And here.
jaybate 1.0
10346 posts
Dribbling is for suckers.
and don't forget here.
Howling!
And then here too.
And here.
And here.
Back Fill here.
Once upon a time Jimbo was feisty kid from Santa Barbara radio who changed the world of sports talk radio. Props was one of his early contributions to the language of sports. It was authentic flattery. :-)
Jesus, are you one of those don't confuse me with the facts types, or what? :-)
I've never had such an easy case to make, made for me. Thanks.
Big props to steal from Rome back before he had kids.
Thanks, with Allen Iverson you have just made my case for me definitively.
He was as good as they come at scoring off the dribble. Inside. Outside. In between. AI proved you don't need height to create enough space with a dribble to score huge numbers of points in college and pro.
Ah, but even LB could not figure out a way get him to win a ring with a team foundationed on AI's dribble. His only trip to the Finals they got beat handily.
AI, the no-ring-ever in college or pro wonder really could never find a way to "getter done" with or without talented teams, and with or without great coaching, at the college, or pro level.
Dribbling is for suckers.
Dribbling is not for winners.
Cousy could dribble circles around anyone. But Auerbach taught him that great passing was the key to winning.
The guy was such a piece of work that he could only muster a bronze in the Olympics playing for USA! OMG! That is like missing Mt. Everest with a smart bomb!
Well, wait a second, AI was gold at FIBA. Ooooh wow!!!!
Dribbling is for suckers!
Something just occurred to me. :-)
What if UK's footers, say two of the three, were as mobile as Anthony Davis was?
What if both of them can go out an hedge defend and chase the way Anthony Davis could?
The way Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Walton, could.
The way Cole Aldrich and Shady and Kieff could their last seasons at KU. The way quite a few D1 bigs can, and the way almost all NBA centers, even the lesser ones, can in fact do?
How does going small work then as a tactic? :-)
Rhetorical question, right?
The point is that if a long D1 big can chase and hedge defend a short D1 big, then he just eats him alive when the long D1 big is on the offensive end. He just posts, drop steps and dunks again and again and again.
This I believe is why coaches only go to "small bigs", when they are desperately lacking in long bigs, or have to play OADs and TADs to keep the OAD valve open. Unless you completely retrofit your offense and defense schemes to small ball, as Wooden did for his small teams (i.e. full time 3-4 court 2-2-1 zone press, high post offense, etc.), small bigs can win you quite a few games, but then eventually you run into the long big that can chase and hedge defend on defense and destroy your small bigs on offense--usually sometime early in March, if you get that far.
Self is either spreading disinformation about his long bigs (misdirection for UK), or he is in a serious jam and has no long bigs that can play.
Oh, and as I hinted briefly at above, Self has one more very serious PR constraint.
Self has to play his OADs about 30 mpg in order to keep getting OADs; that's the devils bargain with OADs. The PetroShoeCos apparently place their endorsement prospect OADs at places to get showcased and developed in that order. The PetroShoeCos will apparently tolerate an occasional OAD not getting puffed for a season, but a coach that turns most OADs into TADs is probably not going to continue to get his share of the OADs. And TADs better play, or else. Capice?
So: Self has to string the PR fiddle now to rationalize playing a bunch of short OADs and TADs instead of his two 6-10 guys, one of whom, Hunter Mickelsen, has already played big minutes at Arkansas one season.
Imagine how KU fans are going to howl if KU gets "upset" by UCSB, with UCSB's highly ranked senior big man, out-playing a bunch of short OADs!
Imagine if Self sticks with the short OADs and TADs against UK's flotilla of footers and gets blown out of Indianapolis doing it?
Self HAS to play the OADs and TADs big minutes early in order to not lose out on early recruiting period signings of OADs and TADs, right?
After the early signing period, then it is okay to craft the PT of the OADs and TADs to fit their actual abilities and stages of development.
My guess is that Self, or one of his assistants, has already somehow communicated (probably in fairly coded language) to Lucas and Hunter that this is the drill early. Give the OADs and TADs some big PT to stay in the hunt for the next crop of OADs, then Landen's and Hunter's chances will come.
I mean, Hunter has to be near the same ball park talent wise with a Cauley-Stein even if he is 6-10 instead of 7-0. I just don't see how freshman 6-8 Cliff and true 6-6 Bam Bam are a better match-up for most of a game against footers, than Hunter, and Landen (if Landen heals).
Bottom line: OADs and TADs gotta play to keep the OAD valve open.
Rock Chalk!!
@ everyone
Dribbling to win REALLY IS for suckers. Dribbling to get open is the hardest way to get open and the easiest way to get stopped. Dribbling is always the second option to passing for a reason. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for getting sucked into the dribbling versus passing debate on the side of dribbling.
More good passing teams than good dribbling teams win rings.
Teams can win rings without above average dribbling, but not without above average passing.
Wooden proved with 6-4, not-very-athletic, but sharp-passing Greg Lee at point guard that you can win a ring with an average dribbler that dribbles high, if he can pass well! At 6-4, Lee could feed Walton and Wilkes over the top and on cuts. Passing, not dribbling is the key.
Average dribbling is all any good passing team needs.
Average dribbling means good enough to methodically get the ball into position for all the different kinds of passes that winning teams need to make, while protecting from strips.
Any press can be beaten by average dribblers that are good passers. Period.
I know this is one of those old lessons that has to be dusted off every few years in the age of hype, and retaught, especially when dribble penetration is hyped as the way to beat the new officiating. But dribbling to win always over time is exposed to be the fool's gold approach to playing winning basketball.
Phog would tell you.
Iba would tell you.
Wooden would tell you.
Knight would tell you.
K would tell you.
Roy would tell you.
Self would tell you.
Putting the ball on the deck is the HARD way.
It always looks sexy and heroic, because its one guy doing the work while the other four guys stand with thumbs where the sun don't shine waiting for a dish.
Cal uses the dribble drive offense. He can't win diddledy squat unless he has twice the talent of those he plays.
Self tried building around dribble penetration with Tyshawn and got a long way, because Tyshawn was freakishly fast, Self and Joe D were great at masking and breaking down defensive tendencies of opponents, and Self had the mandatory three extraordinary players in TT, TRob and Withey, but he came up short.
Bo Ryan relied on dribble drive penetration enabled by great trey shooting and came up short.
Kevin Ollie foundationed on dribble drive penetration with Shabazz
and won. So big deal. The exception proves the rule.
