@JayHawkFanToo I guess my point was that anything that is a distraction -- that is not geared toward the singular focus of winning -- is wasted energy and can detract from that singular purpose. Somehow 'Bama, KSU, USC, and others, don't wear grab-bag uniforms.
Anyway, Zenger agrees with me. He called me last night after he read my post. We had a nice talk, and I guess he decided to pull the trigger.
That is exactly how it happened.
I am convinced that Charlie Weiss needs to be fired. And that opinion doesn't come lightly. I don't toss around folks' livelihood like punch lines. But I can tell you exactly why Weiss should be fired in one word -- Inconsistency. That sounds odd. We have been consistent in losing, right?
But the issue is inconsistency in the program and approach.
Great coaches have a guiding philosophy. We talk about with Coach Self. Why won't he change? Really, we don't want him to change much at all. As I've said many times -- tweaks. Coach Weis has no guiding philosophy. Coach Self does have a guiding philosophy.
One need only look west down I-70 for the perfect model of consistency in college football. Weiss could learn a bit from Bill Snyder. All coaches could. Coach Snyder is like oatmeal. It isn't complicated, it's reliable, and it does its job. Coach Snyder is the same now, as he was when he walked on campus. Amazing to the divergent paths of our programs at that fateful moment. Snyder is a control freak. He is famous for micro-managing everything, right down to ensuring that the butter is soft enough to be spread on rolls at team meals.
KU needs to find its Bill Snyder. It's that simple and it's that complicated.
But one item is demonstrative of the lack of focus within the program. It may not be the most substantively important, but it tells me everything I need to know. This one item encapsulates KU Football - the constantly changing uniforms.
To win, to bring a program back from the depths of despair, there is one thing that is unquestionably required -- consistency. Consistency in approach, consistency in message, consistency in attitude, and consistency in expectations.
With Weiss, we have had no consistency. We have an embarrassing program that seems to look different on both sides of the ball every season under Weiss. We have no identity -- are we a passing team? Are we a rushing team? Are we a team that creates opportunities defensively? Are we a blitzing team? Are we a team with killer special teams? Heck, we can't even find a decent field goal kicker. What is our identity? What is our overriding focus?
This is incredibly important to a program attempting to dig itself out of a hole. We have no identity.
The coup de grace is the incredibly embarrassing and ill-conceived uniform fiasco.
Last season, Weiss introduced three alternate uniforms. As KU fans, everyone was to become interested in what uniforms KU would be wearing. Recruits would like the options. Players would think it was cool. But it had absolutely zero to do with winning.
When you're losing, the only thing that matters is not losing. All of your efforts and energy need to be geared toward that. To win. That's all. Everything else is immaterial.
This is much different than Oregon wearing a new uniform every week. Guess what? They win. At KU, we introduced multiple helmets and uniforms before winning. Before respectability. Before we even had an identity.
"Get busy living, or get busy dying" -- it's one or the other. Either everything is singularly focused on winning, or it is not. The no nonsense, workmanlike approach that is needed to climb out the depths of despair is blurred and taken out of focus with distractions.
The uniform fiasco was and is a horrific distraction for team that doesn't yet know how to win. Messages are important to teams. This message has nothing to do with winning.
But it tells us everything we need to know about Charlie Weiss as KU's head coach. Form over substance. KU needs substance over form. We had that once. And we played in the Orange Bowl.
This season, we began with a contest -- a vote -- on which uniform combo KU would wear in the first game. I wanted to vote "I don't care." I would have been quite happy with those relatively simple uniforms KU wore when, back in the day, we beat MU at Arrowhead on a beautiful pass from Reesing to Meier. Back in the day when the uniforms really didn't matter.
We now have multiple helmets with big Jayhawks, numbers on the side, angry Jayhawks, red, white, blue. We have something called crimson chrome uniforms. It's a freaking embarrassing mess. I don't even know what I'm looking at. It has nothing to do with winning.
And that tells you everything you need to know about Charlie Weiss' Jayhawks. It tells us exactly where Weiss' program is right now. It is a perfect match.
@jaybate-1.0 I agree with you on the number of rotation players. A smaller rotation is what he always does. Really, though, I could see the 4th post guy marginalized much more likely than the 4th perimeter guy. Self has regularly played just three perimeter guys the rotation minutes. He did it literally all of 2011-12 out of necessity (Wesley the 4th guy); Did it in 2012-13 when his #3 and #4 post guys were Ellis/Traylor.
With just three main perimeter guys, that leaves no real big minutes substitute.
A bare minimum 7 man rotation:
Perimeter: Selden, plus two of Mason/CF/Graham, and either Oubre or Greene = 4.
Post: Ellis, Alexander, and Traylor = 3.
Then Mickelson or Lucas get less than 8 minutes and the loser of the Oubre-Greene battle gets the less than 8 minutes collar.
One increasingly lower possibility given Self's ball handling proclamation, is that the loser of the Greene-Oubre battle displaces one of the ball handling guards for one of the four main perimeter spots.
We play 7 guys rotation minutes. 2 guys get the plug-in, handful of minutes just for breathers, fouls, etc.
That's my best guess for our rotation we get to Feb. 1.
@KUSTEVE That is a pretty interesting item.
I also notice Selden's quote about the program, "It really built continuity and togetherness that we didn't have last year."
I recall a similar quote from someone similar to that back a few months ago.
What does that say? My speculation -- we received no leadership from the presumptive leader, Naadir Tharpe. Self battled a pouting Tharpe two straight seasons. A rudderless ship simply drifts with the current. Whether it was Tharpe, or not, Selden's quote provides some interesting insight.
A different item, but similar, I heard this week where T.J. Moe mentioned that MU's 2012-13 season collapsed when James Franklin's girlfriend broke up with him.
And that ties the Rumsfeld discussion and KU hoops together -- the "unknown" unknowns.
Teams can be affected by a deterioration of chemistry, by outside events, by things that no one can really anticipate. It can go the other way. Outside or unanticipated events can bond a team.
A lack of chemistry and cohesion might have been part of the struggle last season -- a struggle to play to their potential.
@jaybate-1.0 Can you clarify? Why do you think Graham's role is connected to a 7 man rotation, if I'm reading that right?
Here's the quote from Self from August about playing small -- where he kind of talks himself out of it a bit at the end, in classic Bill Self style:
“You could see two of those three playing together a lot,” Self said. “And then that makes us real small, so your deepest position is wing. So I could see one of our wings being a four-man and playing real small. I think it’d be really hard to guard; I just don’t know if we could guard anybody.”
@Crimsonorblue22 Ah yes, the point exactly .. we were undermanned inside, really even with Black. This was a "known" prior to the NCAA tourney. We didn't have Embiid. I did a rather long post before the tourney on playing small, pressing, pushing the ball as our best chance to win six games without Embiid. So I guess I understand when you say Black was out with foul trouble, and Ellis and Traylor had bad games, but the idea that our post play was deficient wasn't entirely unpredictable.
@jaybate-1.0 You are exactly right (but you knew I'd say that based on past posts, I'm sure). I'm a big fan of the 1-2-1-1 3/4 court press. And a big fan of the 2-2-1 3/4 court press. The key distinctions 1) zone vs. man press, 2) 3/4 court vs. full court and 3) employing the press wherein the passes are not denied, but rather invited, to the trap spots. But also key in my opinion is using such a tactic in measured doses.
The "measured doses" -- say one out of 6 possessions, and even attacking in press mode off a missed shot in appropriate situations. And I have no problem with even springing a full court, full denial zone press a couple of times a game. I'm not personally a fan of denial presses, but a few times here and there in a zone press scheme is fine. This is where man presses fail in my opinion, because many include denial of the ball. That permits the excellent ball handling teams to really destroy it. In a zone scheme that flexes, and targets rotating trapping spots, the ball handling aspect can be significantly mitigated (though it is still a solid weapon in defeating any press).
