offense. The "very restricted system", as one NBA scout called it. Perhaps the best three point shooter in the game right now is on track to shoot just 107 three pointers ... if we play a full 40 games.

You've got an undeniable weapon, yet you won't scheme to get him looks.

Throw it in to Ellis, who scores at a rate of of 54.2 % at the rim; or Traylor 53.3%; or Lucas 48.4% -- or you play your best at the rim post scorer (68.4%) 14 minutes in a loss when he's 4/5 near the rim.

Or you can scheme to get a guy that shoots 51.6% from three point range as many looks as possible (I don't think he'd shoot 51.6% shooting twice as many, but I do think he's a guy that will shoot over 40%, for sure -- same argument).

But no, Self says our normal rate of three pointers that have been shot over the years is all we really need, even with the incompetent "at the rim" post play.

It makes no sense. This team has the talent to be dominant offensively. This team has the talent offensively to simply outscore opponents. But we have to play our system, right?

And so it is. Someone defend that.

**Let me add, I don't think coach K is a better coach than Self. Since Self has been at Kansas, Self and coach K have won the same amount of national titles. And I'd say Kansas has been better. It is just criminal that a weapon like Brannen Greene is not exploited.

Let's be sure to understand that many of Cliff's supposed failings are failings by Jamari, as well -- and Jamari doesn't produce numbers.

I've seen Jamari loaf, I've seen him get lost. I"ve seen him get scorched on D. I've seen him literally not even jump to go after rebounds.

To help prove his pedestrian value, most folks would say that a guy playing his minutes, that doesn't fill the stat sheet, is a glue guy. Never hear that with him. Because he doesn't hold anything together.

Look at his atrocious rebounding numbers. Rebounding is in large part about effort. Jamari's rebounding numbers prove that his supposed "hustle" is a myth.

What I mean is that Jamari shows bursts that catch the highlights. The terrific dive on the floor. But on the normal play, he gets beat regularly. There was one that stuck out to me where the shot went up from the top of the key, he was guarding the shooter. He drifted in, didn't block out, and didn't attack the rebound. Just stood there .. a minor example.

His role should be, at best, first big off the bench on a team like Kansas. The truth is, but for the lack of quality depth, the 4th big is the better role.

I've defended Traylor with the statement that he is playing exactly to his ranking (non-ranking). And he is. He is just miscast in his role. Not his fault. He will have some peaks that make us smile, but his normal performance is below average and hurts this team with the number of minutes he plays.

@Jesse-Newell's article is right on point.

Quick addition to my post - Traylor is rebounding the ball at an astonishingly low rate of .188 per minute played. I can't remember a lower rate for any big at Kansas that got some consistent playing time. I take that back ... Justin Wesley. That should give it some context.

@icthawkfan316 Did you see the quote from Greene earlier this week?

"Greene said Self allows him to fire away 'as long as it’s in the flow of the offense. His main thing is get the easiest shots. Sometimes me shooting a long three is our best chance at that point. Wherever the shot clock may be, certain parts of the game, certain times of the game.' "

Sounds like a red light/yellow light thing to me.

@Bwag - I really like your reference to Greene's post game comments. Here's the main quote from Greene:

“Just the fluidity,” KU sophomore Brannen Greene said of KU’s second-half woes. He hit three three-pointers and scored 10 points the first half, failing to score in the final half. “When they started pressuring us, we started our offense farther out than we wanted to. It just threw off everything. When you are able to start the offense around the three-point line, you are in scoring position. We weren’t in scoring position with our offense. They got after us and some of us got rattled.”

Hmmm .. lots of info there.

Remember Greene's quote from this week -"Greene said Self allows him to fire away 'as long as it’s in the flow of the offense. His main thing is get the easiest shots. Sometimes me shooting a long three is our best chance at that point. Wherever the shot clock may be, certain parts of the game, certain times of the game.' "

It is more than obvious that Self limits Greene's ability to gun. The answer to yesterday is easy. OSU's pressure got us out of our normal offensive flow.

And a similar refrain -- we didn't adjust, change, or modify our attack. We saw the same thing we normally see.

With that, Travis Ford outcoached Bill Self.

Just as Self outcoached Kruger, things can go the other way.

jayhawk 007 - I watched Cliff go 4/5 inside and play 14 minutes. He's just flat better than Traylor.

But more importantly -- assuming we don't play small or go all in on the four in, one out -- we aren't winning a national championship with Jamari Traylor playing more minutes than Cliff Alexander. It just isn't happening.

@jaybate-1.0 Terrific post. Read it twice.

Remember Missouri in 2011-12? They played small with a 6'6" guy (Kim English) in the four spot, and had him regularly on the perimeter. In fact, Self felt we had to adjust to them for a good stretch in the game, and not play TRob and Withey together.

This is the dynamic we can impose upon teams with Ellis on the perimeter, and not playing small, per se. We can create MUAs by pulling a post player from our opposition out on the floor, forcing them to guard -- as you point out.

This is such a simple concept.

I would say, however, that Traylor cannot function on the perimeter. In fact, none of our "bigs" can except Ellis. I think four out, one in is very difficult with a guy like Traylor on the perimeter. As an opposing coach, I'd trap him, pressure him, funnel the ball to him .. whatever to create that turnover opportunity. One thing Traylor can do is drive to the hoop semi-competently, but I'm not sure that's enough.

It appears to me that our high-low is perfectly fine when we can score regularly inside. This season, is just doesn't work as well. In most games, it won't. Another option is to adjust our scheme to add an outside in focus to our high-low. This really isn't complex or difficult. Next option is to move to four out, one in when Ellis is in the game. This is perfectly reasonable expectation of coach Self.

Of course, I qualified this with "of coach Self" -- since we know that anything more dramatic is banging our heads against the wall. But it is not heresy to expect our coach to adjust, and put our team in the best position to succeed. He did that exquisitely at home against ISU. He can do it.

@Crimsonorblue22 On CF, he has 2 1/2 seasons left. Since he enrolled and attended school the first semester, that counts, whether he played, or not. The rule is each player has 5 seasons to play 4, unless there is a medical redshirt. He'll be eligible after the conclusion of the first semester in the 2015-16 season.

@icthawkfan316 - You said, "So my question is: does Self have enough in his basketball repetoire to expand the offense playing to maximize looks from the outside? It might not be a question of him wanting to, it might be a question of him feeling confident to be able to do so adequately."

I want to focus on this important part of your post.

Unequivocally, I think yes, he could. Whether he feels confident enough, yikes, I'd hope so.

From a set plays stand point, we've seen Self script three point looks before. But I know your question is based on his offense.