I concede absolutely that we are in a period when coaches have forgotten the cardinal rule that passing beats dribbling and are trying to win with the dribble drive, but it ain't working generally.
Self has produced the highest winning percentage of all coaches not being asymmetrically stacked by the PetroShoeCos (i.e., Cal) the last decade and he has done it almost entirely with average dribbling combos and passing.
Good passing teams beat good dribbling team more often than not.
Dribbling is for suckers. :-)
Solid take. Persuasive. I'll go with it till we see them with live rounds.
The foolish part was not leaving UK under pressure; that was the smart part.
The foolish part was taking the UMinn job. That has always been a basketball black hole, unless you cheat like ever loving crazy.
And the reason Tubby rightly left UK under pressure without really putting up a fight was probably that UK was such a cess pool in the back ground that he would have been for more tainted by rocking the boat and possibly triggering an investigation with what might have surfaced than by leaving quietly.
I am not suggesting Tubby was cheating. I am saying that UK has a history of carrying on behind the backs of coaches that wouldn't go along, and in the fronts of coaches that would.
Me too!
If Self keeps this up, I fully expect to see Cin sitting on the bench coaching the bigs.
What a great way to play this, but will he actually do it?
He certainly is signaling in this direction.
Your connection of what he may be trying to do with Hoiberg titillates, but...
Self has always been able to beat Fred the structured way.
Now you 've got me thinking and that always hurts. :-)
I recall that Self has been greatly influenced every year by the coach and team that won the previous ring.
When Coach K won with XTreme Cheap Shotting, Self added that to his arsenal.
When Cal beat him with PetroShoeCo OADs suddenly he signed up for PetroShoeCo OADs.
Kevin Ollie and UConn won the last ring. I confess. Beyond Shabazz Napier, I did not study UConn closely. What did Ollie do that Self can steal? He can't steal Napier, because he doesn't appear to have signed a Napier, or have one returning. What else did Ollie do, slayr?
Self tends to steal and add only from winners.
I am not sure Fred has been successful enough for Self to steal from him.
@Statmachine
There are so many hypothetical possibilities to consider with Ebola, since it has reputedly been around since the late 70s and so much is known about how to contain it. Are we talking mother nature here, or are we talking Dr. strangelove?
I am worried that Bill is worried.
Bill says he is worried about the team's ability to score inside and guard inside.
So: now Bill is saying that he wants to play a "small team" where the 1-4 players are 6-4 to 6-7. I am going to take poetic license here and name this possible line up "the long small lineup". :-)
Bill further notes that this lineup would likely put Wayne at point, or alternately at the 4. Wonder who the point will be when Wayne is at 4?
Now it is clear that Bill is like an old WWII destroyer laying down smoke screens to avoid being sunk by an enemy fleet.
The enemy fleet that he is smoke screening increasingly appears to be Cal's UK flotilla of Mickey Ds.
But what is concerning me is that regardless of what lineup he puts on the floor, I don't see much inside scoring ability against a long team inside, or much outside scoring ability against any kind of team either.
I really think this team is beginning to look offensively challenged.
Selden apparently is not going to become a top trey shooter, so all defenses will just sag off on him, which means he really can't be a go to guy against good opponents. Self's main chance to get points out of Selden will be to move him around the court position to position in order to try to get him an MUA on a sagging defender.
Perry is a finesse scorer that depends a lot on spin moves and struggles to get his shot off on long and strongs. Therefore, he is not a go to guy against top opponents.
Oubre, Self says, has little back to the basket game for the 4, but Self may play him there anyway, when Selden isn't playing the 4. Here again, if Self is willing to play Oubre out of position at the 4, it means Oubre must not be able to give good trey, or he would not be wanting to take him off the wing and make him a stretch 4. This means that he is not going to be a go to scorer against a top team, because top teams have good defenders at the 4.
Bam Bam could be a part of this "Long Small team", but where and is he now transformed into a go to scorer?
Svi keeps being reported as not in the mix.
Devonte? Self is already tempering the sizzle on Devonte. Devonte has gone from a guy competing to start right away to a guy who could be able to start by mid season, or later. Uh-oh. Devonte margin warning.
Frank? Frank has now moved up to one of the unconditional big three of Selden, Frank and Oubre. None of these guys are credible trey threats of the kind you can actually stretch a defense with, or rely on for points from outside.
The more this goes on the scarier things get.
If Frank is one of Self''s best players, what in the world is thinking about going with a Long Small Team without him.
This is without question the most shucking and jiving I have seen Self do in his tenure at KU.
I am beginning to think this team is like is first team, only without Simien.
This is really scary.
The good news is that I think Self is genuinely excited by having his back against the wall, blind fold on, and cigarette inserted in mouth.
This is the wildest, craziest run up to a campaign yet.
Bill must have had the Marines bring him a whole bunch of military surplus smoke blowers for this campaign.
Go, Bill, go.
Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if he zone presses. :-)
I was posing a hypothetical that you still did not answer. But that's okay. I don't believe Wayne would get drafted at 30% from trey. I believe the draft rankings are based on the assumption that he WILL get better at the trey this season, because he will not be playing on a bum wheel.
So: I don't think he will get worse, but...
Bill said he doesn't care if Wayne only shoots 30% from trey; that tells me Bill is not exactly expecting Wayne to light up the nets at 40% from outside this season.
Next, I read that Bill is planning on playing Wayne (and Oubre) at 4, and thinking Wayne is the better prospect at the 4. Maybe Wayne will be a stretch 4 and pot a lot of treys on step outs? Maybe, but stretch is the operant word.
I just don't think Wayne is a credible Pro 2 with a 30% college trey.
And unless he gets to 38% from trey, I think he has a real tough go in the draft. Remember, Travis shot 42% and didn't get a sniff.
Post Script: I suspect that the reason Wayne will be getting looks at the 4 has to do with what I noticed in some of the summer feeds of his play since 'recovering' from the injury. He doesn't seem to be able to no step jump very well. That means the explosiveness has not fully restored. That means he will have to convert to a shot with less elevation. That means you may want him to spend less time on the perimeter. And more time at the high post. Where his mobility is a problem for bigs, and helps him create space to get his J off from a lower elevation.