The surprise of it alone can create a turnover. Guys get caught out of position and guys panic. Heck, we saw Selden pitch the ball in the stands a few times just making a basic cross-court pass against the press.
I would also toss out that a strategy I absolutely love at all levels of the game -- the periodic/sporadic aggressive trap. Basically, picking times to randomly trap guys all over the court, looking for a quick turnover. Maybe just one every other possession.
One other thing I love about the press is that it can dictate pace. It can speed teams up -- teams that attack the press. Or it can slow things down -- teams that methodically break the press (like we do). The regular use of the press will cause teams to be more methodical. The sporadic use, though, has the better chance of speeding teams up, causing panic, catching guys out of position. I have used the Texas Tech game last season in Lubbock as an example where Self was completely outcoached ... Tubby Smith brilliantly controlled pace. And we permitted it. We played their game. We did nothing to at least try to increase the pace and cause panic.
But we know why teams don't press more. Coaches get conservative. The better teams like KU, UK, MSU, AZ, Syracuse, Duke, UK, etc. don't feel that they need the added risk to win the game. And most of the time they are right. Self sees a few times where teams get easy buckets and then gets skiddish. All coaches do sometimes. Teams lower on the totem pole seem to employ the strategy more out of perceived necessity.
But a comprehensive game plan employing the strategic and pre-planned use of various presses is a no-brainer in my opinion. It is simply getting the most out of your talent.
A great example was the Stanford game. Ugh .. I hate that game. But Stanford had no solid ball handler. It was mentioned many times. Yet we didn't pull the press out until it was panic time. And it did work very well in gaining possessions (though we failed to convert a few too many times). We were missing Embiid, yet we took our normal approach in all phases of the game. Plainly, Self felt that status quo was the best approach.
Question - does anyone think that we lose to Stanford if Self employed the 2-2-1 3/4 court press @jaybate has identified for half the possessions?
Let me toss this out there -- Self says in the past, we were best playing with two smaller guards that could handle the ball. Ok, then, if that is true and Self is all-knowing, why didn't he do that as a main scheme in 2012-13, and 2013-14?
Could it be that Self made a mistake then? I mean if we have always played like that and presumably been better playing like that, and he knew that in advance, and he didn't do it -- I mean, come on? And if someone claims that Self didn't do that because of personnel, then why recruit guards that can't handle the ball like primary ball handers, e.g., McLemore, Selden, Greene, White.
In 2012-13, he played EJ and Tharpe regularly together, but a vast majority of the time he favored McLemore and Releford on the court with one primary ball handler. The last season he could not have played CF or Mason more with Tharpe? Sure he could have. Both CF and Mason were way better ball handlers, had more play making ability, and were better passers that Selden or Wiggins, right? Mason had out of control spurts, but Selden was an absolute disaster handling the ball. He is a wing.
So for two seasons, Self has disdained the philosophy he is now preaching as the gospel.
Yet we should just buy all we're being fed simply because Self is saying it?
Baloney to that. We have every right to analyze and critique a guy who says and does many inconsistent things.
And to answer @JayHawkFanToo's question -- "You really think Coach Self does not know what the biggest strength of the team is?" -- I would say that coach Self does not really know that yet. His statements are theoretical right now. Projections,. Discussions. Assumptions.
But that's not the point .. @JayHawkFanToo refers to the "biggest strength of the team." As in this team. Ok. But Self is talking philosophically about how KU has always played that way, and presumably been better that way. Reversion back to that approach is clearly because it is the better way, at least according to Self.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that in this post, but it is wildly inconsistent with his philosophy in the past two seasons. We all can agree on that, right? He's relied on one poor ball handler and one mediocre ball handler at the 2, McLemore and Selden. Seems quite contrary to his stated preferred approach. Can we all agree on that?
The reality is, which is the point I think @JayHawkFanToo was getting at, Self right now thinks that this approach is best for this team. Self just went with the approach he thought best for a particular team. McLemore on the court was a good thing, but we sacrificed ball handling. It is year to year.
Now, is it best for this team as @BeddieKU23 has asked? That's a great topic. Is it best? And part of the answer is that coach Self really doesn't know yet. He may not know until January.
Part of this, too, might be Self being a bit reactionary. He played against the "ball handling" philosophy the past two seasons. We didn't get the results he wanted. So now we have the excuse, rationale, whatever you call it. We now need more ball handling. That must have been it. More ball handling. Because that's how we've "always" played.
Ah, but in life, to get, you must give -- and that is what we ponder. Do we give up too much in other areas by having two "little guards" on the floor a majority of the time?
I would also point out that we now have two more terms Self has used -- in addition to "point guard", "combo guard", "lead guard", and "small scoring guard", we now have "little guard" and "primary ball handler" guard. Not that I'm keeping track or anything.
Thanks for the link .. I just got done listening to it.
@jaybate pointed out the highlights quite accurately, though I don't think Self was really committing to Frankamp in the rotation. That's the only thing I might point out.
But the huge, huge news is the reference to small guards. Let me paraphrase for everyone: Self said that we have three little guards (referring to Mason, CF, and Graham). That we could play two of the three a majority of the game. From what he has seen, "I like playing small. I like playing two of the three." We won't do that all the time, but he thinks having two primary ball handlers on the court a majority of the time will help our team. He said that this was how we've "always played in the past", but last season we basically had two big wings and a point guard, and our passing, ballhandling, and playmaking was as poor as it has been. It will help playing two of those three guys.
Wow. I mean really wow.
Now, could two of the three be the only two that actually get playing time? Yes. That's why I say that CF may not be a sure thing. When Katz mentioned Mason and Graham, Self affirmatively said CF was in the mix. It sure sounded positive for CF, though.
Self said Graham was the "truest point guard" of the three; Mason the best scorer; and CF the best shooter.
I think one item of note is his reference to Selden as a big wing. We knew this, but he isn't a point guard. Self's reference to lack of ball handling, and play making, and passing -- that was a clear statement that Selden ain't that guy. Self even mentioned in the interview that he'd have one of the three PG in the game all the time. Selden won't play point.
Self said a number of months ago that ball handling was a big deal. Now, within mere weeks of the season, Self says that he thinks we're better playing small (with two of the three PG on the floor).
I kind of think Mason and CF to start the season as the two ball handlers. Here's why. Self took great pains to state how Oubre and Alexander should not be expected to put up huge numbers early (ironically, Self said that we should not expect 15-18 ppg and 10 rpg early, obviously trying hard to refute @Statmachine). But my point is, if Oubre and Alexander aren't expected to be huge contributors early, why would Graham be expected to?
But no getting around Self's clear emphasis on ball-handling and play-making. That is his mindset heading into the season. How long will it last? And to ask the question that Self usually asks himself when commenting, "Will we be able to guard anybody?"
Two small guys on the floor sounds nice. But playing one PG, with Selden and Oubre or Greene, provides great size on the defensive end. We'll see.
If I had to bet .. with this excellent intel: We have a 6 man perimeter rotation early. Mason, CF, Graham, Selden, Oubre, Greene. Then, one of the PGs falls out of favor, and the other two get the minutes. We would then be left with the expected 5 man perimeter rotation. Always with one PG in the game, many times two.
@ralster -- and the 08 guys even played a little zone of their own.
@Wigs2 Well, it's really the member institutions. The NCAA is a governing body so my reference including the NCAA is not that important in this point. But money doesn't grow on trees for member institutions. Facilities cost millions, coaches and their contracts cost millions, etc. The "risk" is not all paid cash on the barrel head. There is debt carried forward. Further, you have the involved individuals such as administrators who have their livelihoods tied to the athletic ventures. And don't forget, the revenue from sports covers a large chunk of non-athletic expenditures. "Risk" is also the venture itself. If the venture starts to fail, as in any other venture, that's when the balance sheet bleeds red. When balance sheets turn negative, folks lose their jobs, services (programs) get cut, assets are liquidated -- it's business.
