🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Uh, yea it is a birthright.

@konkeyDong Exactly -- the issue with stress fractures is that the bone doesn't heal like normal bone does from recurrent pressure -- folks that have stress fractures are 60% more likely than other folks to have another one.

This is what I posted on March 27 at kusports.com after listening to folks there say that the stress fracture in the back was not a "red flag" and that the stress fracture was from being slammed to the ground:

How is everyone here just definitively stating that the back injury isn't a big deal?

He had back issue in high school, too. Folks that get stress fractures may ... may ... be prone to recurring stress fractures. So you can't say it's a one time thing.

I believe the statistic is that approximately 60% of athletes that have a stress fracture end up getting another one.

The term is "stress". It was not a traumatic injury. A stress fracture is due to load or force being placed on an area over time and the bone not properly healing itself as it normally does. This is completely different than a fall, or one time deal. The stress fracture did not occur when he was "slammed to the ground."

One's own body composition -- the elements that heal bone -- can make that person more susceptible to stress fractures, too.

Most likely, it was a result of Embiid compensating for his knee injury (near ACL tear) in the TCU game, thus creating more load and stress due to his altered stride or gait, and protecting it when he landed after jumping. That's just speculation, but it fits completely. It then reared its ugly head in the WVU game at home when he landed awkwardly, and his back muscles seized up to protect it.

So if I'm an NBA team, yea, it's a red flag.

But more of a red flag if he stays at KU and has more back issues next season.

I am writing this 50 times on a chalkboard:

"I will not get pulled into a Brady-debate"

Just a thought -- causation, correlation, whatever -- Final Four 2008 (Brady doesn't play). 2009, 2010, 2011 (no Final Fours, two significantly premature exits, Brady plays). Final Four 2012 (Brady doesn't play).

Or another way, does anyone seriously believe that if Brady would have been on the 2012 team in place of either EJ or Releford, that we get to the championship game? No one believes that. No one can even create that argument. No one can create that fiction.

And that is the most simple point. Brady was a role player. A guy that is best off the bench, and not cast in a starting, big minutes role. When he was cast in that role, he was exposed. In a more limited role, a fine player.

@JayHawkFanToo I'm curious, based on your response to @icthawkfan316, do you think that there are any issues with Self's offensive philosophy? Do you think that he should make any tweaks or changes?

@JayhawkRock78 Exactly what I was thinking .. perfect!

@icthawkfan316 Well, if it was Justin Wesley, could you imagine the world wide audience, assuming they saw "Jayhawker" (insert the appropriate accent -- I like a Chinese accent for this) -- "Look, there's Wilt Chamberlain, greatest of all time."

@Crimsonorblue22 Ok, so the thought of using former KU players isn't of much value because most all of them are playing professionally, or at least the ones we would want to play? I guess the 17-24 thing quoted by @drgnslayr from the article is confusing there. Sounds like it might not really apply to us since our guys play professionally after leaving.

And I wonder how the 17-24 thing works vs. the 17-28 age range in your post?

I guess I don't understand the rules .. if we can't use guys that have declared to turn pro (like Selden might be), why can we use other pros "between the ages of 17-24" (like McLemore)?

Here's a link from when UNI represented the US in 2007.

http://archmadness.com/news/archives-print/2006-07/451/uni-to-represent-usa-at-world-university-games/ ↗

@icthawkfan316 "Sadly, we are all not created equal, and often times no amount of hard work can change that."

Watch it there, @konkeyDong is lurking ....

@VailHawk I suspected sarcasm font .. I was wrong, there, too. I will note your neutrality on Brady. That's safe.

@konkeyDong -- "They could all coexist as long as we don't sign any back-court players that are going to demand instant minutes."

And therein lies the rub ...

@VailHawk I'm curious as to what capacity he would fit with the Spurs?

@globaljaybird / @KUSTEVE - Is it not completely inevitable that either CF, Graham, or Mason transfer? One of them. There seems to be no way they all can co-exist for their careers here. So the competition ensues.

I had never once heard a CF transfer rumor. Then, last week, Jesse Newell did an article on CF and wrote this:

Though offseason rumors floated around that Frankamp may seek a transfer from KU, the Wichita native remains on the Jayhawks’ roster and is focused on looking ahead. “I ended the season pretty well, and I knew that would give me some momentum going into this next year,” Frankamp said. “KU’s where I always wanted to be, so I figured that I could make it work here if I work as hard as I can, and then I’ll just try my best to get out there as much as I can.”

That was certainly news to me. The battle for scholarships and PT continues ...

@jaybate It does make the most sense for Oubre to come off the bench. But does he do that for two seasons? Greene isn't turning pro after next season.

Anyway, let's assume your scenario -- realistic starters are Mason, Selden, Greene, Ellis, Alexander.

Realistic bench rotation guys are CF or Graham, with Oubre, Traylor, Mickelson. And then Graham/CF or Svee getting 5th perimeter man minutes.