Knew "dribbling is for suckers" was going to cause a ton of "change-the-way-we-think" pain. :-)
1) Bill-82 W&L, 10 titles, one ring, winner at Tulsa and Illinois
2)Tubby-ring at UK and some pretty good teams there, but foolishly went to UMinn
3)Huggins-739-303 at lesser programs, Final Four and Elite Eight, alas the father of thug ball
4).Kruger- 611, Elite Eight and Final Four, Kansas boy
5) Barnes-Final Four, Elite Eight
6) Fred-could become second best on this list if health and time permit, but I value what's been done more than what might be done, until it gets done.
7-8Travis and Trent--knowledgeable, but hard luck coaches.
9-10 The B12 lacks a 9th and a 10th coach; instead it has interim head coach Bruce and pretend head coach Scott
I like that all the good coaches are on the left side of the picture and all of the bad coaches are on the right side.
Never intentionally by me. Can't speak for the mischievousness of others, however. And one thing that is nice about everyone being able to edit everyone is this: we all have deniability for everything we write. We get to say, "Hey, I sure as hell don't recall writing that; probably someone else edited me without my knowledge. " I have always looked on this feature of the site with some comfort for that reason.
Accidentally, but backed out and hit the reply. I have been accidentally hitting edit on my cellphone because of how small the icons are. The nodebb guys need to address that for smart phone posting. But crimson, gotta say, I love your posts, you are weirdly kind and considerate! I always look forward to hearing from you.
REEDIT---HOWLING!
I like Jennifer lawrence and would not have turned her down as a single man.
But she is not necessary to a good marriage.
Similarly it cannot hurt to have a great dribbling point guard. Great dribbling is another sexy tool in a point guard's quiver. I am just saying it is not essential.
The word point guard descends in usage from the guard positioned out front at the top of the circle. Traditionally he is the guard that dribbles it up the floor, and initiates play from the top of the circle a few feet farther out. Why does the point guard bring it up the floor and initiate play from the top of the circle, or thereabouts? Because if another player does it, and if you want to start out with symmetry denying opponents the chance to overshift to either wing initially, another position player has to dribble it to top of the key, give it to a point guard standing there waiting, and then run to his wing or post position, which wastes time. Point guards bring it up start at the top of the circle, so that everyone else can get in a position as a scoring threat immediately.
And, of course, it takes almost zero dribbling talent to bring the ball up the court uncontested, so you don't need a great dribbler to bring the ball up the court uncontested. The only time one might need a great dribbler at point guard is when a great defensive guard is assigned to full court press a point guard. But even with a great dribbling point guard, it is a fools game to have him waste his energy budget bringing it up against a great defensive player. The smart play is to have him pass it to any other of his teammates that have a weak defender on them, or a defender that is not tasked with pressing, and let that teammate bring the ball up uncontested. When great defensive guards press point guards, the point guard should immediately pass the ball to which ever other teammate is guarded by a weak defender ill equipped to press a ball handler. For this reason, sometimes even centers are the right choice to bring the ball up the floor.
Bringing the ball up the floor, when not pressed takes no talent. I could still do it at my advanced age, even against Mario Chalmers, so long as Mario were set up in a half court defense. Because if Mario is not pressing me, I just dribble to within 10 feet of him and "PASS" the ball around or over him to a breaking player that is wide open because he has broken. And if no one were open, then someone would back door and I would pass over or around Mario to the back door breaker. No dribbling required, see?
And all this business of low or high dribbling only matters when you are being pressed by a a great defender. Frankly, even when one is being pressured by a great defender, but as Conner Frankamp proved last season, even when defenders apply great pressure, all you have to do, (and you can dribble high when you do it, even though Conner dribbles properly low) is turn your back and keep yourself between the ball and the defender, then reverse, then continue. It is so easy. And it only costs one a few seconds. And since Self Ball is 70 point take what they give us, it does not matter a whit if it takes one a few more seconds to get in position to make a wonderful pass, or not. Passing is how you beat teams, not dribbling. Dribbling is just how you reset a broken play, or make an isolation play. As Self will tell you, if you have to rely on isolation to win at basketball, you are in very big trouble.
So: rather than force your point guard to have to grind it out against a pressing defender, the logical thing to do is to dish it to any teammate with a weak defender and let them bring it up the court (assuming a m2m press; for a zone, of course, you pass the ball up the floor to players slashing into the seams and no dribbling is required).
Anyway, it is the height of foolishness to waste the energy budget of a good point guard in grinding out dribbling against a full court press. It is therefore not all that important for a point guard to be a great dribbler, contrary to conventional wisdom. This is why Self doesnt care that much about how great a dribbler a guy is. He plays 2-3 perimeter guys he calls combo guards that can always dribble it well enough to take the pressure off any other combo being pressured. It is far, far more important to be a good passer at point guard than a good dribbler. Passing is how one gets the ball to a guy to make an open look. If one brilliantly dribbles low to an open man to hand him the ball, then he is no longer an open man.
For these reasons, Conner Frankamp, on the offensive end of the floor, could be an exemplary point guard, whether or not he is a water bugging, dervish on the dribble. Same with Wayne Selden. Dribbling just is not that important. I know this is blaspheming to many that lover their dribbling dervish PGs, but it is true. All the great coaches have said that you can't beat anyone dribbling the ball. Great passing is the key to all offensive basketball. Dribbling to the rim only matters, when you have an MUA on a weak defender. A great defender can basically stop a great dribbler cold. Period. Dribbling is really only useful to get out of a jam you should have passed out of in the first place. Dribbling, in fact, is for suckers and for those that cannot pass. I happen to think Wayne Selden could be an exceptional passer. And I think that his height forces any small guard to have to play up and under him on defense and that means that it is easy as pie for Wayne to pass over such a defender; this is the essence of MUA at point guard, or at any other position.
Repeat after me: dribbling is for suckers. Wayne could be a fine passing point guard, if his knee has healed. :-)
Do you really think Wayne would get drafted with a 32% trey ball?
@KULA
OMG, By your standards, then...
Frank has the Q but lacks the BHS!
Conner lacks the Q and the BHS!
And Devonte, since Self does not give him a clear edge, must lack something.
So why can't Wayne be developed despite his shortcomings the way these guys are being developed? Wayne seems to have more P (potential). 😄
The only reason I decided to delve into this issue is that I remember that the only thing I fretted about with Selden, outside of weak trey shooting last season was the slowness of his first step. That made me think he not only could not play point guard, but also probably would never dominate anywhere else on the perimeter either.