@Wigs2 Here are a few considerations:
Playing overseas is completely realistic for many players, particularly the better players. This season, Emmanuel Mudiay signed a $1 one year deal in China, and just signed a $3 million shoe deal. He had signed with SMU, then changed his mind. But that's the big money example. If a kid has talent, there's a lot of crappy pro teams he could eke out a living with. The point you are making is money, and playing for pay.
This is perhaps the best point. If anyone argues, well, who would want to play for such little pay? Or there aren't real opportunities? Ok, then, that's a consideration -- there is no real market for their current skill set. You said that for their long term future, playing overseas may be detrimental for their futures -- ok then. The best deal they have is the NCAA. It's all about choice.
Other students on scholarship have no parallel to student athletes. Those other students aren't in a sports competition. where outside influences, boosters, etc., could taint the entire playing field with outside money, benefits, etc. Moreover, and more importantly, the only reason the basketball player is getting a scholarship because he can play basketball, not because he has a high GPA or ACT score. It's because of basketball. Take away the hoops, take away the scholarship.
And that's the next point. If a kid wants the freedom to work while in school, or market his skills, don't accept the basketball scholarship. Get a student loan, or grant, and work, and go to school. Quite obviously, the basketball scholarship is the better deal.
You imply that they aren't in school to "learn business or psychology." Folks make this mistake all the time. The college athlete many times chooses the easy path. The African American studies path. But others choose a more challenging path -- look at Tyrel Reed. It's there for the taking. Or Christian Moody, a walk-on, as cited by @jayhawkfantoo. All the tutoring one could want. Most often, the easier path is chosen, and that probably fits many times with a player's academic acumen. Many people forget that. Many of these kids choose easier degrees because they just aren't smart enough to pursue more difficult degrees. No shame in that.
"Fair value" - Free tuition, free room and board, free food, free books, free tutoring, free clothes, free cable tv, free room phone. Oh, but they might have to pay for a pizza. But guess what? At KU, part of the meal plan includes a certain number of pizzas. If a kid comes from nothing, his standard of living increases many fold living on scholarship.
You mentioned it again -- you said, "I think that all too often, they are being used to make big profits for the schools and the NCAA." I say, so what? Look at McDonalds, Home Depot, Nike -- they make their billions in profits of low paid workers. Why are they low paid? Because they have no other appreciable, marketable skill. Same with the NCAA basketball players. The NCAA and colleges have all the risk. Folks forget that. It's the big, bad rich and powerful. But the NCAA and colleges build the facilities, manage the programs, negotiate TV deals, create sports networks, and create the environment to permit athletes to play in college for free, and to hone their skills so that they have a chance to make a living in their chosen sport.
Look at today's story at kusports.com. Jaylen Brown says he may play overseas because he wants to help his family. Good for him. Stephen Zimmerman's mom says he won't ever sign a LOI because of the restrictions. Smart. It's freedom of choice. The lower tier guys just don't have as much leverage. But it's still all about freedom of choice. Every kid has it.
@Wigs2 I would point out that no one made Selby or McLemore go to college. They each could have played immediately overseas -- Israel, Turkey, Russia, wherever -- and could have sent money home. Further, if they really needed to help at home, then they could have skipped college all together and got a job. The problem isn't the NCAA and stipends. You suggest now stipends so they can send money home, which is different than the "pizza money" narrative. The problem is simple poverty and that's a broader problem. Yes, the kids are part of a process that makes millions. but so are the employees at McDonalds earning minimum wage. The college hoops players get value far exceeding minimum wage. Simply because you participate in a multi-million dollar industry doesn't mean you deserve to earn an owners' share of the profits. The players are replaceable parts. The NCAA and colleges own facilities, trademarks, and the business itself. Selby and McLemore each made a choice to come to college under the LOI they signed. I do wonder though, even if both would have had let's say, Zach Peters' parents' financial situation, would they have still gone pro? I don't know.
@Statmachine -- When I was looking back at others' numbers, I saw Aaron Gordon was 12 ppg and 8 rpg. Does your analysis take into account system and teammates? For ex., if a kid is the top option, or one simply one of many weapons?.
@Statmachine I don't (and wouldn't) expect Shepherd to average 15 and 10 as a sophomore. That makes your case more convincing. If Alexander bangs out those numbers, my mind will be pried open to the OAD way of thinking. I think your citation to those stats is very compelling.
That got me thinking. Sullinger was one of the PFs you cited. Same height as Alexander? Sullinger a tad bulkier. Never seemed really overmatched height-wise in the post. But that might be a very good comparison. I'll take Sullinger's 17.2/10.2 and shut up about OADs. Question is, @Statmachine, can you deliver the goods?
@drgnslayr Chemistry. Elusive, subjective, non-quantifiable. Chemistry is built. It rarely happens overnight. It can be inspired by events, as you describe. Most commonly, the "us against the world" approach, or the coach bringing the team together by inspiring the team to hate him, thus giving the team a common cause or enemy. Masterful coaches build chemistry in many subtle ways.
Chemistry combined with coaching acumen, most times, overcomes pure talent in team sports. At some point, of course, talent will be overwhelming.
The key is to have high talent, and have the time to mold and meld it into a cohesive group that can execute a competent coach's desires.
@JayHawkFanToo I have high hopes for Mason and think that the dynamic might change this season, but on the current evidence, if I'm put on the spot, yes, done deal.
@justanotherfan - The key is the angle of the curve, is it going up, or down. Mason's was going up at the end of last season and he clearly had become better at not driving the ball into bad situations. The beautiful thing here is that we have three options -- I'm quite sure one will pan out. If Graham is Tyler Ennis, this will all be moot.
I think all would agree that Foster is a much different type of player .. he only had 2.5 assists per game. And more to the point, about 1/3 less assists per minute played than Mason did last season. But Foster showed he was the real deal.
And @justanotherfan made a great point: "Remember, we felt good about Tharpe when we saw him as a backup, but all of his warts showed when he had to play a lot of minutes." ---- that is an excellent reminder.
But I remain a bit giddy about Mason.
@KUSTEVE Now, I'm not down on Oubre at all. Looks like a great player. Just comparing to AWIII as a junior. But I sense you are subtly reminding me of my Tharpe love last fall ... duly noted.
And you cite Morningstar for the proposition that I'm supporting. This is an alternative universe. If there ever was something to cause me to rethink my entire existence, that might be it!
@statmachine Remember, it's not Shepherd this next season. It's Shepherd after theoretically playing one season under Self. And you sure do have lofty numbers pegged for Alexander -- you are projecting essentially Julius Randle numbers (15.0 ppg/10.5 rpg). Heck, how many players under Self have ever averaged close to those numbers? TRob 17.7/11.9, Cole 14.9/11.1, Simien 20.3/11.0 & 17.8/9.3. I might temper those expectations a bit. Embiid was 11.2/8.1.
As a note, Shepherd was 9.1/6.8 his freshman season at TCU.
But I really can't argue with your projections too much ... Alexander might be = Randle. I thought Randle was the right plug in OAD last season for us and would have preferred him over Wiggins. Alexander is a nice plug in OAD this season and fills a clear need. My point is that I wish we didn't need the plug in OAD and had quality, high talent depth instead.
@konkeyDong I like that outside of the box thinking. So who are the guys with attitudes on this team? Mason, Greene, Alexander. Anyone else?
And by the way, I'm not down on Alexander or Oubre at all, so that's clear. I think they both will be great assets. And Self pursued and bagged the best talent available. The OAD discussion for me is always a macro approach to team basketball under Self.