Self's recent comments about the three ball handler thing would challenge Oubre's inclusion over Graham or Svee.

But I expect Oubre and Greene, regardless of Self's three ball handler discusion, to be two of the four big minutes perimeter guys. If we need more ball handling in a game, the CF, Graham, or Svee gets the nod.

For sure, two perimeter guys are not going to get minutes.

@wrwlumpy that, seriously, is about as good as it gets. Can any school match that? Maybe a UCLA starting five with Alcinder and Walton as twin towers, but could either guard Manning out on the floor? Maybe a UNC five. But that sure is sweet.

As usual, very entertaining .. I don't have to pay you for this service, do I?

@drgnslayr -- "I wish we still had Black.... he would fit perfect with this crew."

I think Black is perfect with any crew. Wish we would have had him as a freshman.

And @ralster, great stuff above.

@Crimsonorblue22 - I don't know what he will be doing in a few years, but I know what he won't be doing -- playing in the NBA. Just a continued (playful) jab at those that professed that he would get to the league because of his famous (or infamous) intangibles. I do love crisp ball rotation and post entry passes -- of course I do -- who doesn't? But I also like what I saw from EJ and Releford in the 2012 title game run. And somehow, without Brady, we were able to rotate the ball and get some entry passes. I'll stop now.

How about the player that led to the most disappointment?

Easy --- Brady Morningstar.

I still, without hesitation, believe that if Brady Morningstar had simply never played at Kansas, we at least visit the final four once during three seasons between 2008 and 2012, where he played, and we didn't. The completely speculative opinion is that we win the 2011 national title if future NBAer Morningstar had chosen to play elsewhere.

Like a governor on an old school bus ....

Following up on @ralster and @jaybate's comments, from the "words mean something" category --

“We are a tough group. Last year to be honest, we weren’t tough. We were soft,” Selden said of a 25-10 team that won the Big 12 title and went 1-1 in the NCAAs.

This may be the single most important development heading into next season. Tharpe and Wiggins are gone. They are the only "softer" players that departed. But add them to finesse guy Ellis, and you had 3 of your 5 starters that weren't, shall we say, physical.

And I wonder, if Greene's play in camp and practice demonstrates that he is the best option at the 3, does Self bring top 10 recruit Oubre off the bench? Or does he start Oubre because he is a top 10 guy?

If I were to create my KU squad Roy through Self, here's what it would be:

Starters

PG - Sherron Collins

SG - Kirk Hinrich

SF - Paul Pierce

PF - Thomas Robinson

PF - Nick Collison

Bench

-Mario Chalmers

-Joel Embiid

-Jeff Graves

-Brandon Rush

-Rex Walters

Reading everyone's posts, which I will say is high quality stuff (as usual), I can honestly say I don't know what to make of it.

Self really will play the guys he thinks gives him the best opportunity to win. We (I) may disagree with his selections.

Look at 2012-13 -- very limited ball handling. EJ pretty good, others not so much until Tharpe was in. But it was his best lineup.

If ball handlers, though, don't measure up to other guys, then he'll go with one ball handler.

It's having your cake and eating it too. If on balance the best players can also handle the ball, that is what he prefers.

When he says "point guard", maybe he just means having just that one guy out there. I like that explanation. Again, I am vexed, flummoxed, confused.

Last season, Greene was 3-4 from 3 in the same scrimmage, and we were talking about his three point shooting. Lucas was 4-6 from the floor, and he was a "darkhorse" to play.

I would say this season, the main item that I saw that concerned me from the scrimmage (because it was also a concern coming in) was that Alexander didn't seem comfortable/struggled with his back to the basket. Not that I think it is a big issue for the guy, it's just that his whole career is sped up. He's a freshman. He should be treated as such. But he has to come in and produce now. And be a big impact player now. Can he be effective in the post, with his back to the basket, against D-1 post players?

While I am a Brannen Greene fan, I don't see that this scrimmage gives us any insight into the starters or playing time. The only thing I noticed was that CF was with the alums, and Mason was not. Does that mean that Mason is ahead of CF in Self's eyes?

Here's an odd one. Not really a disappointment. But Travis Releford. Excellent player. Great defense. Sufficient offense. I always felt that he could have provided more offense if he would just have asserted himself more. Great skill set, just not assertive enough.

In the true disappointment category, Josh Selby is really the only one. Circumstances and the one track focus on turning pro conspired to ruin his season and college career. Year two could have been a game changer for him.

More double talk from Self. At times, with all the lead guard, combo guard, point guard stuff, I'm not sure Self can keep it straight:

He said this today at kusports: “What we got was more of the (KU) needs than even getting the big kid from Texas (Myles Turner),” Self said. “He (Turner, UT) is going to be a terrific player, but I felt if we could get an unbelievable shooter and true point guard I think that would probably offset maybe not having so much standing height inside.”

The true point guard reference is of course to Graham.

This in direct conflict with the statement I quoted above from Self regarding Graham:

He is probably more a lead guard than a true point guard, which is fine because the best teams we’ve ever had, we’ve played without a true point guard.