But once Self copped to Selden playing most of the season with a bum knee, it made me rethink Selden. If Selden could do what he did last season on a bum knee, imagine what the guy will be able to do this season with a sound knee. I then guessed that Selden's slow first step must have had something to do with his bum wheel. Then I thought, well, Selden with a good wheel would have the kind of quick first step and lateral speed to play point guard without much trouble.
That's my thinking nut-shelled.
The guy wasn't an impressive outside shooter. A good wheel will make him some what better outside, but he just does not look like a 40% trinitarian ever.
So: where does such a guy make the most sense?
To me you want him at the point, if his wheel permits him lateral agility and a quick first step.
It seems highly probable that Selden will play some point against UK. But I can't tell if it will be on both ends of the floor, or just on one end.
The three you refer to may, or may not be able to cut it in D1 at PG this season; that remains to be seen. And it is a given in what I am saying that Wayne would need a year of development work, same as Tyshawn, to perform well.
What will be interesting is if the three you refer to as better turn out to be NOT net better than Selden, just better in some ways and not in others, which seems to me a very real possibility.
What should Self do then?
I would argue that unless Frank, Conner and Svi offer sharply greater net benefit, then I would rather go with a great athlete like Selden for a year's development, so that you wind up with something truly extraordinary the following season.
But Big Wayne signed with Self who, if I recall correctly has said he views him as a combo guard and thinks that combo guards can play some 1, 2, or 3.
imagine if Selden shoots 32% from three point range, while otherwise having a great season. Which foreign league will he play in?
Many say Wayne Selden can't be a good point guard, because he made few assists last season as a two guard.
Hmmm.
How many freshman 2 guards in Self's tenure have made lots of assists? Tyshawn Taylor was not a big assist man as a freshman 2 guard, and he developed to the point of being one of our best point guards during his senior season. Heck, TT lead KU to the NCAA Finals. I also recall Self trying Mario Chalmers at PG his freshman season, and finding him inadequate, and moving him to the 2, where I don't recall him being a big assist man his freshman season either. Of course, now Mario Chalmers plays point guard for an NBA team and has played PG for two NBA champions. I don't recall any other KU cases, but maybe others will.
Regardless, my point is that one should not doubt a great athlete's ability to grow into another position, because of statistics from an initial position that requires little, or none of the tasks of the new position. In particular, assist rates at 2 guard should not be considered a strong indicator of a player's ability to dish from point guard. Put yet another way, a player's failure to perform 1 guard tasks at the 2 should not be a red flag warning against shifting a 2 guard to the point.
In Selden's case, as in Tyshawn's case, the question is: would there be great enough net benefits to underwrite the cost of redeploying Selden to the 1? What would one get in the way of MUAs for incurring the learning curve? And would moving Selden open things up to get net better at the 1 and 2 by moving Selden to the 1?
The benefits of an overpoweringly long (6-4) and strong (a cut 220 lb) point guard would obviously be huge at the D1 level. Every short PG that was not a Sherron Collins grade wide body guard that he met he could take inside and overpower around the rim, or pull up anywhere on the floor and shoot over. That is the definition of MUA on the offensive end. Short players playing the X-axis up and under game work against long and skinny types like the Harrison twins always surprise one with how well they disrupt their opponents (recall 5-11 and 210 Sherron driving Derek Rose nuts in the '08 ring game), but when a 5-11 180 PG tries to get up and under a 6-4 220 long and strong like Wayne Selden, he just becomes a stepping stone for Selden on the way to the rim. Wayne proved last season that even on a bad wheel he can lower his CG and go at, or stay with, big and little guards. Imagine what he would do with two good wheels to a 5-11 180 guard. It would be, as was fashionable to say 15 minutes ago in rapidly mutating popular culture, "sick." Defensively, Wayne is Self's kind of guard-hard guy, so we would not have much cost to cover in having him handcuff opposing point guards.
The big cost with Wayne would be similar to the big cost with Tyshawn--steep and long learning curve--lots of TOs along the way. Lots of learning to put the ball on the deck both handed, and how and when to turn the corner on the dribble and go to iron in a half court set. Lots of learning about when to push the ball on the dribble and when to long pass it down the sideline instead.
Wayne would have to want to stay a third season to make it worth the investment for Self. Should Wayne even want to make the transition? Hell yes. Think how much more desirable Wayne would be to the NBA as an NBA body 6-4 220 PG than as a weak trey shooting 6-4 220 pound 2 guard. Do weak trey shooting 6-4, 220 2 guards even get drafted anymore?
Now, what about the 2 guard slot with Wayne moved out of it?
Ah, here is the rub.
KU would have to go small and moderately experienced (Frank/Conner/Devonte), or completely inexperienced, long and skinny with Svi. The logical and mouth watering choice would be Svi at the 2, but it would mean not one but two essentially vertical learning curves at 1 and 2 invested in for fruit-bearing next season. This is the choice Self does not want to have to make game in and game out and this is the reason Selden will not get the PG slot. Self likes to win now. Self only develops now, when he has no other choice. Self has another choice. Play Selden at the 2 without a learning curve and live with a learning curve at the 1. This is the win-now strategy and let next year wait for next year.
But, your honors, and the court, Gerry "jaybate' Spense stipulates the probability that Self will only play Selden at the 1 in anomalous situations, but this ghost of the old, cowhide-fringed country lawyer from the Tetons begs the courts pardon and indulgence a moment to imagine enduring double digit losses this season for a shot at an experienced backcourt of Selden and Svi next season with some top 15-20 guard recruit next season giving them back up length to go with two survivors of the Frank/Conner/Devonte short guard competition this season. Imagine the scoring and guarding from this back court in half court and in transition? Imagine the help inside and the help outside that could be supplied on demand. Imagine the open looks and the get to the rim action. Imagine the average D1 PG trying to shoot over Wayne and the average D1 2 trying to shoot over SVI. And imagine all of this with two good ball handlers that just happen to be 6-4 and 6-8.
Now, I know I am just being the ghost of a country lawyer here, but it seems almost unpatriotic, un-American, un-Kansas, and un-Jayhawk not to do what we know deep in our hearts would be the right thing and the great thing for our beloved team, school, game, state and country.
Rock Chalk, my friends, Rock Chalk!
Thanks for introducing some very interesting, even if as you indicate inconclusive data.
The key point is: film from Wilt's early, lean and hyper bouncey years suggest Wilt DID have all three; that he was the rare hyper athletic footer with long legs, somewhat short neck, long trunk, long arms, and long hands that had exceptional hops.