I would say that his offense is a true inside-out, feed the post focus. But very importantly, there is the "out." It's taking advantage of that. How many times has the ball come from the post to a three point shooter this season? Very few.

With that, in his motion offense, all Self would have to do is install variations or additional "rules." I know you know the game quite well. So you know, with any true motion offense there are rules that govern the movements of each player, based on certain situations and ball location. In Self's offense, one of the apparent rules, for example is that when the ball moves to the block from the wing, the classic post feed, the high post player to the opposite side of the lane if he isn't there already, and the perimeter player at the top of the key rotates a bit to the weak side. This sets up a possible two man game.

In a few prior posts, I have described how three points look can be gained within our offense. Here's an easy one that Self utilizes (I think this a rule). When the ball goes to the post from the wing, if the defender turns his back on the perimeter player, the perimeter player slides to the corner for a possible three. Here's an easy addition.

Instead of the high post player standing stagnant on the weak side, or sliding down to the block, he moves hard to the strong side and sets a screen for the post feeding perimeter player, looking for an open three look. If the defender fights over the screen, the perimeter players cuts to the hoop. If he goes under, well, that's three. The proper angle is gained by the perimeter player moving the corner after the feed.

There are scores of possibilities within our offense to adjust a few rules, or add some options.

Back early in the season, I was even saying that we didn't need to play four out, one in. I am still totally fine with our offense if we work within that offense to get more three point looks. Self, though, has the four out, one deal hat in his bag of tricks.

Literally, I think it's as easy as Self prioritizing it.

Question: I didn't sense at all that OSU shut down the three point line in the second half. We took more three pointers in the second half, didn't we? I'll rewatch the game, but I recall two specific instances where I was curious as to why Greene didn't gun.

And yes, I do think Self puts in limitations many times. Shot clock, etc.Against Utah second half, after we missed some early threes in second half vs. OU ... I think he told the guys where and how they need to get their shots. But that's wasn't my point here. I think you identified it -- I don't think he works to get our guys those looks. We worked to get the ball inside.

@KUSTEVE You're right, it is not the end of the world. Actually it's one of those losses that might be expected. Regardless, we simply gave the game away. But not the end of the world. Really, it's a "let's just move on" kind of loss. There are some points to consider more long term this season:

1. Press Break: This should concern us heading into two games with West Virginia. Mark Jackson said, "Kansas has done a bad job handling pressure." Uh, yea. Our inability to handle the press was a main contributor to OSU making the run to get back in the game. WVU is not the team we thought. But they appear to be a bad match-up for us. Mason is showing a few cracks in the foundation, making a few uncharacteristically bad ball handling related turnovers. He is human. One important thing that caught my eye was that it was Greene, not Selden, that was in the two spot against the press. Just as Self did last season with Wiggins, Selden is moved further away from ball handling responsibilities. Graham and Mason, together, against WVU might be the best answer.

2. Jamari Traylor: I missed the first few minutes because of the run over from the prior game. So I must have missed a few of his rebounds. Today, he managed 6 rebounds and 8 points. Both are the exception to the rule. But it was his 6 turnovers that overshadowed his better than normal statistical day. From travels, to losing the ball, to offensive fouls, to bad passes. The worst turnover was his last turnover, which came at 2:35 left. And his defense is just really bad sometimes ... go to 4:20 of the second half and watch Nash go right by him. If Cliff can't overtake Traylor, we know how this ends. I know there are some Traylor fans. I'm a fan solely because of his story. But from a basketball perspective, I'm astonished that we're in a position that we have to rely upon this guy for 20+ minutes a game. He'll have some nice peaks ... but they are few and far between. Aside from playing small, assuming Cliff doesn't break out, we're just stuck.

3. Wayne Selden: Hmmm .. might be trending up. I love how Van Gundy was saying that he looks like a pro shooter. He's right. Credit to the KU coaches. Last season, he was pulling the ball back over his head. Did not look like a pro shooter. Can we imagine how good Wayne can be if he finishes at the rim? The uptrend is encouraging.

4. Brannen Greene: Greene goes 3/5 from three, and plays a career best 29 minutes. You know what I'm going to say -- how does he shoot only five three pointers? No, before anyone says it, OSU wasn't playing great defense, and taking him away. Greene turned down two early shot clock looks.

5. Three Pointers: You knew this was coming. We shot 20.. But this game clearly called for more. This team calls for more. Ellis goes a horrible 4-12 from the field. One was a lob dunk (make), one was an 18 footer (make) and one was a three (miss). Take those away, for his near the basket efforts -- 2/9. Our team was 11/30 ... 37% on two point shots. We were 50% on three point shots. Did we see any Four out, one in offense this game? No. All High-Low stuff. Cliff, who was the most effective guy inside going 4/5, only played 16 minutes. Traylor, who had a good day for him shooting , was 3/7. And this is how it will be. Van Gundy said today that we were witnessing "the power of the three point shot." That's true, until you don't shoot them.

6. Bill Self Just Talks: Before the season, Self said that this team would "shoot more threes than we've maybe ever shot." On January 31, Self said quite clearly that we are not an inside-out team. Then, this week, he says that we need to keep our three point rate at 30% of our overall shots. He also said, “Usually we play inside-out, and that's how I want to play,” Self said. “Even if we don't shoot inside, at least play behind throwing it inside, and we haven't done that near as much this year." Up until his "we're not an inside-out team" thing, he rattled nearly weekly about getting it inside. He just talks.

7. Bill Self And Dogma: Dogma is a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. He believes his dogma. He won't relent. Three pointers are the enemy. It's as if he feels threatened by them. You never hear him saying, "Boy, I'm glad we can hit threes." In truth, he just doesn't like three pointers. He will continue to throw it inside to his best post player, who goes 2/9. Ellis cannot score with any consistency inside, and plays small. He thrives on the perimeter. Alexander doesn't play much, and isn't effective inside much of the time. And Traylor/Lucas are (sorry) simply not high D-1 players offensively. This season is such an obvious example of a coach that simply cannot let loose of his core principles, for the betterment of the team. Those principles have carried him to great success, but refusing to regularly and consistently unleash the offensive strength of this team will ultimately be its undoing. Unleashing the strength helps mask a weakness, but it allows that weakness to be at least turned neutral. Today, 20 three pointers was just not enough. In many games, 15 will be enough. Heck, 10 works for me if we're able to score consistently inside and win. But for this team to reach peak offensive efficiency, Self has to have an open mind to adjust game to game. Big adjustments. Self went with the different scheme early against ISU. Great results. Today, he refused to do so. Look at the last 5 minutes of the game. Selden makes a three pointer with 4:50 left. We don't shoot another three pointer until Mason's attempt with 13 seconds left. It is absolutely puzzling.