@justanotherfan You say Oubre and Alexander are "better at basketball" than are White and Shepherd. Are you sure of that? I'm with you, though. I assume so.
But are Oubre and Alexander better as freshmen, than White as a junior and Shepherd as a sophomore? That is more relevant.
Even more relevant .. are Oubre and Alexander better as freshmen in Self's system than White as a junior and Shepherd as a sophomore would be (assuming both played prior seasons under Self)?
I don't know the answer for sure. Embiid was damn good as a freshman. So was Wiggins.
Try this --
I would trade Alexander right now for Karviar Shepherd. Straight up ... IF .. IF .. he had played for Self last season as a freshman. Would you? Would you rather gamble on a highly talented guy that has a year under his belt in Self's system, over an unknown quantity? Instead of Shepherd, think Marcus or Markieff as sophomores.
That said, I would trade Oubre right now for Andrew White -- for this season only. That's a closer call in my mind. But I'd do it right now. Is Oubre more talented? Sure. But with OADs, it's a one shot deal. (of course, Oubre might not be an OAD. The sophomore season could be incredible). Oubre could close any gap if stayed another year. But this is a one year, OAD deal. If I had to bank my March on one of these guys, I'd go White. Again, much closer call for me than the Shepherd/Alexander deal.
But you do make a compelling argument. There are some topics I feel "for sure" about .. this ain't one of them.
@Statmachine Ooooh ... I like questions.
I admit that there are holes in my argument on OADs. It isn't clear cut. There is gray area. I admit that I point to examples that may (or may not) prove my point, but they appear to prove my point.
One "truth" we can agree upon -- talent is extremely important. Agreed. Freshman, sophomore, or Julio Franco hitting doubles off the wall at age 45. Talent is talent.
But in a team game, there are many more moving parts.
I do agree that overwhelming talent is hard to argue with.
In my many OAD discussions, I've relied upon one important factor -- coach Self. I do not believe that his strength is mixing together an OAD pie. He is a system coach. Calipari is not.
Calipari obviously works well in the OAD environment. For the technical coaching aspects that some say he is lacking (which I don't buy), he makes up for in the ability to manage high talent, and large egos. His coaching is about the players. Last season was masterful.
But coach Self is about the system. Learning the system. working within the system. Restricting players within the system. Heck, an NBA scout prior to draft cited that Wiggins was held back by Self's system. It's a common belief. Plus, coach Self is famous for his impatience with freshman errors. His mindset favors comfort, and experience.
UK has not been lucky three of the last four seasons. They have been very good, and very well coached.
I don't know how good they will be this season. But I assume Cal will have them playing well come March.
Yes and no. Coach Self is capable of corralling OADs, but not in his current mindset. I think he would have a very tough time. Look at last season. Two of the top three picks, and we have our worst season in quite some time. How do you beat that talent? Couldn't play defense.
If we get a "few titles" (I assume you mean real titles .. the NCAA kind), yes, I will embrace the OAD culture. Heck, one would suit me fine.
@justanotherfan So why is it, then, that in the OAD era only two title teams have had even one OAD (Syracuse '03; UK '12)?
It is a huge mistake to think that OADs are the answer. For the right coach, and the right system, they can be "a" path. But they are not "the" path.
The KU lineup of Mason, Greene, White, Ellis, and Lucas -- I think the only one we need to trade out is Lucas. And with Self's recruiting, we should have a top 60 guy there. Add that in. Say a Withey. Actually, let's use an old go-to name ... a Karviar Shepherd-type player..
That is definitely a national title contender.
And I would take that lineup, with *experience", over a grouping of OAD talent any day of the week. But you also added in Selden and Graham to your preferred lineup. Neither are/were presumed OADs. You would rather have Oubre and Alexander as freshman, over top 60ish guys as juniors, for example?
And I would actually say that the OAD deal doesn't get you a seat at the table. See Kentucky in 2013. They played in the NIT. So while there are peaks, there are big valleys (that isn't all bad, but it refutes the premise).
Relying on OADs is fools gold. It's headlines. It's style over substance. It ignores that freshmen, by and large, need to develop.
@JayHawkFanToo The "plug in" OAD ... where there is an obvious hole and talent is not sufficient to cover that spot. That would be optimal. But really what we're talking about -- and @ralster hit the nail on the head, is that coach Self's system thrives on experience. All systems thrive on talent. But Self's systems, and coach Self personally, seem best suited for a touch of experience. That experience being something other than a freshman, really. That first year is just rough under Self.
The plug in OAD may work in the post heading into next season, but he needs to be ready to play. Zimmerman seems a reasonable choice, paired with Bragg. Add those two to Ellis, with our other post depth, and we won't be worried inside. I still think Zimmerman may not be an OAD -- OAD fringe, maybe. Don't know for sure.
Now, this is where I normally go into an anti-OAD rant, and how you could win a title without them (like all but two title teams have), but I won't.
In my opinion, the PG battle is the biggest and most important unknown.
I'll suggest that the Greene vs. Oubre battle is a big one and is not yet decided, as is Svi battle for relevance. But the PG battle rules.
And listen to us .. Point Guard. Not combo guard. Not lead guard. Not small scoring guard. But good ole fashioned, handle the ball, run the offense, be the coach on the court, Point Guard. Graham has been sold to us as a point guard. Mason is a point guard. CF proved he can play point guard. Forget the combo guard fiction.
The winner is Mason. National folks believed that we didn't have a point guard last season. What we had was a guy who was thrown into the fire and was developing. He was kind of ready for prime time. He realized very quickly that you can drive and throw up crap in D-1.
But here's were Mason was dead-solid -- ball handling. The dude was reliable. He didn't yack in tough spots, he was able to control the ball with confidence, and he was able to do so with the ball in front of him. As the season progressed, his drives became more under control and his three point shot became more sure. Progress. Development. Further, his defense was not poor. He gave effort all the time. He took defense seriously.
If Graham comes in and is better, great. We'll all be happy. But remember, Graham hasn't played D-1 ball yet. And he's a freshman. Trying to run coach Self's system. And he's trying to beat out two guys who have experience under fire. Tough task. Again, if he does, that proves something. But I think we've got our guy.
@globaljaybird Well, you have hit on one of the big negatives when going "all in" on OADs. How could a potential recruit not be concerned about getting recruited over at Kansas?
Jesse Newell had mentioned in the late spring that there were CF transfer rumors. His fate will be sealed this season, one way or another. And you cite Lucas and losing seniority. In this day, I can't imagine why a guy like Lucas would gamble his future at an elite program like Kansas. My statement sounds pretty stupid without context. But simply gaining playing time, based on our menu of recruits each season, seems like an uphill battle.
But going back to AWIII. As much as we all would have loved the guy to succeed, I do trust Self's assessment of his talent and fit. Clearly, Self would rather have Greene and Oubre.
This game is all about opportunity. What would AWIII have done last season if Wiggins wasn't signed? White started off last season very solidly, and looked ready to grab big minutes. His off season was reportedly tremendous. But Self has to make hard choices, and his talent assessment favored Greene and Oubre over AWIII.
Those hard choices is why this season, and the battles that lie ahead, are so compelling. The hard choices will shape next season, as well:
Who is our starting PG, who's next, and who sits (and thus is a transfer possibility?
Who wins the 3 spot, Oubre or Greene? And if Greene is second fiddle, does he get his nose twisted out of joint and thus consider transferring? This could leave us without Oubre (perhaps turning pro) and Greene next season.
Who wins the battle between Mickelson and Lucas for relevance? And who is banished to 5th big guy oblivion? The 5th guy may never see substantial P.T. in his career here.
And does Svi -- this season's x-factor -- get any meaningful role? If he does, more roster carnage is sure to follow.