Great height. Great rach. Great hops.
No one you mention had his combination of abilities in these regards.
The point about Wilt is that he would have been a great basketball player at 6-4, because he could run, jump and slide and anticipate so well.
And all this talk about Hakeem and Jeff and Joel being great rim protectors because of volleyball and soccer reminds that Wilt be came a successful professional volleyball player AFTER quitting the NBA AT 300 pounds and 15 years of pounding courts. And Wilt did play track and field and he and KU's track coach reputedly said his best event would have been DECATHLON and that he probably could have won a gold medal in that event. The guy was a freakishly great athlete that happened to be a footer.
I suspect a search of surviving teammates could corroborate Wilt's claim.
His reach
Please read "The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid" by Bill Bryson. It may be about growing up before the time of your growing up, but you will be glad you did.
@drgnslayr and @ HEM and @globaljaybird and @ everyone else here that loves our language...
Read Bill Bryson's tour de force " Made in America: An Informal History of the English Language in America and How It Got that Way."
On the run, I suspect Wilt could have dunked it on a 14 foot basket, since he was reputedly able to pluck an erasure off the top of a glass backboard. I kind of doubt Jordan or Wigs could dunk on a 14 basket even on the run.
Regarding the high jump, I have always tried to imagine how high Wilt would have high jumped had the Fosbury Flop been taught in his time. If Dick Fosbury and many other guys could go 7-0 to 7-4, then I have always suspected that Wilt might have gone 7-6 to 7-10 without much sweat.
Wilt faced a problem.
He was not as well liked as certain other players of his time, and media professionals being then as now, presstitutes first, and recorders of history in a minutes second, spent much of their time trying to cut down Wilt's overwhelming prowess down to size to make room for other sports figures needing their place in the sun. Had these media professionals reported simply the facts, no other athlete in any sport would have gotten a lick of ink, not Ali, not Big Russ, not Jim Brown, no Mickey Mantle, or Willie Mays, not Gale Sayers, not OJ Simpson, not Y.A. Tittle, not Sandy Koufax, not Bob Beaman, not Bob Hayes, not Jim Ryan, none of them.
Wilt, had he been reported straight forwardly, based on the facts of measurable performance and measurable abilities was several orders of magnitude greater of an athlete than any figure of his time, or since.
If Bill Self is right to say that Lebron James is the biggest athletic freak on the planet right now, then Wilt Chamberlain was the biggest athletic freak in the solar system before, or since.
Period.
Let's put it in plain English.
Wilt could dunk all day on Lebron James. No disrespect to Lebron.
Wilt could dunk all day on Michael Jordan. No disrespect to Michael.
Wilt could dunk all day on Magic. No disrespect to Magic.
Wilt could dunk all day on Big Russ. No disrespect to Big Russ, because I think he is the greatest team basketball player in the history of the game, even better than Wilt.
There have been a few really long centers that Wilt could NOT dunk on all day. Jabbar could slow him down. Nate Thurmond could slow him down. But even against those guys, if he wanted to dunk in their grilles, he would have just had to make an extra fake and then his will would have been done.
But Wilt was never reported that way by the media...EVER.
And so Wilt always to leave behind a bread crumb trail of feats that documented how different and extraordinary he was, not because he was an ego maniac, but because he was a renaissance man, an uber athlete and an intellectual. Wilt finally understood what he was--how different he was in the dimension of athleticism.
In Rome, or Athens, he would have been turned into legend as a demigod.
I am not exaggerating.
But Wilt's problem was how to get the truth out beyond the puffed up hype about himself, beyond the false PR about others, and especially beyond the misinformation about himself aimed to make him seem not so extraordinary so heaping praise about the greatness of other basketball players did not seem so patently absurd.
Every great act he did in a team game could be spun against him. It could be said that scoring a 100 points in a game, or averaging 50ppg for a season, meant he was selfish, or playing on lousy teams. Being the only post man to lead the league in assists could be spun to mean he was ONLY assisting and not scoring as much as he should. Averaging 25 rpg could be sluffed off as him being tall, not a great leaper. And so on.
But Wilt did come up with one benchmark of his athletic prowess that has largely been ignored by media persons of his time. He did come up with one standard of his ability that could not be related to team dynamics, or to changes in the game, or to better players later, or what have you.
Wilt Chamberlain noted that though it took some effort, HE COULD DUNK ON A 12 FOOT BASKET--from a sergeant jump.
Lebron, would you like to meet that challenge?
Michael?
Magic?
Big Russ?
Shaq?
Hakeem?
Kareem?
Andrew Wiggins?
Anyone think that Joel Embiid could sergeant jump and dunk on a 12 foot basket?
Its only 24 inches higher than a ten foot basket.
Well, actually, the ball is about 10 inches, isn't it, so to dunk on a 12 foot rim from a sergeant, Wilt had to go at least up to 12'10".
I reckon the 24 inches between 10 and 12 feet, when viewed from a sergeant jump, may seem a bit like the last thousand feet up Mt. Everest, even to Wilt Chamberlain.
Yes, we see guys flying through the air on fast breaks that seem to get their hand prints waaaaaay high on the back board. And Wilt could of course go up and grab things off the top of the back board with a few step run and jump.
But Wilt was saying that it took some effort, but that in a SERGEANT jump he could dunk a ten inch diameter basketball on Doc Allen's 12 foot basket!
Notice that none of the great athletic freaks of basketball history have come out and said, "Well, sure, I used to do that all time."
Nor have any gone out, set up a 12 foot basket, called in the press, and said, "What Chamberlain did was not such a big deal. Watch me sergeant jump and dunk on this 12 foot basket, too."
Its just twelve lousy feet.
I'm not saying its impossible. Statistically, there must be a few jumping jacks somewhere that could do it, especially now with scientific weight lifting.
But what about the alleged great athletic freaks of basketball history? Of football history? Of track and field history? Of baseball history? Of soccer history?
Stand with your feet set, bend your knees and go straight up with a basketball and dunk it through a rim 12 feet up, which means getting the ball at least 12'10" up, which means getting your fingertips somewhere near that height or higher.
Either you can do it, or you can't.
The presstitutes cannot spin this.
If Lebron and Andrew can do this, then I wish they would to put Wilt in less exhalted perspective.
Tim Duncan, you wanna try?
Dwight Howard?
Demarcus Cousins?
Pao Gasol?
Noah?
Go back.