8. No Denying: There is no denying how this team functions best offensively. That's what's interesting. Despite the diversity of opinions here, there has been no one that has made a defense of the inside-out approach with this team -- this team. That is perhaps because the results are undeniable.

And please, please ... let's not blame our loss on missed free throws.

This is just a loss. An expected loss, perhaps. But the way we lose and perform sheds great light on what to expect as we move forward.

The question is, why can't Bill Self embrace what are truly our strengths offensively? I wish I knew.

“We kind of found a way to win some games where we’ve kind of done it differently than the way we practice all the time, and what we emphasize,” Self said on Monday.

Ugh. Still focusing on the feed the post futility?

Didn't he just say a week ago that we're not an inside out team?

Didn't he say in this same article that “We’re kind of a weird team. We have to score points on the block by driving it. We don’t score it by throwing it inside and guys scoring it.”

Some of the stuff he says is very, very hard to reconcile.

@Lulufulu Wasn't able to reply yesterday. For the first 9 minutes plus, they were in their standard high-low. Watch how the top guy, most of the time Traylor, would go out top and screen, and many times to the wing for a screen. Ellis was in that spot too. The "high" does a lot of screening. In the ISU game, lots of the screening was on the ball. The high will also slide down to the opposite low block many times on a post feed. From the high spot, Ellis can get three point looks. in possession 6, Ellis was high, kicked out and got a three from the high post.

This is much different than what we saw after Traylor left with two fouls at 10:19. Ellis came in, 4 in, 1 out.

I have mentioned how our base high-low offense is adaptable to a three point game. It's as simple as focusing screens away from the ball, or setting digging your perimeter game in a little tighter so ball screens can create looks near the three point line.

But back to the regular offense.

In the possessions 4, 9 and 11, the high (Traylor in 4; Ellis in 9 and 11), the high goes to screen the wing. In each instance this is setting up a little two man game. The low post moves to the opposite block. In possession 4, Selden dumps to Traylor and Traylor commits a charge. In possession 9, Ellis screens for Mason, who shoots and misses. In 11, Ellis screens for Selden who drives and turns it over. These possessions show some of our classic high-low attack.

In the first 9 minutes, we had 9 points. Two of those points were Oubre's dunk in the second possession on a run out, and two points were on an inbounds play to Oubre in the third possession. We scored two baskets from our our offense in 9 minutes.The standard offense failed miserably.

The best moment was at 11:55. Cliff high, Ellis low. Ball far side wing feeds Ellis on the block. He spins and guys collapse on him. He dishes to Cliff for an easy lay in. On possession 14, Ellis had a nice runner for a basket. That was it from the offense.

This is a great game to keep on the DVR because you can really see and contrast both attacks. From an effectiveness standpoint, there is no comparison.

@icthawkfan316 I guess Oubre and Greene have been very important to us offensively. I think you know that I really like Graham. I have a lot of confidence in him. But Oubre and Greene are scorers. Giving up scorers for ball handling (and less scoring) is what I see as a bit dangerous. But it may be more dangerous to have our "big wings" -- any of them -- at the 2 spot, and involved as primary ball handlers breaking the press. I also see Self favoring Selden -- thus we could see Mason, Graham, and Selden more -- to the expense of Oubre and Greene. It is a dilemma against the press.

This feels just as good the morning after, as it did the evening of. After reading all the posts here are a couple other things:

-We should all feel great for Selden. Big half of basketball. But we've been there before. He carried us to the win against Florida with a similar second half display. We still see that he just can't finish at the rim, as @globaljaybird noted.. Last night was no exception. Sometimes slumps end with explosions. Sometimes they end gradually. Let's just hope it ends. Starter, 6th man, whatever -- we need the guy.

-The Press: Why is this important? See West Virginia. And see how we didn't handle it too well in the last four minutes last night. Our lineup composition will be interesting, and as I mentioned yesterday, can we get by without both Mason and Graham in the game? Selden was exposed against the press against last night -- similar to last season. The "he just isn't a point guard" thing. He allows himself to get trapped, is prone to hold the ball a touch too long, and most of all, doesn't look comfortable attacking the press with the dribble. Graham and Mason might get some major minutes in that game together, which could cut into Greene and Oubre. That could be dangerous.

-As @icthawkfan316 mentioned, Lucas did play some good minutes last night. Perhaps I'd call them "competent" minutes. He plays when there is foul trouble, nothing more. " ... he's always ready and always comes with effort. Good game from him tonight." Exactly.

-@JayHawkFanToo noted Self's adjustment on stopping transition. I"ll admit, when I saw the video early of Ellis, Oubre and Selden retreating on our shot, taking them out of offensive rebounding position, I was skeptical. Actually, I thought it was pretty risky. But it worked like a charm. The transition points ISU got in the second half were basically meaningless. We shut it down the entire first half and early second half. Of course, shots going in are also a way to limit transition points, and we had some of that, too. But the strategy was clear and successful. A coaching adjustment that helped change the dynamic from the first encounter, to be sure.

-I love to talk about how adjustments by coaches win (or lose)games. They really do. Look at last night. Offensive scheme, transition, shifting Graham in with Mason when ISU started to press -- big decisions. And heck, we saw how coaching can directly impact a game in the Super Bowl. We'll never know for sure, but one simple play call could have changed the destinies of scores of players, families, and franchises. Coaches earn big money for a reason. It is their choices, preparation, game planning, and decisions that impact the game more than any other element.

-@VailHawk - Hardly missed Cliff. But he did draw some attention inside. Kind of a tough match up for him, with the athleticism ISU has. Cliff ain't the best guarding on the perimeter. I do think that when Cliff came in, ISU usually countered with McKay.

-@Kip_McSmithers - Self was referring to Jamari Traylor. I think Self in the same comment also referred to Ellis as being 6'7".

-@jaybate-1.0 - Any chance I get to be chairman of the University of Kansas Outside In Illuminati Conspiracy? I mean, I'll work hard. I'll be at every meeting. I can keep secrets. Ooh, sorry .. I know nothing of the organization. And yes, Mrs. HEM is curious. She asked me what all this outside-in, inside-out stuff was all about. I said, "well, let me show you." She responded with, "uh, no thanks." Which is why I write post game summaries.

Oh, and I noticed I got through a full post without saying "three pointer" or "Brannen Greene."

Kansas came out as expected, as they always do. Coach Self proclaimed after the KSU game that Kansas is "not an inside-out team." But we knew better. It was standard Kansas basketball. Look inside. Rotate the ball. Inside-out.