Watched some of the Royals win today. Chiefs are in the lead. KU football won. But KU hoops rules all!
Great comparison to Arthur .. Bragg is more highly skilled at this stage than TRob. But more physical, it appears, than Arthur. More "ready now" than TRob, to answer @jaybate's question.
Could Bragg be a starter from day one? Sure, but that depends on the competition. Arthur didn't start, but was clearly the first big off the bench. TRob didn't start. But in TRob's case, he was the definition of raw, needed to slow down a bit,. Could he have started? Of course. It would have been a major roller coaster ride.
Really, and we know this, each player is unique. There are comparisons, but Bragg is Bragg. Bragg could start -- but that will be competition related.
Suppose we land Bragg and Zimmerman? It's most likely that Zimmerman would start with Ellis, with Bragg off the bench. But who will be Bragg's competition? Traylor. A senior. Playing time is competition related. See TRob .. in another season, TRob might have started as a freshman, even with his "rawness", so speak. But a guy like TRob doesn't start as a freshman, limited p.t., and he's a top 10 NBA pick following a dominant junior season. Great selling point.
@Hawk8086 The only way Bragg is an OAD is if he definitively plays himself into that spot -- and that would mean a heck of a year for KU. Even with that, seems remote that he vaults into a top 10 spot, which would be the compelling case to go pro. But the presumed OAD line is a blurred one, for sure.
@JayHawkFanToo I think what you have suggested is a realistic expectation of a freshman. It seems perfectly reasonable that Alexander will have significant ups and downs, perhaps even some Tarik Black like games where he is a complete non-factor. We should expect that.
I personally think that Self could start Ellis and Traylor early, with Alexander displacing Traylor as a starter pretty quickly. But I also think that Traylor could play more effectively than Alexander. I don't think that's a stretch. And that Self would favor Traylor over Alexander many times.
I will be surprised if Self makes much of a distinction between "power forward" and "center:" Meaning, if Lucas and Mickelson are 4th and 5th guys (in whatever order), they will likely be 4th and 5th when it comes to p.t. This season will certainly give us an insight into Self's view of the position distinction. We know in 2008 he played two PFs most of the minutes, but the C (Kaun) was the clear first big off the bench. Right now, we don't have that.
Personally, I thought that Lucas gave us some pretty quality minutes when he was in last season. But it seems obvious that Self seems him to be low on the totem pole. I do agree that either he or Mickelson could pick up significant p.t., but I think that Traylor may be the bigger beneficiary of p.t. if Alexander isn't a 30 mpg guy.
Would it be surprising if we saw Ellis play 28 minutes, Alexander 25, and Traylor 20? That might even seem conservative. Even with that, there would be only 7 minutes left for Mickelson/Lucas (80 minutes total for 2 post players).
Where do the minutes come from? I think at best, the 4th perimeter guy is around 10 mpg. Minutes are tight.
Would be interested in others' thoughts.
Carlton Bragg is the perfect recruit. How does it get better than this? 6'9", 220 lbs. No hint of OAD stench. This guy is ranked in the top 20. He has "tenacity" and has all the markings of the perfect Bill Self-type player. Self always play inside out loves toughness. Bragg is one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier as a recruit than perhaps the best post player in the Self era, Thomas Robinson, was as a H.S. senior. Most of all, as a highly ranked player, he needs KU and the development Self has to offer to play in the NBA. Bragg needs a coach like Self. His profile (below) begs to be coach by Bill Self. This is recruiting perfection.
Not only is Bragg recruiting perfection, this is a player of great need. We will go into next season with three post players who are not top talents, and will likely lose Alexander to the draft. A solid, highly skilled post player to provide perhaps three years of stability in the post is just what the doctor ordered. This type of stability makes life in the OAD world palatable -- and more workable. It provides cover for misses. It provides a foundation of talent.
If Self has a top priority, it has to be Bragg. Memo to coach Self -- don't let Bragg get out of town without a commitment. If we bag Bragg, everything else is icing on the cake.
Here's Bragg's ESPN profile -
Strengths:
Bragg is an ultra-athletic specimen who can impact the game in a variety of ways. He attacks the offensive glass, finishes in transition, and is an explosive around the rim. He has a lengthy frame with long arms and he has great feet. He plays with tenacity at both ends and his hands are terrific. Bragg has extended his range out to the arc. He runs the floor on the break where he spots up waiting for the advance or kick out pass.
Weaknesses:
Bragg is coming on strong and has improved from a season ago, but his skill set is still a bit raw. He needs to improve his ability to score with his left hand and continue to add to his face-up game. Utilizing the triple threat game (jab step, up fake, etc.) while facing up his defender will enhance his overall game. Bragg will need to play with more energy and urgency and compete throughout the game which will lead to increased production.
Bottom Line:
Once his offensive game matures, he has all the physical intangibles to be an elite high-major and has the potential to play after college. Bragg has to improve his motor but all all the other tools to be a special player with continued skill develop. He has the motor, bounce, and length to be a McDonald's All-American-he's that talented.
@konkeyDong Interesting take on Mickelson. It squares with everything I've read and with a review of his Ark stats. There have been no comments or info that he was a stud in practice, or that he's a guy to watch, which is somewhat informative. At the scrimmage last season, the one thing I noticed was that his shot from the outside was real flat. But really, the dude is an unknown. Unless he's a completely different player, no way he displaces Ellis or Traylor from their roles. Competing with Lucas for the 4th big spot.
@Crimsonorblue22 I am always careful not to throw stones on this stuff as there is a chance that we live in a glass house ....
Imagine if Traylor improves half as much as he improved from freshman to sophomore season? Last season, Self affirmatively played Traylor over Ellis many times. We all hope that Ellis makes progress. But what if Traylor has made substantial progress? And what if Ellis hasn't? Both are possibilities, right?
Traylor plays aggressively. Ellis doesn't. But Ellis is clearly more skilled. It may come down to the old phrase, "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard."
Ellis is the living definition of a "finesse player." Does anyone think that Self is entirely pleased by that? I don't. Self wants tough players. He mentions it all the time. I see a scenario where Self decides that Ellis just isn't playing the game that Self wants played.
My concerns with Ellis also bleed over to the offensive end. He is a pivot/fall-away type player. He moves away from contact. And he plays smaller than he his because he scrunches down on his pivot. In football terms, Ellis is misdirection, where Traylor is I-Formation.
That said, I do expect the most likely scenario is that Ellis is just fine. If I had to predict our leading scorer, he'd be my co-favorite with Selden.
But if you want Kansas to play athletically and fast, what is your lineup?
Mason, Selden, Greene, Traylor, and Alexander, right? You don't think "athletic" or "fast" when you think Ellis.
I do think there's a very plausible scenario where Traylor shocks the world and displaces Ellis.
@approxinfinity - My tech guy at work solved my posting stuff on my work computer; it was a firewall issue. Thanks for the help on your end.
test
I would toss in my kudos on this, too. I always like to see an improvement from Sophomore year to Junior year of 50% the improvement from Freshman to Sophomore -- meaning I think that should be expected. It's why I'm really excited about Traylor, though he does have a redshirt year to mess up that analysis. If Ellis isn't better this season, he won't play in the NBA. If he can't guard a 4, I question his NBA future anyway,
By the way, I'm watching Texas/UCLA football, and Gus Johnson is pure energy as an announcer. The NCAA tourney is a lesser event without that dude calling an upset or two.
@Crimsonorblue22 Good point. I do think Mason did an adequate job, and I wasn't horrified by CF as I was with Tharpe. A big difference between CF and Tharpe on D -- effort. There were times when watch replays of the games, that Tharpe was just pathetic when it came to effort. The WVU game convinced me that he was toast. Kind of the Randy Moss thing .. would take plays off, but more regularly. I never saw that with CF.