Bill Walton?
Nate Thurmond?
Anyone?
Black gets it.
Thank god he did not play football!
A two-stroke lawn boy turned out to be part of my ticket to my future.
Just because persons and peoples do things for a time does not mean it is necessarily sensible, or wise, or in their best interests. Some times persons and peoples are in periods of being bumfuzzled by certain authority acting against their best interest and successfully obscuring doing so. It can take those persons and peoples awhile sometimes to figure out what is really going on. And it can take quite a while when certain authority is investing heavily in technologies to bumbuzzle them. This is a frequent phenomenon observable in recorded history, so I am not really opining here.
Players, parents and player handlers apparently deciding not to value a college education probably says more about the values of the players, parents and player handlers presently than it does about the utility of the college education. Why do I say this?
Well, first, independently wealthy persons from around the world with fortunes great enough to ensure that their children never need work a day in their lives nevertheless continue to send their children to colleges for educations, socialization and social networking. From this we can infer that many in a position to very objectively and knowledgeably judge the value of a college education decide it is worth pursuing despite vast, almost incomprehensible levels of wealth.
We also know that many persons in the middle and lower classes seeking upward economic and social mobility sacrifice greatly to get their children university educations at the best schools they can afford and aim for then to attain the highest levels of degrees that their wealth and intelligence levels permit them to attain.
So two questions arise related to current athletes essentially turning their backs on the chance of a university education.
1.) Why don't they recognize the benefit that independently wealthy and upwardly mobile middle and lower class persons recognize; and
2.) Is everyone else wrong about the benefits of a university education and these athletes are right that the educations and the alleged benefits are not worth pursuing?
Let's answer the second one first. The richer these players stand to become, it would seem that these players would stand to reason that they would benefit from university educations more on a utility function increasingly similar to those persons of independent wealth seeking such educations. From this, we have to infer that these players are either wrong, or are simply not recognizing the value that millions of others richer, as rich and less rich than then are recognizing. These millions could be wrong, but the probabilities of it seem very slim indeed.
This leads us to the first question: why aren't these athletes recognizing what millions of others are recognizing regarding the net benefits of getting university educations?
Well, there is what I call the Gates/Jobs/Ellison/Ford Syndrome. This refers to brilliant persons with such extremely monoscopic focus and high confidence of success, plus a streak of resentment of any need for compliance with any organizational culture they are not the head of, that they insist on proving to the world that they do not need university education to be successful. These persons invariably place a phenomenal value on the worth and desirability of success achieved via independence from legacy organizations. They like to start their own organizations. They find most organizations that they might join in a subordinate function to be run by incompetents, parasitical types, and consider these organizations unnecessary and obstructive to the attainment of their own goals and look condescendingly on those organizations and on those persons that feel a need to be a part of them. Ironically, these persons typically then immediately dedicate their lives monomaniacally to creating and becoming the heads of organizations they would themselves never want to be a subordinate part of. These persons are typically pretty dysfunctional in many common regards (e.g., abandon women they get pregnant and deny having impregnated them as in Steve Jobs' case), have rumored anomalous prior associations (e.g., Larry Ellison of Oracle and the founders of Google rumored, reputed connections with intelligence organizations; Bill Gates father reputedly an attorney with reputed connections with Boeing which reputedly had a rumored long complicated relationship with IBM, etc.) and are typically saved from their own abrasive personalities, and oblivion by a combination of extraordinary luck in timing and/or reputed anomalous associations. They often drop out of schools, sometimes impressive ones, and take a considerable, often seemingly irrational pride in not having needed the imprimatur of such schools to actually succeed, as if others needed such imprimatur to succeed. Who ever needed college degrees to succeed? Can't many be successful, if they are driven and ruthless enough? Al Capone was phenomenally successful.. But never possessed even an ounce of civility, of depth of understanding about the richness of humanity and culture and fragility. I needed my degrees to lead a civilized, enriched life to what extent I have struggled to. And they didn't let me down,
But there are far, far more persons with Gate/Jobs/Ellison/Ford Syndrome that are not geniuses than are. By this I mean that there are far, far more of those with the Syndrome that lack both the genius and luck needed to excel and these fall into oblivion in large numbers. And it is often a culturally starved oblivion, at that, unless they invest heavily in themselves and in their reading to achieve over the course of a long life what could have been largely gotten within four short years had they not been so shallow and pigheadedly stubborn.
I suspect some of these OADs that turn their backs on university educations fall into the category of persons with the syndrome but without genius or luck. These are the ones that typically lose what they win in the lottery that is their getting selected as a high draft choice. A very few probably possess some genius and luck and do parlay their lottery win to much greater financial success and finance their own civilizing with travel and reading and art. But how many really?
But because of the XTreme youth and XTReme poverty that many of these young men come from, one also gets the impression that many of them are being manipulated by unethical handlers that simply do not have the players' best interests at heart. They just don't care enough about the players, because the net benefits of college educations would not accrue to the handlers. In fact, a proper college education might very likely cause the players to flush their handlers and get more skillful and more professional advisors in place of handlers. This is what reputedly goes on in the bottomlessly corrupt sport of boxing.
For persons that care about the game of college basketball and about the great contributions it has made toward lessening fears and segregation in our society, about giving all kinds of boys from all levels and regions of society joy, purpose and a sense of individual and team accomplishment, and to providing many young men with college educations that they would never have gotten otherwise, it is critical that the value of a college educated not be permitted to be devalued by a bunch of opportunistic handlers, sports pimps, and flesh pedaling hustlers operating inside and outside the universities for individual gain alone.
Our young men and women can no longer turn to film and television and fiction to find role models. They are not there. Film, television and fiction have devoted themselves to show us how rotten we can be, as if we all weren't swimming in the sewerage every day and so at least as knowledgeable as any screen writer, novelist, TV director working out their particular set of fears and prejudices for monies.
Many of our politicians have been reduced largely to either pragmatists, or ideologues. What most of them call principle is just close minded ideology, shameless compromise at the expense of the unsuspecting that discover the compromises to late to avoid the cost shifting.
Our teachers are so limited in what they can teach and so overloaded with standards testing and required content to meet questions on standardized testing that they may only teach from their inspiration intermittently.
Our ministers are so tainted in media, our priests so tainted in media, our rabbi's so tainted in media, that we actually may say a prayer BEFORE going to see them fearing they might turn out sickeningly dysfunctional hypocrite lecteurs.