For 9 minutes, our offense was stagnant. We couldn't generate any flow. Most of all, we couldn't score.

Kansas was down 15-9 at the 10:55 mark of the first half. And it was concerning.

Then it happened. Self made the switch. The game changed. Four out, one in.

Go to your DVR and enjoy.

Ellis moved to the perimeter -- Mason, Graham, Greene, Ellis and Cliff. With that switch, Self moved Greene onto the court for the first time. Kansas was off to the races.

Eleven possessions, 22 points, and a 31-24 lead. Lucas found the floor during this stretch, and because spacing, Ellis drove and dished to Lucas for a hoop. Everyone looks good.

The last six possessions first half, Kansas reverted back to a more traditional hi-lo set. Thus I was expecting Kansas to start the second half with it's normal set.

But Self didn't fall for that. Self stuck with the four out, one in attack. A little wrinkle, though. Self put Ellis in and had Traylor on the perimeter. Traylor is lost on the perimeter, but because of spacing, Traylor was able to drive nearly unmolested for a clumsy hoop. Traylor isn't suited for this attack. Defenses don't have to guard him outside of 15 feet like the do Ellis. But it didn't matter.

Eight possessions into the second half, Kansas had scored 14 points and stretched the lead to 15 points and that was the ball game. Self continued to run the 4/1 attack, even with Traylor and Lucas in together.

ISU, of course, made a run. But our offensive attack was too much. With the floor spread, Kansas was able to drive and kick, especially to a hot Wayne Selden (good for him -- great to see).

As Fran Fraschilla said, Kansas gave ISU "some of it's own medicine." And that was the ball game. With eight minutes left, Oubre hit a two point jumper pushing the lead back to 15 points. At this point in the game, Kansas had made 9 three pointers, on a refreshingly wonderful 20 three point attempts.

Four out, one in. 20+ three point attempts on the night. Focusing on our tremendous shooters. Spreading the floor for our slashers. Putting Ellis in a position that better suits his skills. This is all I have asked for -- begged for. This was out best game of the season. Half-time lead? There was no coughing this one up. We kept the pedal to the metal.

This was not about limiting possessions. This was not about pounding it inside. This win was a beautiful demonstration of the "best shooting team in the Big 12", as Fraschilla put it. We played to our strengths. And when we play to our strengths, we are strong. Real strong.

And when you play like this, do you even notice the double digit turnovers? Does it really matter?

Just look at the box score. That wonderful boxscore. That is Kansas basketball, at least in 2014-15. We should all feel extremely content right now. Content about the direction of this team. Your coach -- old fool's gold himself -- played four out, one in for nearly 3/4 of a basketball game. We have never, ever seen that during Self's tenure at Kansas. Now we have. And that move won this game.

That team in Lexington, Kentucky -- we're sick of hearing about them -- but they better lace 'em up. A different Kansas team is rollin' their way.

@JayHawkFanToo I don't need to re-read the thread. I've read. Once works for me.

You made the point up the thread that "This is NOT an essay on shoecos or recruiting .. ' @jaybate-1.0 then responded, not even implying that you were saying that. He was just extending the conversation. He even said at the end, "In any case, I respect your dreams and did not mean to trample on them." Then you did it again in the post I was responding to, saying to @jaybate-1.0, "My post was solely about coaching and NOT about recruiting ..." (again,capitalizing the "NOT" -- I'm sure he saw it the first time).

If you can't see how that comes across, there's not much more to say.

@JayHawkFanToo I read this thread. I don't understand. Are you saying that @jaybate-1.0 should not discuss the topics raised, and should not expand the thought process beyond simply, "Wow, I'd love to have Collison and Vaughn coaching at KU"? It seems as though he was trying to engage a thoughtful discussion with you.

What is the point of your last post? We know your initial post was "NOT" about the items you listed. @jaybate-1.0 simply took it to a different level. That does happen sometimes.

@jaybate-1.0's point is exactly related to yours. It simply challenges it a bit, and discusses items that might affect the realistic possibility of it occurring, which is furthering the discussion. Maybe I'm missing something here ....

@Shanghai_RCJH With our group, I'm not too worried about other teams attempting to take away certain guys. I think Oubre, Greene, Graham, Selden, and Cliff are all capable of picking it up offensively if ISU would key on Mason/Ellis. We've really got some diverse scoring options.

The guy I think could/should have a big game is Oubre. His three point shot has been a bit slow lately, and he was ill vs. TCU.

With regard to Ellis, clearly, he's our best scorer of the post players. But he still struggles back to the basket (like he did vs. ISU last time). Using Ellis like Self has recently, getting him away from the basket and attacking. That's our best bet.

If I'm Hoiberg, though, I would really look to slide guys to stop Mason on his drives to the hoop. Make Mason dish, which is not his strong suit. But no, I'm not worried at all. Self went with Graham for the stretch in the 2nd half vs. ISU when we made our run. Graham's a different player. Good to have both of those two in the bag. I'd like to see them together .. a lot .. in this game.

I really think this game is all about what we choose to do, and how we choose to attack.

That look at the game is simply accepting the box score. We played who we played, we ran what we ran, and what can we do better within those parameters.

I don't look at games like that. The highlighted items are important, to be sure. And looking at the game solely based on the results and box score, that stuff is important. But it's only part of the story.

For my money, though, it's up to coaches to change the box score. Coaches impact the game in everything the team does, from the schemes, to the minutes, to when time outs are taken.

Think of it as the difference between looking at things in two dimensions vs. three dimensions.

Here's a good example vs. ISU: Landen Lucas played 19 minutes against ISU. Simply a horrible match-up. Then look at Traylor. We basically got nothing out of both of those guys. One could certainly argue that the decision to put 34 minutes of faith in those two was a major determining factor in the game, if you want to look deeper.

Now, tie that to the stats that are highlighted above ... ISU scored over 40 points in the paint.

So what is the purpose of playing those two any significant minutes in a match up vs. ISU? We know Self say Cliff to inspire him - I support that. But there is no denying that Cliff is simply the better player.

And that leads to what is the best scheme against ISU, which I touched on in another thread. Going small, Oubre at the 4, or playing 4 out, one in, and going with Ellis out, Cliff in (like we did vs. OU).

@betterfireE McKay isn't starting .. When McKay is in, we can match that. When McKay is in, I tend to think we're better off anyway.

@Lulufulu -- yea, saw that quote. I slept well last night. On the 4 out deal vs. KSU, @jaybate-1.0 caught that on the live blog. Seems to fit Ellis' game to a T.

@drgnslayr WVU presents an interesting challenge. Last season, I have nightmares of Staten blowing past Tharpe. WVU presses hard on D. That's a game where the Graham/Mason combo should be front and center.

