🏀 KuBuckets Archive

BShark said:

Grimes combine measurements are not great

6'4" barefoot, 6'5.25 in shoes, 8'4.5" standing reach, 6'7.75" wingspan, 209.6 pounds, 8.4% body fat

He measures out as a PG moreso that a SG. His reach is average for his size, but he would struggle against bigger wing players.

The only number that is troubling is that body fat. You would like to see that down closer to 6%.

The bigger measurements are going to be his vertical and strength measurements.

Grimes' standing reach is equal to Jarrett Culver.

Also, Bol Bol's standing reach is a ridiculous 9'7.75" Tacko Fall's is 10'2.25". Jay Bilas is hyperventilating somewhere.

Grimes' future depends on what he does at the combine. Play well, and he's a first rounder. Play poorly, he is hoping to catch on with a summer league team.

Dotson will probably be back at KU. He's still just a bit too small. I could see him being banged up even as a rookie backup from the size and contact he would have to take.

Dedric is probably a second rounder that makes someone's roster as a small ball 5. I could see him having success sliding up to the 5 because he's so efficient and is a reliable rebounder even without elite athleticism. He's still not going to be great defensively, but playing the 5 (and adding some strength) could help him translate that into a career. With the direction the NBA is heading, a 6-9 5 man that can rebound, handle the ball, shoot from the perimeter and pass effectively is a nice weapon. He won't be a star, but he's a nice piece to have stashed on your bench.

I'm not denying that Grimes' production didn't match his talents. I thought Grimes would come in and average 15 ppg, with 6 rebounds, a couple steals and 3 or 4 assists. That's the type of talent his video suggests he has. Instead, he played to about half that, so yes, I agree with @Marco that Grimes was, by any reasonable measure, a disappointment compared to the expectations.

I am worried about what that does to KU's recruiting. I think that may have hurt us in pursuing Rayjon Tucker. Remember, we have had consecutive years where a highly talented player looked lost in the system for much of the season (first Newman, then Grimes). Perhaps that played into Tucker's decision. I don't really know.

I do know this. Grimes will be evaluated as a PG at the NBA level. He will have an opportunity at the combine to show his skills. We will see what he has from here. As I said before, there's a chance that he's a complete bust at the next level, but I think the chance that he's a superstar is higher than the chance he's a bust, with the chance that he's a solid role player the most likely outcome.

Marco said:

justanotherfan said:

@Marco

I use the eye test.... There are times that NBA defense is so laughable that the channel demands to be changed and usually is. Again, you sight statistics, and are making my point.... The 3-point and overall shooting percentages in the NBA are going down every year. Why? Because they are jacking up too many damn threes and do not pass the ball for easier shots. And It is all ISO inside, therefore why even play defense (which they don't)? Bad product. Low to mid 30s from 3 for so-called pros? Low to mid 30s from 3 for so-called pros! Why do you think guys like Doncic are dominating? The NBA is a bad product and it is only going to get worse. The NCAA tournament this year blew away anything that the NBA can offer, anything. Even the so-called pro prognosticators all but admitted as much.

Shooting percentages are NOT going down. That is just factually incorrect.

If you want to say that the analytics of shooting more threes makes the game less enjoyable, that's a subjective argument. We can agree or disagree on that. But saying that shooting percentages are down is objectively wrong. They are not. 2Pt% is steady. 3Pt% is steady, after trending up in recent years.

@BShark

Without knowing him or having insider knowledge, its anyone's guess why Grimes struggled the way he did.

@drgnslayr

I think Self has an idea for certain roles for certain players, and this year, Grimes' role was a floor spacing shooter. We rarely saw him handle the ball out front, and, because the team relied so heavily on Dedric, rarely got into transition, where Grimes could really shine. Whether that is a system problem, a program problem, or a Grimes problem I do not know. But it was clearly a problem this season.

@Marco

You do realize that in today's NBA, no team shot worse that 33% from three this year. That would have led the league for most of the 1980's. And they shoot it at a higher volume, too, so its not like they are building up percentages by shooting less.

Garrett, at his current skill level could have been a good perimeter player in the 1980's NBA. He's essentially unplayable at that level now. He would have to be the best defensive player in the league.