And your citation of defense may be the factor we're not considering with Graham. Heck, you know me, though ... play zone.
Good point.
@jayhawkbychoice -- Personally, I would have been fine with just Mason and CF. I do agree with your thoughts on CF. He didn't really show everything he probably had to offer, which I think was due to typical freshman sphincter tightening. It's something Self has a knack for inspiring, but it is part of his plan. Tear 'em down to build 'em up I think @drgnslayr said at one time.
CF was the best option at the end of last season because of his steady hand. Conservative, consistent, didn't turn the ball over .. but didn't dish, either. Assist to TO was great, but there just weren't many of either.
Frank's three point shooting improved, and he was much more under control. His game was on a significant uptick at the end of last season.
But as @jaybate-1.0 said, Graham was snagged likely because the 2015 PG crop wasn't a sure thing. That's an excellent observation. Survival of the fittest as we move forward.
I know at @jaybate-1.0 believes that the PG will be determined by the three spot. I'm not convinced of that (I would point out that @jaybate-1.0's analysis is terrific -- good stuff). I am more likely to believe that Self will choose the point guard that he thinks is simply the best player. Simple, yes. But I have never believed Self is beholden to three point shooting as most of us (correctly, I might add) think he should be. But I think that goes to @jaybate-1.0's point #2 .. can Conner alternatives hit the three? If Mason can hit the 3, he's the guy. Not because Self will use it as a deciding factor, but because it's another straw on the camel's back. He has "it" ... and a three point shot seals it.
And let's not forget, Mason worked on his shooting in the off season, moving the ball to his fingers as opposed to his palm ... in a more standard triangle form. This will pay dividends, I am quite sure. I will be shocked if the three point shooting doesn't go up by 5% at least. Another item is that he places the ball a touch to the side, much like Larry Bird did. A touch unconventional.
But as @jaybate-1.0, said, if Mason and Graham can't make plays, or play out of control ala Mason in the first half of last season, then CF wins by default. I am not sold on the idea (like Jeff Goodman and Biancardi are) that Graham will come in and be the man. I think that perspective is borne from minds that don't know KU hoops (and Self) like we do. I think Graham will play like a freshman in Self's systems usually do. A thirty something rated guy -- a guy that will really be ready next season. That's why I think it's either Mason or CF. They have the scars from their freshman initiation.
@jaybate-1.0's analysis is very interesting to me .. the theory of CF as the PG, things slow down, hi-lo the go to, all goes contrary to what Self suggested as the m.o. this season. He wants them to play faster.
But then again, Self says a lot of things.
By the way, I don't see Svi at point, here, ever. Never ever. Watching him play, he doesn't seem to have that look at all. Kind of like Ellis at the three. I just don't see it in his game.
Great thread.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I agree with @JayHawkFanToo's post today. Doesn't happen very often (insert smily face).
We just don't know about Graham. That's the hard part. But I do want to "mark" Self's comments from when Graham and Svi signed. Both times, it was "instant" or "immediate" impact. If both beat out their competition, it will give increased credibility to those comments in the future. As of now, I think its all bluster.
But let me toss something out that is an alternative thought -- Self really isn't a Conner Frankamp fan at PG.
Here's why I speculate - CF rarely played last season. Then only when he appeared to be the only option. Self likes athletic guys running the show. He put up with TT's obvious issues. Mason was ahead of CF from the get go last season, even though CF was more highly rated. Mason has garnered positive comments from Self during this off season. Self brought in Graham, giving us the instant impact message. CF is a methodical point guard -- my term. Others may disagree. But he is a spot dribbler. When he brings the ball up, he goes spot to spot to spot -- a lot of tail dribbling. I cannot fathom that Self likes this. No coach really does. And which of our two point guards offer a more consistent style of play ... from what I've understood on Graham, he isn't methodical. So Graham and Mason offer that consistency. If Self values that consistency, which is an item pointed out by posters here before, that could be a deciding factor.
This is just speculation, and a possible scenario. If CF is truly more of the Boschee type player as @JayHawkFanToo suggests, he might be the one struggling for playing time this season. There will be a "loser" in this point guard battle.
@drgnslayr wanted to tell you I enjoyed your post here. I had never heard of the term "mole" in this context. So I learned something. I know we both have had big expectations for Mason. He won me over with his early season tenacity last season. There was clearly a lot to like in his game. I have visions of Mason taking over this season and being a three year point guard that brings solid play, leadership and stability. Self brought in Graham, which would lead me to believe that Self may not be sold. And CF played over him at the end of last season. To be sure, if he starts, he will have earned it. I like our options.
Am I incorrect? I want no part of Malik Newman. OAD.
Newman would come in and start immediately at the 2. It would be by acclimation, right? Is there any perimeter player that we want to chase off? I want Svi at the 2 next season. My bet is that Svi next season will be better than Newman. We don't have a need for an OAD in the perimeter spots. I'll pass.
The number one recruit for KU is Carlton Bragg. He's the best fit. If we must get a post OAD, too, so be it. But Bragg should be the priority, in my humble opinion.
Let's remember, as well, that posting up any player can be done for the sole purpose of passing to the cutter. There are many set plays that can be run where the ball goes to the block area where the better scoring opportunity is on the dish.
That said, posting up a guy that is presumably a better passer (perimeter player) than a true post player can lead other scoring opportunities. Sure, it would help that a post guy could make the defense pay by hitting an outside shot. That's true. It helps keep the post player's defender away from the basket.
But I also think that posting up a perimeter player can lead to other opportunities even if the offensive post player is not a threat outside. If the defender tends to slack off, it will create a greater opportunity for the offensive post player to slash and look for the pass. The further the post player's defender is slacking off, the harder it is for the post defender to account for him, and very importantly, the harder it is for him to block him out on an offensive rebound. It actually can create a favorable offensive rebounding situation.
Remember our discussion after we were smoked by SDSU? They doubled on the post. We couldn't pass out of it. We had no slashers to the hoop. Self said on hawk talk that we weren't really prepared for that as well as we should have been. Later in the year, we saw more slashing on double teams in the post. Better passing out of those doubles. Perimeter guys posting up can do that if there is a double.
The size issue (skinny vs. bulky) is really unimportant in my opinion. I think what is more important is the match-up, and how it can be exploited. And that to me is the key. What can we do on offense to exploit advantages and score. Smaller guys can split a double easier.
For sure, posting up perimeter players is an offensive weapon that we have failed to utilize. No one can deny that. We just don't do it. Further, we see other teams routinely employ this weapon.
This is one of those elements that we wouldn't use all the time, or 1/2 the time, or 1/4 of the time. But it a weapon that could be used randomly. And then if we see, for example, that ISU can't match-up with Selden on the block, we keep going to it until they do.
Until we see it, it is all talk.
@drgnslayr Like we were saying, this is a national championship season .. until it isn't!
@JayHawkFanToo -- I did read what you wrote. Very closely.
Your response is odd .. you cite my quote of your statement, ".... are playing against a better team, chances are that you will lose regardless." Then you take great pains focusing on the term "chances", and ignore the "lose regardless" part, claiming you didn't mean "absolute." In context, in your post, your focus was on the "lose regardless" part. You focused on minimizing the in game coaching, and that players decide games.
I guess I don't understand why folks .. you in this case .. feel the need to rationalize our tournament failures. To be honest, these rationalizations sound like MU fans. Everybody plays in the same tourney. But you ignore that we are dealt a much better deck of cards in terms of talent than all but a few teams, every season. We have a stacked deck. The precise item you cited -- "better teams." That stacked deck is evidenced by who exactly wins titles -- it is the top programs. You are right. Talent is a major, major factor. My issue is why, when we have such tremendous talent -- elite talent -- we just happen to be disproportionately unlucky then?