All any of this really means, in my opinion, is that he is more comfortable when he has more than one guy that can handle the ball like a point guard in the game at the same time. That's all. He likes having more than on ball handler available -- he only had EJ in the game with no other option, or Tharpe. It's why he like playing EJ/Tharpe together, or Tharpe/Mason.

This all bodes well for the true ball handlers when it comes to playing time.

And @ParisHawk, you are right, it could speed things up -- the key though is do they stand around and wait for the designated person to throw the ball in.

Discussion points here over the last few months have included detailed discussions regarding point guards, lead guards, combo guards -- all sorts of guards. @ralster, @drgnslayr and others brought up multiple points in that discussion.

Now this from Rustin Dodd today:

"Bill Self on his PGs: 'I don’t want to play a point guard anymore ... I want to play, you play three guards and whoever gets it brings it'.”

To be sure, this has not been the case the last number of seasons.

Just recently, in the fall of 2012, Self made a point of finding a "point guard" by name. He pursued multiple guys, settling for Frank Mason.

In February/2013, he dropped the "we don't have a point guard" slam on EJ following the Ok. St. loss at home.

Over that last few months, much as been made of our poor point guard play. It has been identified, dissected, etc. Self even commented on how Tharpe was not a true point guard, and has used the term "point guard" multiple times.

But, of course, he said this of Devonte Graham: “He may be as talented a lead guard as we’ve had in a while, probably since Sherron (Collins) from an overall talent standpoint,” Self said of the 6-foot-2 Brewster Academy player, who is ranked No. 36 in the recruiting Class of 2014 by Rivals.com. He has a presence on the floor. We think he has great intangibles. He is quick, can do a lot of things. He can score the ball. He is probably more a lead guard than a true point guard, which is fine because the best teams we’ve ever had, we’ve played without a true point guard. We played with two or three lead guards. He’s probably a cross between Russell (Robinson) and Mario (Chalmers) from a size standpoint and length and athletic ability,” Self said.

I posted on @icthawkfan316's Battle for Scholarships thread that I had heard Self in an interview discussing "lead guards." He did seem to differentiate between the terms.

He said our best teams were when we had 2-3 "lead" guards, and he was referring to Robinson, Collins, Chalmers. He seemed to put that somewhere between a point guard and a combo guard.

He referred to being able to get more ball handling in the game with the group we have now -- which was before signing Mykhailiuk.

So, now, with Self's comment today -- if he really wants guards that can handle the ball in the game, and wants whoever "gets it brings it", how can that really happen? Brannen Greene isn't bringing it, right? Or Kelly Oubre? If you remember, Self commented during the 2012-13 season that a reason AW3 didn't get in the game was ball handling -- he explained that having non-ball handlers already in the rotation (McLemore and Releford) made that difficult.

This works only if the guy who gets it can bring it. The three guys that have solid on ball skills -- Mason, CF and presumably Graham; a fourth could be Mykhailiuk.

Can Selden, Oubre, and/or Greene "bring it"? Doesn't this further signal that either Greene or Oubre will be left out of the main rotation (quite sure Oubre won't be, so likely Greene)?

I just wonder if Self's comment really means anything.

@justanotherfan Nice summary .. great post.

On thing I really agree with on with Alexander is the rebounding component. "Want to", athleticism, length, and attitude .. wow.

All reports are that he is a "plus" defender.

Not being too crazy here, but he could be a TRob (year 3) type rebounder by the second half of the season.

@konkeyDong Well, the point of comparing to Embiid is that Embiid's translatable skills were quite evident on the videos. Alexander's is all dunking. It was not to suggest that he didn't have a game that wouldn't translate. I've seen Alexander play. I think he'll be fine, too. Definite power game guy.

And I really think that Ellis' offensive ability will help Alexander if Alexander can pass out of traffic, double teams, etc.

Of course, yes, Alexander's ahead of where TRob was when TRob was a freshman. But with one season only, I would be completely shocked if he was even in the ballpark of TRob's season #3, which is perhaps an unfair gold standard. But if you're the presumed OAD, one year, go to draft if ready guy, something significantly south of that doesn't justify your status. You have to produce immediately. Yes, a Julius Randle like season, or something close, is expected, or it's a disappointment.

Really, it's the net result. What does the team do in March (and April). That's all that matters in the final analysis.

I'm kind of thinking that the dunks won't come quite as easy next season.

I guess I'm most curious about his post moves and footwork. We saw a highlight video of Embiid that showed a guy who could handle the ball, use his left hand, and who could get hoops by his footwork. We saw a guy with a package of skills that screamed "impact."

@DoubleDD - One word to describe Alexander right now? "Freshman"

@JayHawkFanToo I'm missing where you refute what I have said. And I guess I don't see any clarification from you. You said the "yuppie" comment. You haven't defended it. You referenced other things, but not that.