How to beat ISU? There are surely a number of ways. Here's what I think is the best way to beat ISU: Play small.

What lineup to start against ISU? Mason, Graham, Greene, Oubre, Ellis.

Remember what happened in Ames? Self switched to a small lineup with 2:20 left. Why? Because we needed to score. Instead of leaving the better scoring lineup to the final few minutes, hoping to scramble and pull out a game, use it from the start. It was effective when used. Even better, such a lineup would necessitate use of the four out, one in scheme that has been very effective when used by Kansas this season.

Self used the four out, one in scheme near the end of the OU game and it was magic. It turned at 71-69 deficit, into a victory in the final 3:40. In that instance, Self used Ellis as the four man on the perimeter. My preference to playing smaller is matching up better with ISU -- meaning Oubre playing the four spot might be preferable to having Cliff or Jamari on the floor. But either way, four out, one in is the way to take ISU's game to ISU.

Last season, we attacked ISU inside. They couldn't match up. Embiid had his breakout game. This season, we saw that ISU was able to defend us effectively inside in the first game. It makes no sense to rely upon that again. Being ineffective inside against ISU is nothing more than a validation of what we already know. It's not a negative. Could Cliff playing change that dynamic? Maybe. But I think Cliff would benefit in that instance from a spread out floor, and some isolation down low.

But a small lineup is the best to attack ISU. We have superior athletes, We have better shooters. We have better scorers. Man for man, we are better.

If we don't play a small lineup, we'll be dealing with the same issues as last game when our big guys had difficulty guarding out on the floor. Cliff isn't a good match with any of ISU's starters. The one thing we know is that Hoiberg will attempt to exploit his advantages.

In the last game, Selden was beaten down the court multiple times in transition. And in one situation, he simply stood on the wing near his man while the man with the ball scored on a lay-up. As a team, we can't let that happen again.

Playing Graham over Selden will help us in our transition offense, as well, simply because Graham is better in transition. He's quicker and he's a better ball handler. He scores better at the rim. He's a better distributor. This would help Mason. We made our best run against ISU the last time with Graham in the game.

And, like a broken record, Greene needs to shoot threes. Against ISU last time -- here's what I said after that game: "Finally, in a game where three point marksmanship would have been a big help, Brannen Greene was irrelevant again. The best three point shooter gets no attempts."

This cannot happen on a normal day, much less against ISU. In a game like this, Greene needs to shoot multiple threes. Guys need to have the green light.

I'm guessing that we could likely beat ISU playing our normal game. But why not pound them into submission? Why not play to our strength in the perfect match-up to get our most skilled players on the field? Nothing like a tidy little 88-72 thumping to remind ISU who the big dog really is.

@jaybate-1.0 Please don't question it too much -- I need this moment of enjoyment. Just imagining Self actually saying, "we're not an inside out team." I have to find the audio. I might make it my ring tone. I'm enjoying it way too much.

The "driving to the basket" Perry vs. the back to the hoop, feed the post Perry, maybe? It is a thoroughly entertaining season, that is for sure.

@DoubleDD With a shooter like Greene, if he goes 0-3 to start, put him on the bench. Let him reset, then put him back in later. Just react to his shooting. Hot, stay in. Cold, pull and let reset, and try later. We are so blessed with bad a** perimeter talent, there are very few bad choices. We're winning, as well. So that's another argument against change. Guys are adapting to their roles.

@wrwlumpy On the not shoot threes vs. TCU thing in the second half, you know, I do think he put some rules out there. I rewatched the game. We turned down some decent opportunities in the second half. Mason had some good opportunities and didn't shoot. It just seemed pretty obvious that we didn't do what we normally do from three -- again, one attempt is evidence of that. Additional evidence is how Self has handled leads before (Utah, OU after the first 2 minutes of the second half, etc).

I kind of wonder ... just wondering ... if he saw what happened in letting TCU back in the game and is maybe rethinking slightly. That's probably a wishful stretch. But we had literally the same situation. Good three point defense as our opponent, but we shot 7 threes.

We just have never heard him ever come close to uttering that phrase. Ever. It's a clearly seminal moment in coach Self-speak.

@DoubleDD Looking at today's game as an example, just take 8 minutes away from Selden, and give those to Greene. Both would be at 22. Or put Greene at 25 and Selden 19. I liked Mason, Graham and Oubre's minutes distribution. I know it's hard to script minutes, that's an example. Selden doesn't deserve to be the second highest perimeter minutes guy right now, I don't think. As @icthawkfan316 suggested, Graham is another better option. I really like the idea of Selden off the bench, too.

One of my best arguments against starting Greene is the less is more argument. There are some guys whose production might decrease per minute, with more minutes. A good example is the change of pace running back in football .. like Darren Sproles used to be. Give him 25 carries a game, and you'd see a big production drop. Give him 10, and you might maximize his productivity. But I dont' see any reason to believe that would be the case with Greene.

I think there are really good arguments against starting Greene. He is one dimensional -- just a darn good dimension. I just prefer him to Selden at this point. Self playing Greene over Selden in crunch time told me a lot, and sold me on the idea that Greene should have an expanded role. If Selden is playing well offensively, then I'd view it differently. He played fine today, but was 5-13 from the field. I'd at least like to see Selden off the bench and see how he reacts. It could be magic.

One thing from today's game that we rarely ever talk about .. our inbounds plays. Opportunities for free points. Every coach, college, high school, AAU, pee wee, should DVR our games. Plagiarism is legal in basketball. Self always has the best, most aggressive inbounds plays from under the basket. What I like best about them is that they are not always quick hitters. Some take time to develop.

A few items from today's game that were positive -- 1) Ellis' work on the board. Ellis is quietly improving his rebounding from last season. It's not that he dominated the boards, but 12 rebounds was pretty darn solid. 2) Oubre didn't press it offensively. I never get the sense that Oubre is trying to force his shot. He seemed content today to let other guys score, and hit the boards hard like usual. The best rebounder on the team. 3) We shot three pointers with a lead. Sitting 2/10 from three at the break, I was concerned we'd shut down with a lead. But we did manage 7 threes in the second half, and percentages started to even out with 4 makes. It's crucial for us to stay aggressive with leads -- meaning, continue to play to our strengths.

Now the real good stuff. Astounding quote -- Did anyone see what Self said after the game?

“Historically we want to play inside-out early, but this is not an inside-out team,” Self said. “So we want to play through Perry as much as we can to work back inside.”

Damn right it's not an inside-out team. I never thought this moment would actually arrive. Where coach Self would utter those words. We've heard Self in post game interviews, at half time, and in press conferences continually talking about playing inside-out.