But a coach can still be a coach, if he wants to be.
Sure, many of them sent at times little more than car salesmen with a whistle in recruiting; getting ready to make the next motion play.
But they don't have to be.
A coach may have to take the modern, super hyped, and soon to be rich version of the age old tramp athlete--the OADs, to keep the PetroShoeCo contracts coming in order to keep his contract being renewed and in order to keep the lights on in the minor sports, but he can still insist they play hard, or withhold from them the role of go-to-guy.
The coach can still insist players pursue master craftsmanship in their games, and expect them to be on time, and make them run stairs if they aren't.
The coach can still mold young men into teams in which the whole exceeds the sum of the parts, rather than just parts seeking untraceable bailouts.
He can still require they go to class and study and make their grades. Many don't, but Self and some others prove it can still be done.
There is so much that can still be done by the coach and by the game for the good of young men, and so for the good of community and culture.
Some players can become coaches.
Others can get degrees and find their ways in our economy.
We are not talking about angels here. Cheating is reputedly rampant. Corruption is reputedly deep. But some are still trying to do it the "right way."
And we fans can spend a few hours a week with our children, maybe for the rest of our and their lives together, and say, "See, there, that is still how it is done the right way. That is how substance trumps hype with ten to go. That is what young men can do when they are confronted with a team with superior talent that does not play as well together as it should. That is a connection between now and then that the hype artists and the propagandists and ideologues and the liars and the spineless opportunists cannot deceive us about, if we just exercise our common sense and a little dedication."
"See, here, the game that started in a Springfield, MA gym now is played round the world and new people's around the world are learning THE PEOPLE'S GAME and they are learning to play with and against each other without the object being beating the brains of the opponent out on the floor."
"See, here, watch that young man, young as I once was, see that young man slide across the lane and double back side on the man that is too big for his teammate to guard alone. See the help. See one man can help another and both benefit."
"See, here, look at these young men many generations removed from those that played for Doc Allen still reaching for the best they can be, whilst drug wars rage on borders, and nations are bombed remotely, and our economic indicators sag beyond what apparently altered statistical standards can obscure and apparently floated markets can tolerate."
"See, here, the game goes on taming the wildness in young men without killing their spirit and joy of competition, as it always has."
"See, here, greed and corruption and vulgarity of once incomprehensible degrees are normalized, but the challenge of Saturday-Monday games goes on and that rarest of all sunlights, that yellow Saturday afternoon that comes In through the field house windows at the south end of Allen Field House, see, here, it is the same color it was last season, and every season since 1957."
"See, here, the living myth continues another season, despite all the human error and all the corruption and all of the ignorance, and all of the deception that we are now heirs to."
"See, here, it is basketball season again and there are players going to college again. All is not well, but all is not lost yet either. Rock Chalk!"
HOWLING!
Remember how Wiggins supposedly dropped in ranking? :-)
Unless the UK twins have just been overhyped all along, Cal will give each one a cream puff game with a bunch of FGAs, just the way Self did for Wiggins versus WVU, and their stock will begin to rise again.
If you are going to continue to receive OADs, it appears you have to contribute to hyping them by giving them one or two showcase games a season (meaningless games they are sure to hang marketable numbers in). And that is all the media needs to run the hype machine with. This is all illusion. Its all magic like in Hollywood. The OADs have real talent. But the display and marketing of it is largely illusion in the D1 season each OAD player plays in my opinion.
Some day, I wonder if there will just be a schedule distributed by the shoecos to the networks and the coaches, and the schedule will indicate which OADs are to have their show case "big" games in before the season even starts.
Are we moving toward the All Star Wrestling-ization of certain games of college basketball? I am shocked to think that may actually be on the horizon.
Maybe they will be called OAD Show Case Games among insiders, or maybe something more pithy like "star turns"?
Hype changes everything.
Hype is the new currency.
Hype is the new reality.
One you get to the NBA it is still about how good you are, or can become.
But for the OADs in D1, what they actually do on the floor appears less and less significant.
Its just as easy to hype a guy with one 40 point game in a meaningless situation, playing 20mpg, as it is to hype a guy with a 40 point game in a meaningless situation, playing 35 minutes. I mean, all you have to do is call more fouls on his made baskets to get him his 40 point game in 20 minutes, right?
I am with you completely on that wild speculation. Don't even think it is wild.
It all depends on what Self is forced into.
Self tries to start playing the team that he wants to play in March, as he says, the team he thinks has the best chance in March.
But the minute that team encounters difficulties in any given game, he looks down the bench and either goes proportional, inverse proportional,or some combination, to try to get the game going back in his favor.
I believe he will resort to exactly the line up you are talking about if they starting team struggles badly versus UK. There would be no reason not to.
So: why doesn't Self start out with that team?
Because Self wants a team for March that he can substitute to perpetuate when it is doing well. Frankly, Self has no substitutes that can keep the team you propose going when it is doing well; that team is a team designed to solve a situational problem, and buy one enough lead, or stay in a game long enough, to then return to the long term team identity.
This is the theme and variations approach to team building.
You scheme a team with a theme that works most of the time that you vary with "variations" to get it through anomalous situations. UK is an anomaly that this KU team will meet twice if it is lucky. Once in a few weeks in Indy, and once in the national finals.
But this line up you propose, and that I strongly advocate, too, is not something Self can build on as a theme, because he lacks backups with the same physical and skill attributes. And that is needed over the course of a long season.
But if Self actually had two Seldens, unlike HEM and slayr, I am pretty confident you would see Selden starting at the 1 from the get go, even though he would not be a great assist man at the point. He just gives you such massive MUA in all other aspects of the 1 that of course you would start him their if his back up could sustain the scheme.
What you don't want game in and game out is to have to constantly pingpong back and forth between different kinds of games when your starting team is doing well. You want to keep whatever works going.
As long as Cal's guys keep getting drafted high without having to substantially improve their games in their one, or two, years at UK, then human nature being what it is, everyone is going to be happy playing half a game and not practicing very hard the rest of the time.
Think about the message Andrew Wiggins' season sends. A great talent can play it close to the vest for an entire season, hardly breaking a sweat some games, and score 4 points on an inferior NCAA tournament opponent and lose, and STILL be drafted NUMBER 1.
We are through the looking glass here about PT.
PT means nothing as a reward to players being told not to get injured in their one season of college ball, and to incur as little wear and tear in college as possible. The fewer the minutes played, the less chance of injury and the less wear and tear occurs.