You said it pisses you off (with dollar signs) to see "yuppie couples with young kids, with little or no actual interest for the game, sitting court side and not showing the enthusiasm Jayhawk fans are known for ..." You follow up by saying you have "actual facts." Your opinion is based on these "actual facts."

I called "b.s." on that. The dollar signs in the word "pisses" certainly referenced money, and that was reinforced by you saying "yuppie." You're just looking at a family and saying to yourself, "hmmm, looks like they have money, mom and dad both there, looks like they aren't cheering the way 'we' cheer, must have no interest in the game -- so they shouldn't be there."

Sorry, if you want to just post stuff like that and not get challenged, go somewhere where I'm not.

I am still waiting for the explanation then on the "yuppie" comment and how that doesn't mean what it clearly appears to mean, all based on your "actual facts."

Of course, your post, artfully dodges the subject matter. Your prior post referenced corporate seats and those that "weren't even KU alumni", that "sat there as (if) it was a social event." Now it's non alumi, corporate seats, and social events. Again, you know what a real KU fan is and should be at the game. But you didn't address your "yuppie" reference, of course. You still don't.

For the record, I said your "yuppie" assumption was "crap." I stand by that. You can't (or won't) even defend it. The "b.s." thing was a reference to "calling "b.s." -- meaning that you were b.s.ing, and "garbage" reference was regarding the yuppie thing sounding like the "standard garbage that we see today."

Apparently, me "calling forum member's opinions names" -- meaning your opinion premised on "actual facts" about yuppies -- has offended your sensitivities. That would be the whine and cheese crowd, for sure.

But I do want to know why the "yuppie" couple "p-i-$-$-e-s" you off so much? Is it because you cheer more, or better; or that you don't have kids to attend to at the games? Is it because you know that you know more than they do about KU basketball? Is it because you know it is a social event for them? Is it because they drive a BMW (maybe), or might have more money than you? Still curious.

@brooksmd It is pretty funny actually to me that some folks that have hatred for the CEO making millions have no actual concept of what that a CEO does, or why he gets paid what he does. Your quarterback example is excellent. Monetary "worth" is based on the money your create, in both cases.

Coaches Cal, Self, K, etc .. referenced by @REHawk, make money because of their value to their employer. If there isn't value, then they wouldn't get the contract.

What is so wrong with that? Respectfully, the contracts aren't insane (as reference by @REHawk).

They are insane only when money -- the value of the business enterprise -- is taken out of the equation.

We may perceive them as insane because the contracts are beyond our reach.

On the other hand, that doesn't make Cal, K, or Self geniuses. I've seen folks post here that Self, if he wasn't the KU coach, would be CEO of a corporation. That's just silly to assume. He found his niche. He's no genius. As I've mentioned before, @jaybate and other folks here are surely much smarter than Self would ever hope to be. Listen to him talk. He has trouble putting together coherent sentences sometimes. I obviously can't say for sure. But take Self out of it -- college hoops coaches in general.

Most found their niches, and have exploited it.

No different than Brad Pitt, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah Winfrey, Peyton Manning, or the dude on Pawn Stars.

I'm guessing, not a rocket scientist among them. But they have found a way to create money, and they get paid accordingly.

@JayHawkFanToo The "wine and cheese" comment, if you were following there, was from the post I made at kusports. I noted that. It was in response to a reference on that site. Had nothing to do with you. That's why I referenced you below that, and below the line in my post.

You say it was your own experience. I just call b.s. on that. You didn't sample the crowd, test their knowledge, or have any understanding of their passion for the game. You simply referred, as many do, to the crowd that doesn't show the "enthusiasm" or passion that you think justifies "sitting courtside."

Your "yuppie" comment smacked of the standard garbage that we see today -- folks that happen be poor, or have less, or are disadvantaged in some manner are somehow more virtuous and meritorious in what they do. And that is exactly what you did there. That's what I referenced as crap. Now you say you don't begrudge people that do well --- if that's the case, then you might think about what you are saying. Perhaps you can then explain what you mean by yuppie couple, if that interpretation is not correct.

Two definitions I found for yuppie that square with my assumptions on your comments - "A term used to describe someone who is young, possibly just out of college, and who has a high-paying job and an affluent lifestyle. Can now be used to describe any rich person who is not modest about their financial status." and "a young college-educated adult who is employed in a well-paying profession and who lives and works in or near a large city."

And no, I saw your quote -- "I hate it but I also understand that it is the new reality." But that has nothing to do with your opinions that I was responding too. Whether you "understand" the new reality doesn't have anything to do with your "yuppie" slam.

Your post is "actual facts" you say.. that does make me laugh. "Actual facts." Yuppies, young kids, "with little or no actual interest for the game."

"Actual facts." You are the fact man.

But you say it's just your "opinion."

Again, and I know this is difficult for you to follow -- I made the point that some folks actually don't yell and scream, but may be very passionate. I cited myself as an example. So you don't think that there are folks that have great passion that don't yell and scream?

And as for my own experience, when I was a student and after, there are students that go, scream, enjoy the experience, that have little understanding of the game. Never played it. Don't understand a screen, or a hedge.