From the man himself, "this is not an inside-out team." Yes, coach, we know. Now run with it. We'll gladly follow.

Brannen Greene does need to play, and he needs to play more minutes. The reason is simple ... Brannen Greene makes Kansas better. He makes us a better overall team. His defense is not at the level of Oubre or Selden. We know that. But Greene is closing the gap.Self has trusted Greene in late game situations, so his defense is clearly reaching satisfactory range. @DoubleDD -- just really a matter of prioritizing Greene's minutes.

Greene, however, is significantly better at shooting than anyone on the team. By significant ways. He is the best pure scorer on the team. Is his attack diverse? No. It's shooting. But shooting is the most important currency in the game.

Look at what Self said after the game today - this is a quote from Matt Tait, summarizing Self: "I thought Brannen kind of bailed us out. The dude took 5 shots outside of 17 feet and made 4 of them."

Benton Smith reported that Self said today that Greene "jumps up and shoots it better than anyone we've had." Again, a summary quote.

The point is, if we have a shooter as good or better than anyone he's had here, PLAY THE MAN! There is no reason to think that Greene's productivity would decrease with more minutes.

This, again, is about reaching our offensive potential. Not about just winning against KSU.

Notice how Greene somehow shot 4 three pointers today? Imagine that. Before the game, it didn't look good -- Jesse Newell noted the following as one of KSU's three strengths:

3-point defense: Bruce Weber is one of the rare coaches who seems to have a style that forces opponents to miss 3s. The Wildcats ranked sixth nationally in 3-point percentage against last season, and though they struggled early on this year, they rank second in Big 12 play with opponents making only 30 percent of their 3s. K-State is decent at 3-point prevention as well, ranking 96th in percentage of 3s shot against.

Somehow, someway, against a team with a good three point defense, we were able to take 17 three point attempts, and were able to take more than one three point attempt in the second half, going 4/7.

Greene was a big part of that.

The deal here is prioritizing this undeniably valuable skill. 13 minutes is just not enough. Zero three point attempts against TCU was a complete waste offensive firepower. More importantly, not scheming to take advantage of our best offensive weapon is just plain negligent. Getting shots in the scheme of the offense is nice, but it is not enough.

Our number one priority on offense, above and beyond everything else, should be finding open looks for Brannen Greene from three point range. This is our best, most reliable, most efficient, and most effective way to score the basketball. This is undeniable.

If you're not convinced, I asked this another way earlier this week: With you life on the line, what shot would you prefer? Greene from three, or any big man with the ball, back to the basket? Or another option?

If your not convinced, sell me on the other, better option with this team. I'm all ears.

Brannen Greene is not just a good shooter. Greene is a three point shooter who is displaying skills of epic proportions -- of JJ Reddick proportions.

When you have an offensive weapon that is comparable only to Simien and TRob in the Self era, finding minutes isn't the issue, and it shouldn't be the issue.

And Hawk to Rock -- I don't know why I'm thinking Jamari Traylor. He plays at peaks and valleys. His stats have been in the valley for a while (contrasted to the intangibles we see in his hustle after loose balls), so perhaps a peak today.

I'm most curious about whether we put some pressure on KSU defensively. They were horrible against WVU in handling the press and that appears to be a significant weakness. I've seen 5 or 6 of KSU's games, and they don't appear to be a good ball handling team. We didn't apply any pressure against an inferior TCU team. Against teams that Self thinks we should defeat playing our normal game, he rarely takes the risk of pressing or applying significant pressure (until late in the game). KSU, though, might be perceived as much better opponent.

@drgnslayr - I don't know. I don't buy this energy thing. It appears to me that Self uses that now as his go-to rationalization. Sometimes it is true. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes it only applies to a few guys. But not to the entire team. But it sure looked to me like guys were trying and hustling (I have my issues with Traylor's rebounding effort as I always do, notwithstanding). Oubre was sick, as noted. But other than that, who didn't play hard?

You said, "TCU's defense does not deserve credit for shutting down our 3s and offense. It was all entirely self-administered."

Exactly. Look we won. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned when our coach makes the conscious choice to play a game like that offensively.

He was content to play the game we played. That's what always concerns me.

And you are exactly right on Greene. He's not a slasher, He is a shooter. I like Greene. But if he's not shooting, to be honest, why play him? His shooting is what makes him worthy of big minutes vs. other players -- perhaps the only thing. Does anyone disagree?

Regarding three point shooting, we had the second lowest total of three point attempts of all of TCU's opponents this entire season. The only one lower was Grambling, who shot 5 times (and scored only 39 points).

Can someone provide me a reason NOT to shoot more three pointers? NOT to try to shoot more three pointers? NOT to scheme to shoot more three pointers?

When you look at the result last night, we certainly in jeopardy of losing. That's how you lose in the NCAA tournament, refusing to adjust, and watching Stanford advance.

There are some here who defended Self vs. Stanford in the last few days saying we "missed shots." Ok, TCU was 15-29 from the free throw line last night. And they lose by three. Or TCU was 2-12 from three, missing a number of open looks. Say they drain two more of those? I don't subscribe to that logic because of game flow, but I'd like to hear from those that do.

@JayHawkFanToo mentions that we were getting the ball into Ellis before he got into foul trouble, and his foul trouble was the turning point in the game.

As I said in my initial post, "Ellis got into foul trouble". I also cited the absurdity of throwing it into "Traylor/Lucas/Mickelson." And I said, "Of course, early, it appeared that feed the post was the right approach. But the dynamic changed. The problem is, we didn't."

I appreciate @JayHawkFanToo reiterating my point. The strategy to throw it inside to Ellis looked good early. No doubt. Our first five points. Then, Ellis got into foul trouble.

But part of the dynamic change was also how TCU defended the post. TCU decided to front our guys more aggressively down low in the second half and collapse on the post feed. Really, they played more aggressively defensively in the post after the first break -- perhaps their coach got into them about that. Ellis played 15 minutes in the entire game. After his early 5 point spurt, Ellis finished the rest of the game 1-5 from the field. So this "strategy" does not appear too sound.

Regardless, the strategy was focused on Ellis. A much different post scorer than Lucas/Traylor/Mickelson. Heck, Cliff only got four shots, not counting his set play lob dunk.

Someone explain to me the merits of a two part strategy where one part is feed it into Lucas/Traylor/Mickelson down low? Combined, those three scored 12 points in a combined 48 minutes in the game. And Self sits the better player (Alexander) who played only 15 minutes (2 fouls total) -- if that was because of effort, I'm fine with sitting him. But that dictates a different game plan.