See, I see the top teams as having close to the same talent. What are the other factors? Luck. And coaching. Some coaches might suggest that you create your own luck, many times. Some coaches might suggest that preparation leads to performance. Some coaches might suggest that their approach can help determine whether their players play tight, or play loose. Lots of things beyond sheer talent.
But no one will debate that we have top talent on the floor nearly every season. Why doesn't that talent enjoy a proportionate rate of success in the tourney?
It is a fine line. If coach Self has just one more title, say in 2011, I'm not discussing this. So I recognize the luck factor, and I recognize that a lot of this is nit-picking.
Also, you said, "however, I have an issue when just about everything Coach Self does is second guessed, even when his record indicates he is doing it mostly right and not the other way around."
Well, welcome to fan forums. I would say that on this site, the criticism is informed. It's not random, ridiculous complaints. Sure, there is some anger or disgust after a big loss. But the discussion is about how we can improve -- that doesn't lend itself to pats on the back all the time. I think most of us start from the premise that we have a great team, a great coach. Now, how can it get better.
As for if a poster have had enough of a particular subject or discussion, they can choose not to read if the topic is boring to them.
@JayHawkFanToo Sorry I'm late back to the table. I can't post on my work computer any more because some glitch related to the site.
We do disagree a lot, but I do appreciate your thoughtful responses. Like you, no disrespect intended or even implied.
Here's what I'd ask you to do ... try to free your mind. I'll try to do the same. I am really going to reconsider my criticisms of Self after this post. But I'd ask you to really be critical, really analyze this. Don't be afraid to criticize coach Self or anyone you perceive to be wiser than you. They're just people.
My response is two parts:
First, you do realize that your citation of Coach Wooden and his approach to the game, apparently what you believe to be the most credible approach, is an apparent indictment of coach Self? You can see that, right? Never fear, though, I'm on the grand jury. No indictment is imminent.
You cite Wooden for the proposition that his job was to teach player how to prepare, prepare them, and let them execute, citing the following, "Once the game started, he largely left it to his disciplined army of athletes to figure things out for themselves, often times even when they found themselves in a spot of bother."
However, Coach Self is a near control freak during games. He regularly uses all of his timeouts. He calls all sets, and all plays. He signals all in-bounds plays. He is universally known for his quick hook, and emotionally based substitutions. He strategically moves players in and out. When he has players in a timeout, he's always directing. I agree with Self's approach 100%.
Of course, in all sports, coaches do the bulk of work before the game. You put that in bold as if that is some sort of revelation. That's like saying the sky is blue.
The other really incredibly obvious reference is to players missing shots or turning the ball over affecting games. Of course. That happens. And that can swing a game. The sky is blue.
But the key that you apparently fail to recognize is that coaches do their most important coaching during games when the players aren't performing and when their preparation has failed. Whether it is changing to a different formation in football, or switching defenses in basketball (like UK did vs. UConn in the first half), or bunting/hit and run in baseball, there are enumerable adjustments that coaches make during the game that decides the outcome, and those decisions become more important as the game moves on and there is less time to come back from a deficit.
Coach Self calls a back door lob because the defender in the zone is creeping up from the baseline; he recognizes that a defender on an inbound play creeps to the middle on a throw in opposite, so runs the wheel around for a bucket; he notices that a player rotates backward each time after he tries to penetrate the baseline, so he instructs his help defender to shut that off, causing a turnover. It literally goes on and on. But it's the players.
I tend to think that you watched the Stanford game and truly thought it was 80% on the players. Your citation of our players in the UNI and VCU games demonstrates that you have a lack of accountability directed at a coach. So in your book, Self prepared his squad correctly, his games plan was fine, his personnel choices fine, his in game adjustments all fine; it was just the players. That is simply comical. It is convenient. But it is a cop-out.
I will very confidently say that you simply do not appreciate, or really understand, the role of a coach during in-game situations. That to me is obvious.
You state" .. you can even see in this forum where some posters (who have never coached even grade school kids) are constantly second guessing Coach Self and claiming he is doing it all wrong,"
My disagreement with you is from the perspective of a guy that has coached over 50 seasons of youth baseball, basketball, and football, all at the top levels of each sport.
You say when you "... are playing against a better team, chances are that you will lose regardless." Really. That is another indictment of coach Self, right? Somehow, we have found ways to lose to inferior teams in the tournament over and over. I'm sure UNI, VCU, Bradley, Bucknell, Bradley, et. al. would be considered "inferior."
But knowing how you approach an argument, you'll go circular. You'll go back and say, see, the players failed. You have attempted to cover yourself from both ends. But it really comes down to a lack of appreciation for in-game coaching.
Second, you fall into a common trap. My perception of your post and defense of Self is that simply because he is the coach of Kansas and makes millions, that he undoubtedly knows best at all times. As if he's beyond reproach. Meaning, that the opinions of us mere peons' are just uninformed and worthless.
I reject that completely.
I have used this example before. Marty Schottenheimer, great football coach. In 1997, Elvis Grbac got hurt so Rich Gannon took over. Gannon led the Chiefs on a great run, AFC West title, home field -- Schottenheimer made the fateful decision to start Grbac over Gannon in the playoff game vs. Denver in Grbac's first game back, and the Chiefs lost. Broncos go on to win the Super Bowl. Probably the Chiefs best team ever.
Most Chiefs fans felt Gannon should have started.
Schottenheimer admitted later that he made the wrong decision.
The point is that coaches make mistakes, and coaches admit those mistakes later. They are human. They make decisions for the wrong reason. Schottenheimer made the decision because he didn't feel Grbac should lose the job because of injury. Flawed logic, to be sure.
Your shortsighted approach to criticism of coach Self ignores that coaches are dead wrong many times. Thus, if you accept that premise -- that coaches are dead wrong many times -- criticism and analysis are reasonable. The generically most informed and intelligent person on a topic can make the wrong decision.
Now, does that mean that anyone of us would be a better all around coach than coach Self? Of course not. So don't confuse the two.
It does not take a rocket scientist (in a hoops sense) to see that coach Self did nothing against Stanford to free up his best player, Andrew Wiggins, from a strategy designed to stop him (when his real best player, Joel Embiid, was out). Multiple strategies that coaches employ when teams try to take a great player out of the game. Self did nothing. And lineup decisions, pregame and in-game are crucial. In hindsight, would you have started Naadir Tharpe vs. Stanford? I said before the game that we should bench him and not play him one minute. Who was right, me, or coach Self? I also suggested before the tournament that given that Embiid was out, we should have switched to a small lineup, attack, play fast, etc. That with Embiid out, it was our only chance to win the title. Who was right, me, or coach Self?
I have also made some pretty stupid suggestions. And my stupid suggestions are far more vast and wide that any of coach Self's decisions. I know that. But that doesn't mean that perhaps some of my suggestions, and other's that post here, are better than coach Self's ultimate decisions on a particular topic.
Scrutinizing certain aspects of his decision making, that may not be his strong suit, is certainly reasonable. That's all this is. Isolating areas that seem to be weakness, and analyzing the decision making, the thought process, the scheme, the strategy.
I heard Bob Knight one evening suggest that Kansas was not using the dribble drive enough. Ok, perhaps one of the best coaches in history critiquing one of the best coaches in history. But if we say the same thing here, that coach Knight said, it is worthless, right?
I reject that completely. Jim Boeheim won a national title running the 2-3 zone. Self won't do it. It's not valid to suggest that in 2013-14 that using a zone, with that team, with our defensive holes, might have been the better option -- like I (and others) suggested in late November?
Coach Self failed us against Stanford. Joe Montana failed the 49ers a few times too. He made some bad decisions. Threw some interceptions. But he is still arguably one of the greatest of all time. Coaches are the same way.