I have no problem with that. None at all.

But when folks (as is the premise of the thread) moralize that the students are somehow more meritorious than, say, generically, that 77 year old KU grad, who is an intense follower of KU hoops, knows the game inside and out, and has dumped thousands upon thousands of dollars into the program -- but who happens to remain seated with his wife during the games -- that does irritate me.

Same applies to the "yuppie" couple you have "actual facts" about, or to myself and my daughter when we go, or other KU grads who buy tickets.

@icthawkfan316 I say "big deal" because 120 seats is not a big deal when it comes to moving students. I actually think it's a big nothing. It is a big deal money wise. Smart move that we'll forget about by the time the season rolls around.

Now, where does it end? Like laws that limit civil liberties, it's hard to know the line until you see it. But I do trust the KU administration on this one. It's not a slippery slope.

@icthawkfan316 Yea, I know you're not saying he should start. You made your case pretty good there for Traylor. I absolutely love his story. An inspiration for everyone, everywhere. And yes, he did save us vs. EKU.

How cool would it be .. bear with me here .. if our starting 4 and 5 in 2015-16 were Traylor and Lucas and they perform well. Actually, l do like that idea better than a couple more OADs. Psychotic, I know. But I'm all for getting off the merry go round.

Now, where I do take a little issue with you is -- "I'd actually say if teams want to game-plan to stop a the 3rd or 4th post player, let them."

You do realize that this one fact may have cost us the win vs. Stanford? And that's why I brought it up. We could have made adjustments, I know. But Stanford apparently thought that isolating Traylor was a wise move. What changes next season if he's our 3rd post guy? If you're an opposing coach, don't you say, "when Traylor's in the game, make him beat us" and focus on Ellis and/or Alexander because of the significant offensive drop off?

I just see Traylor as a good 4th post player, not the 3rd. I guess that's where I sit on him.

That being said, he is on an upward trajectory. Would be nice to see.

You asked - "Is there any reason to think he'll regularly use such a plan?" I know, there's little reason to think Self will really jump in with both feet. But I enjoy this sort of discussion. And I always remain hopeful that Self can become magically flexible in his advancing age.

@Crimsonorblue22 Right. Senate representing the students. Do I hear recall vote?

I'm the counter-point here. Here's what I posted today at kusports -

This is a terrific lesson for college students. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. There are consequences.

Personally, treating 120 donors to prime seats to help ensure their continued contributions is the better use of the seating.

Yea, I know, everyone hates folks with money and derogatorily refer to them as the "wine and cheese" crowd. But the reality is, most donors worked very hard for their money (most as KU grads) and are the exact model KU grads should aspire to. Their money keep the athletic programs going.

So 120 student seats are displaced, moved to less prime locations.

Well, you shouldn't have voted to eliminate the fee. Life lesson learned

I will also say that I get completely irritated at the assumptions. The assumptions that folks that have money to sit courtside don't know the game, or have no interest in the game. I am quite sure that the season ticket holders know KU hoops, appreciate KU hoops, and know the game of basketball much better than a large majority of the masses of students. Heck, I didn't appreciate near as much when I was there, and I knew a fraction of the history of KU hoops that I know now.

@JayHawkFanToo said "It always pi-$-$-es me off to see yuppie couples with young kids, with little or no actual interest for the game, sitting court side and not showing the enthusiasm Jayhawk fans are known for...i hate it but I also understand that it is the new reality."

That "yuppie couple" may have both graduated from KU with advanced degrees, paid their dues, and happen to be pretty darn successful. And you're saying that a student has more right or more merit in where he/she sits? Or that the "yuppie couple" doesn't know KU hoops or the game?

That's just crap.

Isn't the purpose of going to school at KU, in part, to become successful? At least in part? To make money, support your family?

I go to games, always have. I took my young kids for the experience. I don't cheer like students do. I enjoy the game. I don't scream when we score, and I don't scream when we don't. I've spent a boat load of my money on that university, and whether I'm rich, poor, or somewhere in between, I have as much right to be there as the student. Actually, I've put in a hell of a lot more time with KU than any current student, that's for damn sure. So I really think that I, you, we -- have more a claim to spot in Allen Fieldhouse than any current student.

But happily, there is room for both, and we're all on the same side. In this case, 120 measly seats were rearranged. Students lost no seating. Big deal.

As much as so many in this country seem to hate the reality, it is folks with money that create jobs, create opportunity, and provide the fuel for our economy. Same way in college athletics. It is fact.

Again, this whole deal might save a student his job sometime in the future. He/she may feel that something is unfair a work, and feel that it is wise to get his co-workers together to challenge "the man." And then he/she will learn the hard way that "employment at will" means you can be fired with or without cause. Thanks for the input, have a nice life.

Perhaps the principle is worth it. But each action, creates some reaction. Again, life lesson learned.

I support Roy 100%, unequivocally. Not a moment of hesitation. Almost like I would a family member. I think he is of high character and has proven that over his career. Who the hell is McCants?