The point is that when the dynamic changes, you can't stick with the same approach when your personnel don't fit the scheme.

Can the Green Bay Packers execute the same throws on offense when the weak armed Matt Flynn is in the game vs. the cannon that is Aaron Rodgers?

Well, Self told us earlier in the year that “This game plan crap that everybody talks about; this isn’t football." Of course, in the same quote, he said "We play to our strengths ..."

Did we play to our strengths last night? When Ellis was in, it looked like we had an advantage early in the first half. That was the only time he had an advantage.

Turn it around. Say that Mason was shooting 25% from three on the season, Greene and Graham were hurt and not playing, and Oubre sick. Ok, perhaps gunning threes isn't a better option.

Point to me one time when we ran a play, or any set, to get a three point shot? Nothing. We can credit TCU all we want, but we did nothing to get those looks. It was clearly not part of our game plan (even though this game plan stuff is "crap" according to Self). Again, this team shoots nearly 40% from three. We have as Self said perhaps the best shooting team at Kansas since he's been here. Does that add up?

@wrwlumpy And of course, there's Mason and Graham unguarded on the perimeter. This came from the same kusport.com gallery where you found your photo. Doesn't mean much.

So is anyone really going to say that we couldn't have gotten three point shots had we wanted to?

!Lucas.1.jpg ↗

@wrwlumpy Yes, wonderful example. That plainly demonstrates that there was no way Greene could shoot a three pointer tonight. Or Mason. And that Graham shot one.

Now back to reality.

We shot a total of ONE three pointer in the second half. That is because of TCU's defense? To get three pointers, you need to play to shoot three pointers. Plainly, we did not do that.

Here's an example - In the last 3:40 against OU, Self switched to a 4 out, 1 in offensive scheme. And we saw the result. Not necessarily three pointers every time, but a spread out floor, and multiple offensive opportunities. Does anyone think that TCU's immobile big guys could have guarded Perry on the perimeter?

Look at this game critically. Critique it. How could this team's offense have functioned better simply utilizing things we've seen from KU this season? That will lead you to the answer.

I go to one play against Utah in the first half. We ran Greene from the baseline to the wing, set a down screen at the short corner to get him an open three look. Did anyone see anything like that tonight?

When Kansas shoots one three pointer in a half, it's because coach Self dictates it. It was obvious that our game plan tonight was to pound it inside. Really, I think that is fine vs. TCU. Looked like it was working early. But the Ellis got into foul trouble. And then in the second half, TCU was more active in attacking the post up.

Shooting three pointers is not something that would diminish the value of driving the ball to the hoop. Clearly, that made sense. How many drives and kick out threes did we get?

If you're life was riding on one shot, would you rather bank on Greene or Mason hitting a three, or one of our post players scoring with his back to the basket? There's your answer.

Answer me this - You coach a team that is shooting nearly 40% from three point range. You have a stable of excellent shooters. Your team has proven time and time again that it can be an offensive force from outside. Your team has proven time and time again to be underwhelming inside. And Ellis gets in foul trouble.

How in the world does your team take eight three point attempts in the entire game?

Your two best three point shooters, Mason and Greene, take no three point shots.

This is not an accident. This clearly and plainly comes from the bench.

There is no rational answer.

The height of the absurdity is working the ball around the perimeter and looking feed the ball inside to the our below average post men (Traylor, Lucas, and Mickelson). If you are a poor shooting team from outside, maybe. But that is not the case.

This is the type of performance that should cause all of us to seriously doubt our ability to win the national title. I really do want to be optimistic. But this was absolutely inexplicable. It is irrational. We nearly lost to a team we should have easily blown out if we simply play to our strengths.

Yet our fabulous coach demonstrates once again that he is the biggest threat to this team reaching its potential offensively. When I say fabulous, I mean that. He just can't get out of his own way as an offensive coach. Dogmatic. Inflexible. Hard headed. And just not very good sometimes. How do you watch Kansas basketball and direct the offense approach we saw tonight?

Of course, early, it appeared that feed the post was the right approach. But the dynamic changed. The problem is, we didn't.

And of course, our guys aren't prepared to foul before the game tying three point attempt goes up, from Trey Burke range, mind you. Whatever.

Folks may be happy with a road conference win. I am. When it comes to the conference season, a win is a win.

But this isn't about the conference season. Is it?

@Kip_McSmithers I do like what was identified in the blog.

"The Jayhawks’ issue isn’t as big of a deal, but it’s a bit peculiar. Their opponents’ block percentage is 14.2 percent, which ranks the Jayhawks 342nd in the country. This is despite the fact that they’re 54th in average height. That difference between height and block percentage is the worst in the country."

Pretty interesting. The reason I think it is peculiar to this blogger is that he hasn't seen us play a lot. When there is a feed the post focus, and the players you have in the post don't have a size/length advantage on their defender, you get this result. At least that's how I'd explain it.

Sure, we can lose tonight. The difference between the 2013 team and TCU was greater than the difference between this TCU team and this KU team. Every game in conference can be lost. And really, any game can .. we lost to Oral Roberts at home a number of years ago.

The 2013 team had just come off losing to OSU at home. After the OSU loss, Self had his infamous meltdown where he threw EJ under the bus. The "we don't have a point guard." And "we were definitely a better team with (EJ) sitting next to us ... " It was really bad stuff. I listened live to it on the radio and was astonished by what I heard. The tone was even worse than the content. I had never, and have never, heard Self like that..

That tenor continued after the TCU game with the also infamous "Topeka YMCA" comments and "the worst team to ever play at Kansas" stuff. Not Self's best moments. My opinion is now, and was then, that the TCU loss was the direct result of how the loss to OSU was mishandled.

KU then lost at OU following TCU, but played much better. EJ said, “Right now we’re trying to figure that out,” Johnson said. "You can’t ask a man who just got knocked out to count to 10. You can’t think straight right away. There’s so much going on in your head. Right now we’re just focused on getting our focus back. That’s what we’re focused on, getting our focus back.”

The 2013 loss to TCU was simply a rough patch. A loss that never should have happened. An anomaly.

Here's what Self said about the league race after the OU loss: “We’ve been behind a game in the league race going into the last seven-eight games of the season before,” Self said. “We were never quite as good as our record, but we are better than what we have played here this past week. Does it surprise me we are in a dogfight? Not at all. This talk people had that the whole deal is who is going to finish second? I never had that feeling at all. We are going to have to play our best ball to have a chance to win it. Every game is lose-able on the road especially when you have Baylor, Oklahoma State and Iowa State left.”

He got the ship righted pretty quickly. And we know how that turned out.