Literally, we may be approaching the point where Cal is able to tell guys: "Look, we've got ten Mickey D's if you sign; that means no one has to play more than 20 minutes a game. Heck, against the cream puffs, you may not have to play more than 10 minutes the entire game. You never have to practice long and hard either. Come to UK and save the wear and tear. And only an absolutely freak injury is a risk here. We never ask you to play to your ceiling. Here, your draft rank is already secured regardless of how little you play."
Scary, Orwellian Basketball world, but that seems to me where this is headed in the long run in D1 with the OADs.
Hell yes, Self is going to match-up with whatever is thrown at him; that's what this team offers him the chance to do.
But match-up has two meanings.
The one that first comes to mind to most fans is matching up as much as possible proportionally.
If they go big at a position, we go as big, or bigger.
If they go small at a position, we go as small, or smaller.
But there is a second meaning of match-up. Maybe meaning is not even the correct term. Maybe it is "approach" to matching up.
The second approach is: turn whatever they do against them. It usually involves going inversely proportional to what the opponent does.
If the opponent goes big at a position, you go small to create and thus exploit a quickness advantage.
If the opponent goes small at a position to try to create a quickness advantage, if you have a bigger guy, you substitute him, tell him to sag off, and then use his greater height to counteract the quickness advantage created and exploit the shortness inside.
Whether you counter in proportion, or in inverse proportion, depends on who you see when you look down your bench.
Substitution tactics can get complicated. You might go proportionally at one position because you have that guy on the bench. At another position, you might opt to substitute with inverse proportionality, because of who you have on the bench.
And substituting in either of those tactical ways has also to square with the larger strategy of how the team can be expected to perform as a unit with those resulting tactical substitutions.
One of Self's greatest gifts appears to me to be his ability to square his tactical substitutions with team strategy in real time about as well as any coach around. Whenever you see him substitute, I often see a situation where he might do better subbing another guy on the bench in terms of 1 on 1 match up considerations. But then when I stop and think about the effect on the entire team in the given circumstance, I usually decide Self made the best choice for a sub. And, of course, he is doing it in real time down on the court and I am getting a minute or two after the fact to reflect and analyze that he does not get. He has to be thinking ahead of the action, not after the action. And so I have great respect for him making the right decision ahead of time.
This particular team has a ton of flaws IMHO. I really don't think anyone but Self would have a prayer of turning it into much of a team this season. But but the diversity of the chess pieces is one strength of this team. And Self is the ideal kind of coach to be able to use that diversity of abilities to cobble some kind of a surprisingly good team together. If Scott Drew had this KU team, I would guess it would finish around .500. But Self is a master of fitting pieces together in grand strategy for a season, in strategy for a game, and in tactical moves that serve the game strategy well, so he may make a very good team eventually.
No coach is good at everything. Self is apparently not,say, as swift as Larry Brown, at improvising plays for given situations in the moment. But Self has seemed to get better at that sort of thing over the years.
But at "defining who we are" up front, i.e., the grand strategy, and at moving the team game to game toward the grand strategy via strategy, i.e., keeping the rotation in individual games in continual bias toward that grand strategy, and in finding tactical responses to individual situations that put the unique talents of particular players into service of the game strategy and season grand strategy, he is pretty tough to beat.
Self: "We're need more play making on the perimeter."
Schmoogle Translation: We're going to keep going inside first, but I don't want teams keying on that starting out. And we are NOT playing anyone with a bad wheel, or that is protecting the merchandize, on the perimeter this year.
Self: "Conner is not really a point guard. He can play some point."
Schmoogle Translation: I don't want a guy with his kind of trey wasting his time thinking about dribbling instead of making it rain from three. But Frank still plays too fast and who knows how Devonte will hold up to D1 speed and violence levels? If Frank and Devonte can carry the mail, then you better believe Conner will fill for Selden and Selden will slide to three, whenever we need to stretch the defense. With Conner off the floor this team has exactly NO 40% three point shooters with police power--i.e., that can protect and defend. Hell, yes, Conner will be in at the end of any close games, where we have a lead and the opponent has to foul. The guy is automatic at the FT line and deadly from outside.
Self: "Brannen has to buy in on the defensive end."
Brannen is in the toughening box, because, well, hell, yes, I'm going to have to depend on him and last season the toughening box was closed for renovation. And its going to get worse before it gets better BGreene. Remember Chalmers wanting to fight me in the huddle his last season? Chalmers had it easy compared to where Brannen is headed. Brannen could be a great one at his height with his gun. But he's not and that really chafes me in my Fruit of the Looms.
"We weren't tough enough last season and it was the coaches fault."
I bought into Hudy's research on easing up on certain parts of the toughness regime to try to have a fresher team down the stretch. Well, freshness only counts in croissants and baguettes, not in basketball. In basketball, its how tough and resourceful you are, when its one and out on an unfamiliar court with referees trying to give games to EST teams, and a lot of side line skirts that don't know the difference between help and on-ball wanting to stick wireless mikes the size of King Kong vibrators in your face if you trigger a trey without going inside first.
Self: "Cliff looked good."
Schmoogle Translation: If I could figure out how to shut down Jared Sullinger, don't you think I get that Donovan, or Izzo, can figure out how to shut down Cliff Alexander. Cliff's an OAD. I have to say all OADs "look good," or the ShoeCos turn off my service and there's a reconnection fee of wearing more ugly uniforms. Cliff is a player. He's going to be good. But I have to say he "looked good," just like I have to tell alumni I enjoy playing golf with them.
Self: "We could press."
Schmoogle Translation: But we we won't.
Self: "We don't have as much standing height."
Schmoogle Translation: Until I substitute Lucas and Mickelson.
(Note: All fiction. No malice.)
You know better. I am just a board rat with a keyboard and love of the greatest game ever invented. And I owed 100. And there is. nothing wrong with big time sponsorship. It just needs to be instituted to reduce recruiting asymmetries and protect the young men from hard ball. And this will happen if cool heads prevai on all sides and everyone recognizes the long term dynamics of oligopolistic competition. It may even be happening already without our knowledge. Nothing has to end terribly. No one has to lose. Rock Chalk!
Did not see the scrimmage.
I read where Landen was injured with a stress fracture and will be out two weeks, so your analysis of the 5 makes sense, at least for now for sure.
Did Brannen Greene and Svi look really bad, or did they not play?