@drgnslayr Don't you think that Greene or Oubre guarding an opposing 4 for short stretches can be overcome by double teaming on the block -- in the same manner SDSU attacked us? But your point -- "Imagine if we would focus on exploiting match-ups on our offense?" -- is literally the first subject I would be interested in asking coach Self. Why not exploit match-ups?

@konkeyDong - Thanks for highlighting my misspelling of Tarik Black's first name. Much appreciated. I think Mickelson could seize the 3rd post spot, if he truly can be a semi-rim protector. But like @icthawkfan316, I have no idea -- in watching Mickelson at the scrimmage last season, I've mentioned before that he seemed to have a flat shot. And you're correct on the size thing with 6'8" players. In fact, I don't disagree with much of what you said. Excellent points. But I do think that we lack quality depth in the post. I guess it's just 1) my lack of faith in Traylor, and 2) the belief that Lucas is destined for life on the bench. I was actually pretty impressed with Lucas. Back to a point I made a long while back -- we only really need one to hit (Lucas, Traylor Peters). And now Mickelson is there instead of Peters. Your recognition of the lack of offensive talent off the bench in the post is really why I see going small more often as a legitimate game plan.

@justanotherfan - Great distinction there on MU. Their three perimeter guys were ball handlers. And I'm sure by now you know how I value that skill. I would say this, in going small as I mentioned -- it could be CF, Graham, Selden, Oubre, Alexander. Could be Mason, CF, Graham, Greene, Mickelson. But I think having one point guard, say Mason -- then Selden, Oubre, Greene. That gives us a solid PG, then adequate secondary ball handing (vs. ball handlers) through the 4th spot (assuming Oubre is = to Greeene). That said, our base lineup would have less ball handling than going small, correct?

@REHawk - When you say that this season may mirror last season as a "building year", isn't that a not so subtle indictment of the one and done merry go round? And why do you think we'll be better a year from now? Won't we have either more OADs in the post, or reliance on very low ranked guys? I really wish we would have scored a top 50 post player in this latest round of recruiting.

@VailHawk - 1) On the 30 second clock, truthfully, I don't know that Self would do anything differently. 2) Roy played tight rotations many times, such as in 1997. He'd flip guys in, but he would tighten things up as I recall. 3) Could we play worse defense? I would say that we will likely be better defensively. Tharpe won't be on the floor. Oubre and Alexander are both considered "plus" defenders. But as for zone defense, I won't hold my breath.

@icthawkfan316 - might I ask, why are you a big fan of Traylor? Did learning that Stanford schemed with Traylor's offensive limitations in mind have any impact on that? I do like the guy's game, to an extent. He's a big guy that's not big. He did improve. But he just seems limited.

A review of Kansas’ roster leads to two pretty obvious conclusions – the 2014-15 Jayhawks will have an overwhelming wealth of perimeter talent. But the talent in the post, depth-wise, is questionable.

Arguably, from a pure talent perspective, three of the four best players on this team could be Wayne Selden, Brannen Greene, and Kelly Oubre (with Alexander the fourth).

At 6’5”, 6”7”, and 6’7”, those three perimeter players on the floor at the same time would create significant match up problems for any team. None, of course, can play on the ball. So the only option is to play those three at the 2, 3 and 4 spots if they are to be on the floor at the same time.

Rewind to the Missouri Tigers of 2011-2012. MU played Kim English at the 4. Self started out both contests with TRob guarding English, only to relent and remove Withey from the game because our 4 couldn’t guard their 4. Frank Haith, for all of his failings, simply played his best players.
For the 2014-15 Jayhawks, we know that Ellis and Alexander will start in the post, don’t we? I mean, it would take either injury, ineligibility, or some other cataclysmic event to start anyone else on KU’s roster in the post, right? So that’s set. No arguments there.

With KU’s perimeter rotation, there is the significant chance that Brannen Greene just won’t play. Or Kelly Oubre. We know three things “for sure” on the perimeter:

1. Self will have a base four man perimeter rotation, with a fifth guy getting scraps. It’s how it always is. It’s how it always will be.
2. Of the four perimeter rotation players, two will have primary ball handling skills. That means two of Mason, Frankamp, Graham and Mykhailiuk. We know Selden does not qualify. Don’t really about Mykhailiuk yet.
3. We know Selden will be part of the four man rotation.

With those three “for sures”, that leaves Oubre vs. Greene -- both competing for minutes at the 3 with the loser getting the same role as Greene did this past season (scraps). Why not give one of them some minutes, perhaps 10 per game, at the 4?

Given their respective talent levels, they both demand playing time. Certainly both are more talented players than Lucas, Traylor, or Mickelson. So when Alexander or Ellis leave the game, what’s the best option? Perhaps half of that time would be going small.