We ain't losin' to TCU tonight, or KSU Saturday, or ISU Monday. 3-0 in 6 days. Book it.

@drgnslayr - How good can this team be?

You know my answer -- this is a national championship season until it isn't.

But this team is better than last year's team. It is better than last year's team whether last year's team had a healthy Embiid, or not.

This goes back to the "luck" discussion. I'm not trying poke any hornets' nests here, but my nose got a little out of joint with the kenpom proclamation that we were extremely lucky, or whatever that was.

Good teams win close games. Right after that, I saw Bill Parcells on the NFL network talking about winning close games. He said some folks think winning close games comes down to luck. But really, teams "win close games because they are prepared to do it."

An epic truth.

This team has been impeccably prepared to win close game. All of Bill Self's teams are, in my opinion. It's his style. He prepares teams with a team "character" in mind. Some teams respond to that better than others. This team has shown that.

In March, knowing that you can win close games will be very important. This team has that.

This team clearly has the talent to win the National Title. We can beat any team in the nation so long as we play to our abilities and so long as this team is permitted to exploit its strengths on offense. It doesn't mean we will win it all. But I feel very good about this group.

How can a team be better, losing the #1 and #3 picks? We can see how right in front of our eyes.

@JhawkAlum Thanks for the response. I do not criticize Wiggins at all for Stanford. The sole purpose of pointing out his performance to @Crimsonorblue22 was the conundrum ... if Wiggins was "the most", or moderating a bit, "close to the most", then players that are "the most" show up on those days. However, I don't think Wiggins was "the most" of anything, except overhyped. And I don't criticize him for his performance vs. Stanford as I said at the time. They schemed to stop him. Wiggins was really a guy that was misplaced in our style of play, and had ridiculously high expectations that were none of his doing.

Actually, I recall being perhaps the only one to dedicate a full topic to everything positive about Andrew Wiggins Why Wiggins Won Me Over

@JayHawkFanToo You are perhaps one of the most intellectually dishonest posters I have ever seen -- now, that may be by commission, or omission. I'm guessing that it's more omission, which is another way to say lazy or uninformed. You obviously don't read what I write, and perhaps you don't process it. I'm not sure if you purposely lie, or if you create a false reality for yourself.

One thing is for certain, you never break anything down and you don't analyze anything.

Seriously, when have I ever explained away a KU win by saying, "the other team played poorly'? Or the "other team was over matched"? Or "KU got lucky"? Or "it is hard even for coach Self to lose in AFH"? Or not "crediting Self's game plan"? Or that he "followed" my "advice" and thus won?

The only opposing coach I have really criticized over the years is Scott Drew.

It is your little world, kind of what you wish or imagine happens, disconnected from the truth. But it's easy.

It is also comical how you equate guarded shots to non-guarded shots. Simplistically comical. As if open shots are no different than guarded shots. Your citation defines a bunny as "An open, uncontested shot, usually a layup or dunk." There is a distinct difference. And no, that's not saying we didn't miss some open looks. Stanford did too. It's again funny how you bold quote Dawkins. Missing the point. The point is they shot 36% from three for the year .. if just 2 go in, or on their percentage, 3, they thump us, whether that's their game or not. They could lament missed shots just like us.

But in this game, the scheme issues were quite obvious. Contrast to the Michigan loss, where scheme was really of no issue.

Here's a quote from an article after the game "Conner Frankamp had an impressive showing in consecutive games to conclude his freshman season. He hit two huge threes at the end of the first half. Despite that, and despite playing extremely well on Friday, Self only played him 7 minutes in the second half, mostly during desperation mode. Frankamp again hit two huge threes, giving KU a chance when the game was seemingly over. KU tried to run a play to get him a three at the end, but Stanford read it well, and it was off the mark. When I asked Bill Self why he went with less Frankamp in the second half, he said, "We had to get inside their defense and they're big. When you play Conner and play with another guard, that puts him guarding a 6'7" guy. And they exploited that a little bit. No reason, other than the fact that Frank (Mason), from a pace standpoint, gave us a better chance to get inside of the defense, which he did."

Self also said after the game: "They're long. We don't go against very many teams that are bigger than us," Kansas Coach Bill Self said. So, what do long teams do? What do big teams do? Particularly, to Ellis and Traylor? I assume you also watched this season.

Form another article: "A stifling defense and the commanding presence of Stanford’s towering frontcourt appeared to rattle Kansas, which shot 32.8 percent from the floor."

And here's what Self said, "Jamari Traylor, a reserve who had 17 points and 14 rebounds in the Jayhawks’ win over Eastern Kentucky on Friday, scored 3 points and was 1 of 8 from the field. “We didn’t attack their zone well, which happens when you’re not playing confidently,” Self said. “And when we did get inside, we had to contend with a 6-10 guy and a 6-11 guy.”

So, Self knew they were one of the biggest teams we faced, and long. Yet his strategy was to get the ball "inside their defense"?

Seriously, is this really that difficult? Yea, we had to contend with a 6-10 and 6-11 guy.

This was an epic failure. You, however, are blinded by all of the internal organs in your eyes, with your nose squarely up Self's backside. It is your preferred view.

Your analysis of the Stanford game is "we missed shots." Bravo. Quite astute.

Bill Self champions field goal percentage defense as one of his most important stats. That's because, he knows, a team can really affect that based on how they defend. It is a coach's job to scheme to find open looks. Wiggins said after the game that he felt there were always 2 or 3 guys around him when he had the ball.

Of course, Greg Anthony (the color buy, I believe) observed during the game that KU was not moving Wiggins around to get him more open looks, brilliantly observing that Self should consider moving him to the high post for some pick and pop looks.

It is comical how you rationalize losses to missed shots, while trumpeting Self's record continuously, based presumably on made shots. Self didn't take any of those shots. The reality is, Self gets as much credit for scheme and game plan, related to his wins, as he does for the losses.

Of course, coach Self agrees with you -- "Stanford did a good job with its zone," Jayhawks coach Bill Self said, "but it wasn't like we didn't expect to see it. We just couldn't make shots."

Right, couldn't make shots. Totally out of Self's control. Completely. Just sit like a block of concrete on the sidelines, run our stuff, adjustments be damned. But maybe not .. like the last two games vs OU and Texas, as I posted. Self made the right moves. His decisions late won us those games.

I heard Seth Greenberg talking after the Stanford game, just before their next round game. He said that Stanford had the perfect game plan. He also said that they took away Wiggins, and funneled the game to the post where they had a big size advantage. I made notes on it I still have.

Where I come from, this sort of exchange is quite plainly game, set and match.

Yet, for some reason, I think you won't even realize it.