One last thing .. if you're still with me here. I've posted this before. Coaches get arrogant. They get tunnel vision. They think their way unequivocally is the best way. It happens in all walks of life; the arrogance of leadership. It does not permit the leader to free his mind and make the best decision for his team. It's why many bad decisions are made. But it's also why they're successful. there's a balance. I just don't think coach Self has that balance.
It why we all chuckle when coach Self says we could play small, but in the same sentence says that we then couldn't guard anyone. He thinks it, talks himself out of it, and reverts to his tried and true -- his theory of the game.
You say that "it is apparent that you are not a fan of Coach Self." That is the furthest thing from the truth. I have posted many, many times over the years that I would not trade coach Self for any other coach. And I wouldn't. My analysis is related to my perception of how he could improve as a coach. Really, as I've said before, "just tweaks." Opening his mind that his way, his tried and true, could stand some adjustments here and there.
Again, I appreciate your position and the discussion. Though I tend to get blunt, no offense intended. I'll try to rethink my position a bit.
@JayHawkFanToo Let's go with your conclusion for argument's sake. Then, in large part, it is the adjustments that coaches make when faced with defenses that have employed an appropriate strategy to stop the otherwise equally predictable offenses?
And don't say it's the players. Because if it were simply the execution of these otherwise predictable offenses, then coaching would not matter. You would just have to coach offense at the minimal, predictable level of all other offenses.
Of course, I don't agree here at all. But I'm very interested in your take (and anyone else's) on my question.
@globaljaybird Silvio ...
@DoubleDD Ok, well maybe, just maybe -- we're due for something like this. We're due for an unexpected kid to come in and take the country by storm. Something no one saw coming. He shows up at Allen and Selden can't guard him. His ball handling is even better than advertised. He's smooth. He shots are falling. What, wait, my wife's waking me up from .... oh, nevermind.
@KansasComet BMac?
@ralster - Do you then disagree with @drgnslayr when he said that our offense "... is predictable and teams can easily scout and prepare to play us"?
Also, isn't good three point shooting reliable? At least as reliable as pounding it inside (see Stanford game)?
I say that in part because of the obvious .. shoot 35% from three, and you're better than if you shoot 50% from two.
I prefer and outside in game. Mainly because a focus on three point shooting frees the minds of the three point shooters. They know they are supposed to shoot when open. They aren't hesitant. They just gun. Then, their proficiency can open things up for the drive and the post feed.
Focusing on getting the ball inside makes three point shooters freeze for the exact reason we've seen it in the past -- they get second guessed, screamed at, and taken out of the game for one misstep, or one three point shot before 15 seconds on the shot clock.
Finally, an outside in game is substantially harder to guard. Which one would you rather guard? One where you know the ball is getting fed inside and you know the opposing coach doesn't want early threes; or one where you know shots could come from anywhere, at anytime?
@drgnslayr Hmmm ... what you have described in your last three paragraphs is the quintessential system coach. He ain't changin.
One item I found kind of humorous. Self was describing the possibility of playing small. He then ended his comment with, "... but I don't know if we could guard anybody."
I think that's how his mind works. Lots of stuff sounds good. He'll talk about it and speculate. But he'll talk himself out of it. When push comes to shove, he'll stick with the tried and true.
You said of our offense - "It is predictable and teams can easily scout and prepare to play us."
Sounds like a new thread to me ...
@DoubleDD I'm curious, if height was the deciding factor, why did CF, Mason, Tharpe, and Selden play over Greene and White? And is Svi taller that Greene? At best, an inch taller, at worst, an inch shorter. Appx. the same it seems. And why do you think that Svi is a good defender?
I will acknowledge, though, @DoubleDD feeling it in his "bones" is probably as good of an indicator as we have.
But @DoubleDD, together with @jaybate, combine for a terrific point -- he is a tall, athletic guard. And "Self has the hots for him. That often translates to more PT than how the team looks on paper might otherwise justify." Height, Self has the hots for him, and @DoubleDD's "bones" feeling it -- I can accept that.
To @jaybate's point on scheme - I truly wish that we could have some diversity. This year will be the perfect "test" season. We don't have a rim protector. Do we play more like 2008 when we had two 6'8"ish starters in the post - run, gun, lob, dunk, push the ball, pressure the ball?
On another item, I'm not completely convinced you can't play fast, and then ratchet it down ... going Mason to CF. But it's got me thinkin' .....
In 2008, for example, Mario, Russell, Sherron, it didn't matter. All faster. But remember, our guys still walk the ball up the court many times. TT did it a lot. We did it a lot in 2008. A key dynamic also to playing fast is pushing the ball after a made basket. We never do that, save for a few late game situations.
A better description I think for CF is "methodical" in the way he plays the point. Lots of tail dribbling. Dribbling spot to spot. Form passing. That is distinctly different from Mason.
Self could also shuffle personnel when CF is in. Can't do it all the time, but perhaps matching personnel skill sets when possible. Maybe a Lucas or Mickelson with Perry matches up better with CF, and two from either Traylor, Ellis, and Alexander better with Mason? I don't know yet. Thinking out loud a bit.
But I personally think a methodical point guard can work with a faster pace so long as he is willing to push the ball. I liken it to Alex Smith with the Chiefs. The guy is a good QB, but he is completely unwilling to throw the ball into tight spaces, thus he preserves his wonderful TD/Int ratio. Is CF willing to jeopardize his assist to turnover ratio?
Interesting note ... while CF's turnover rate is terrific -- 3 turnovers, in 225 minutes = .013 per minute. Mason was 37/567 = .065 per minute.
CF's assist rate was very low ... only had 15 assists in 225 minutes. Just .066 per minute. By contrast, Mason was 72/567, or .126 per minute -- nearly twice the assist rate.
That's a 5-1 assist/TO ratio for CF, but not exactly how you'd draw it up.
Further, I think the stat is skewed a bit because CF played a lot in the 2 spot when he was in, as well.
I would say that if Self turns to CF over Mason, it's in large part for the same reason he played Brady. Safety, comfort, a disdain for risk. But as @jaybate said, some years he will tolerate TO's, sometimes not. Personally, I think low TOs tell you that you aren't playing aggressive enough, but that's another discussion.
This season, because of the obvious need to play faster with athletic post players (and no true center), Mason seems the best choice; and then our secondary choice is to play a touch more methodical with CF. To me, it actually seems like the perfect situation at PG -- game situations can permit Self to use the best fit.
And then there's Graham, the great unknown. At least we know Jeff Goodman thinks he's a our savior ....
On the spelling, I think it's using whatever warped alphabet they use over there. You know, how CCCP was USSR.
I am extremely optimistic for Svi .. in 2015-16. This just has all the markings of a situation where the guy can learn for a season, get acclimated, mature, workout with Hudy, and be ready to rock. Svi getting here late just cements that in my mind. A just turned 17 year old is going to walk in here beat out Selden, Oubre or Greene? Or grab a ball handing spot from Mason, CF, or Graham?
Unless we have a significant injury, or guys flame out, I just can't see it.
But doesn't he look like the perfect plug in for Selden if/when Selden turns pro? Heck, if Selden and Oubre go pro, even if we don't recruit anyone else, we have Mason, CF, Graham, Svi, and Greene. Damn good.
And I'm beginning to think that the chances of landing a top 50 perimeter play is very limited. Call it the Svi blockade.
He's 6'6" - 6'8". Can handle the ball ok. But could play either 2 or 3. If you're a top 50 dude, with what we have on the roster, what would you think? If Svi is here, and we have 3 PG types, and add Greene -- all of whom would have a minimum of 2 years of eligibility remaining, that's quite a bit to overcome.
Thus, hopefully, we can snag some post players (where we really need top tier talent). I want Carlton Bragg.