We have talked many times about KU going small. Rarely has coach Self gone that route. But heading into next season, Self has perhaps the least talented post grouping that he has had in many years. Add to that a presumptive freshman starter (Alexander) and Ellis’ defensive liabilities, and you have the chance that our post group will be our Achilles’ heel. Certainly, it could be our weak link. We don’t have senior Tarick Black and rim protector Joel Embiid. Instead, we have 6’8” Cliff Alexander and the inclusion of Traylor, Lucas, or Mickelson as the 3rd post player. The third post player will still get big minutes. Shifting small for a larger percentage of game action will limit the 4th post player’s minutes more substantially.

Ask yourself this – how does an opposing 4 effectively guard Oubre or Greene? Rarely will it happen.

The next question will be whether Oubre or Greene can guard the opposing 4. But what we have seen, nearly definitively, is that talented teams that go small dictate an adjustment by bigger teams. It’s easier to double team the bigger post player than guard the smaller player out on the floor. Certainly, there are times that it may not work. But generally, it does. If opposing teams answer by going small as well, I’ll take our talent any day.

In an 8 man rotation, the best use of our talent is to go with two ball handlers, along with Selden, Oubre, Greene; then Alexander, Ellis, and say Mickelson. Then Traylor or Lucas for scrap minutes. Last season, four post guys got rotation minutes. This season, the best use of our talent might be to transfer some of the minutes given to the 4th post player to the 5th perimeter player. Get more talent on the floor. Get your best players on the floor.

Self has said Brannen Greene is an NBA talent. Self has never said that about Jamari Traylor. Using the pick and pop 4 can provide offensive diversity, increase pace, exploit match-ups, change the flow of the game when needed, and create better offensive production. And for the time when we utilize this change-up, Self can scheme the defense to cover match-up issues, so long as the match-up is not completely overwhelming.

I’m hoping that Self strongly considers large doses of a small lineup. This option, perhaps for 25% of the game, can get our most talented players on the floor. Being able to play both big and small, having significant in-season experience with both, and getting guys comfortable in those roles, can only help come March. And that may, in the end, translate to a more successful season.

The classic media created story. Ask a question that has been answered a million times, get the same answer, write a story. Kind of like asking a kid mid-season if he's turning pro.

Lazy media.

We are jayhawkers ...

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jayhawkers+outlaw+josey+wales&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=59DE0624F8FC5C234AD259DE0624F8FC5C234AD2 ↗

Perry is a finesse player.

That's all I have.

@globaljaybird Uh, it's winning. The great elixir.

Paul Biancardi listed the top 5 most important freshman in the country. #2 was Devonte Graham:

Here's what he said:

When it comes to next season's incoming freshman class, everyone knows the potential stars: Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones will create a prolific one-two punch for Duke; Myles Turner and Cliff Alexander should be low-post threats for Texas and Kansas, respectively; SMU's Emmanuel Mudiay will be one of the nation's top point guards from the start.

But elite skill and talent doesn't necessarily make the most important recruit for a program.

In order to sustain winning, it all starts and ends with recruiting -- acquiring the right talent and filling needs for future rosters. It's a delicate combination of evaluating what a program needs and who fits best with that coach.

Let's take a look which teams should enjoy success this season because they now have the most important pieces in place. For some programs, it's the difference between making the postseason or not. For others, it's about their continued dominance and making a long run in the NCAA tournament.

Here are my picks for the most important recruits for the 2014-15 season.

"2) Devonte Graham, G, Kansas Jayhawks

The Jayhawks lost out on ESPN's No. 2 overall recruit Myles Turner, but they also took a major step forward with the addition of Graham. With the departure of junior starting point guard Naadir Tharpe in April, the program had a huge void. That's when Bill Self and his staff went back to Brewster Academy to fill their need. The irony is that Tharpe and Graham both played for Jason Smith at Brewster and were extremely successful. Once Graham was released from his letter of intent to Appalachian State, Kansas and many other high-profile programs pursued this lead guard.

He brings the balance between running a team and scoring, with the decision-making ability that Self needs next season to lead his team. Sophomore guard Conner Frankamp can be a steady influence on the ball, but his best asset is as a shooter. Frank Mason is at his strongest in the open court. However Graham offers the best of both worlds. With the nation's No. 5 recruiting class -- headlined by No. 3 overall recruit Alexander and No. 11 Kelly Oubre -- and a strong returning core, it's conceivable that Self can win another Big 12 championship and make a deep run in the tournament."

@JayHawkFanToo Curious as to who you would have thought was our weakest link then?

Tharpe did play "brilliantly at times" last season. But he completely collapsed. He was completely unreliable and opposing teams targeted him as our weakness.

You say .. "There is no reason to think that over the summer he could not have corrected the issues he had last season and come back as a smarter, improved player."

He was junior going into his senior season. That is one reason. The better reason is exactly what we saw -- a weak player with no grit, very limited ability to defend, very few leadership qualities, and a propensity in the latter part of the season to let us down when we needed him most. Self had to bench him repeatedly vs. EKU, as just one example.

You refer to Self starting Mason. Self did that because he couldn't get his junior point guard focused, and Tharpe thought Self didn't like him. More evidence of lack of mental toughness -- given that exactly one year earlier Self had to play the same game with Tharpe.

There is actually no reason to think that this tiger would change his stripes. Don't you think Self thought this as well? It seems painfully obvious that Self influenced this transfer/trade for Graham. Self seems to have a view on what was better for KU next season, and Tharpe wasn't part of it.

I was very much in Tharpe's corner heading into the season. But my opinion (sadly) changed dramatically.

Personally, I think it is as simple as this -- Tharpe just didn't meld with Self's style of coaching. I say that in part based on Tharpe worrying about whether Self "liked" him last November. But also in part regarding his demeanor. Tharpe had the whipped puppy look -- in contrast to multiple players who seemed to take their medicine like a man.

I am curious, still -- who would have been our weakest link, if not Tharpe?

I guess I missed the part in his departure speech where he needed money, or wanted to go play in Europe.

Does anyone really believe that a kid and the kid's (unmarried) mom that could have moved to Lawrence to be close to him, would travel around Europe?

But we can always look for the highly unlikely "maybe."

Self traded Tharpe -- out the door magically and coincidentally on the eve of Graham's commitment -- for Graham. I mean, this health issue with his daughter (that had improved, mind you) suddenly inspired Tharpe to transfer. And Graham, of course, admitted that Tharpe's departure was a factor in his decision to commit.

It is amazing sometimes how the planets align.

Two interesting topics I saw over the last few days at kusports.com -

1. Naadir Tharpe: Jeff Borzello tweeted the following - "Providence and Massachusetts are both in pursuit of former Kansas point guard Naadir Tharpe, per sources. Overseas also an option."

2. Robert Carter, Jr.: Former Georgia Tech forward/center Robert Carter, Jr., has KU on his list of possible transfer destinations, his former AAU coach tells InsideMDSports.com. Carter, 6-8, 247 pound sophomore originally from Thomasville, Georgia, averaged 11.4 points and 8.4 rebounds as a soph. He missed the first 10 games of the ACC season because of a torn meniscus in his left knee. He has visited St. John’s and will visit Maryland on June 2, his coach said. He also reportedly is considering South Carolina. Carter was ranked No. 33 in the recruiting Class of 2012 by Rivals.com.

A couple of quick takes -- On topic one, "overseas" for Tharpe? That will surely bring him much closer to his little girl, I would imagine.

On topic two, can you say "perfect fit for that open scholarship"? Or am I missing something.

@ralster -- Wanted to highlight the shear brilliance of this quote from you above:

"Maybe a different comparison helps my fellow Jayhawks as we try to contemplate and put this '13-14 season behind us: The 2011-12 National Runner Up Jayhawks (Withey/TRob/Releford/EJ/TT/KYo/Teahan) were a better "team" than the 2013-14 'Hawks. More W's. More toughness. More swagger. More execution. More defense. More experience. More leadership. More plays at their disposal. More results. More heart. No injuries. No Mickey D's. Almost no bench. Yes, they still lost in the end, but my god those guys put up a hell of a fight, every time out!"

Here, here. Self's best coaching job ever.

@ParisHawk That's not what I've stated as my concern. My concern is that we take a kid that has an increased risk of leaving, and that kid can cause collateral damage to our roster by triggering a transfer -- Greene, Mason, or CF. You also take away a scholarship for 2015 which could be a guy developing behind our solid perimeter (but that argument is a very weak one).

But I agree and concede 100%, in a vacuum, I'd sign this kid in a minute. There is no comparable player to sign now. In fact, he looks terrific -- and if he stays two seasons or more, he could be the perfect recruit. In fact, but for coming from overseas, he probably is. I also concede that as @JayHawkFanToo has mentioned, and you might have as well, the risk analysis favors signing the kid.

Also, @ParisHawk -- what is your avatar? Looks like Releford -- in Europe?

@JayHawkFanToo No, I'm sorry, you did. Your whole argument was why he wouldn't bolt. Saying the money wouldn't be worth it, speculating that he'd have to sign a long term deal (though Jennings of course signed a 3 year deal), claiming players learned from Rubio, suggesting because he'd been exposed to "big time" basketball and "knows what it takes to be away from home" he wouldn't "suddenly miss his homeland and run home."

My argument is the risk is greater because he is from Europe and played in a European pro league. You made an argument against that, while saying you don't know. But no, it's too hard to even simply concede that a kid playing in an overseas pro league might be a bit more of a risk to have taken something the NCAA might say is impermissible. That's just arguing to argue because you want so bad to defend the signing.

But you CAN do both -- you can very much support the signing, but also acknowledge the obvious risks generally inherent in signing an overseas player.

Maybe this will make it easier for you -- there are more moving parts with a kid from overseas. More moving parts create more risk. Can you at least bring yourself to concede that?

@ralster Now your going to get me into re-anaylzing how we dealt with Stanford's zone. I can't. I just can't. I am really trying to let it go. But your point is well taken.