Heck, Doke would have been a highly coveted draft pick in the 1980s NBA, even with his injury history. He would have been a lottery pick 15 years ago! Now, his lack of versatility means he stays at Kansas.

Also, you are wrong about NBA shooters shooting only 15% from three. Even as an exaggeration, that's horribly incorrect. For qualified shooters, only four (out of 130) shot worse than 32% from three - Russell Westbrook (29%), Kyle Kuzma (30%), Nikola Jokic (30%) and Austin Rivers (31%).

There were more qualified shooters OVER 45% (Joe Harris, Danny Green, Seth Curry) than under 30%.

For comparison sake, I picked the 1986-87 season. There were 32 qualified three point shooters. Seven shot above 40%, including two above 45% Nine shot under 32%. Four shot under 30%. Neither of the guys that shot over 45% made 40 threes that year.

Of the three guys that made over 45% of their threes this season, they ALL made at least 113, and Danny Green made 198. That's like Babe Ruth hitting 60 homers by himself in 1927 when no other team in the league hit more than 56. The league would have gone insane to see a guy shoot that well from the perimeter with that kind of volume.

Marco said:

I agree..... Prognosticators were foaming at the mouth about his athleticism and versatility, none of which I saw.

Grimes' HS video is FULL of him displaying his athleticism. It's not like we only see his athleticism in dunk contests, but never in game. It's there in his video.

Let's start with the dunk at the 0:09 mark. It's got everything you look for in a finish for a guard. Explosion, power, control.

The step back three at 0:13 shows the balance and body control you want from a shooter.

The ball fake at 0:17 is another example of superb coordination and balance.

The dribble moves he shows from 0:23 - 0:27 show great balance as well. He's getting bumped but keeps control of the ball and makes great passes, including one with his left hand (remember, I look for guys that can work off either hand).

We have a nice lefty finish at the 0:40 mark off a dribble move, and a left handed block at 0:43. For a guard to block a shot with his off hand gets very high marks from me. Guards typically only block shots with their dominant hand, so going off hand is impressive. He claims a righty block moments later.

Check the height on his dunk at 1:20. He's almost head level with the rim. He can access some good vertical in game.

At 1:27 he Euro steps across the lane and hits a soft jumper across his body. That's extreme body control and coordination.

Breaks out a filthy inside out move with the left hand leading to a lefty finish at 2:01. The very next play we see another dunk with his head almost at rim level again.

At 2:08 he snaps a behind the back bounce pass that's on time and on target to hit his man in stride.

At 2:21 makes maybe the most impressive play of the clip with a dunk, catching the ball of the glass. He does it one handed. In traffic. With basically a drop step. You can see that he slows down before exploding up to finish.

He shows it all in that clip. Balance. Coordination. Explosiveness. Speed. Quickness. Strength. Jumping ability.

Uses both hands. Good body size and build. Checks every box.

And then we saw very little of that at KU. I am as confused as anyone, because we see it all in the video.

approxinfinity said:

@justanotherfan :100: what you said! Do you consider Embiid to be balanced? Seems very top heavy to me. Probably limits a lot of bigs from making the greatest discussion. Say what you will about his girth, Shaq was very balanced.

I think Embiid is surprisingly agile and coordinated for a man his size. I do wonder if that size also wears on his bones and joints, which causes him to be injured. I would be curious if he lost 30 or 40 pounds (and sacrificed the strength that comes with it), if he could stay a little bit healthier. He was 250 when he arrived at KU, but bulked up to about 265. Then the injuries started. He's about 280 now. I wonder if he dropped back down to 250, if that might make him more durable?

Big guys tend to miss the greatest discussion because they often are not as skilled. The truly great big men (Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt, Russell, Duncan, Kareem) are big, athletic and skilled. Most big men get by with only two of those three, although some of the current guys in the league are really challenging that.

Young Shaq was an athletic combination I'm not sure we have ever seen. Balanced, coordinated, obscenely strong, quicker than many realized, faster than should have been allowed, and as explosive as anyone. Even as he aged and wasn't in as good of shape, he still kept the explosiveness into the mid 2000s, and never lost the balance or coordination. He could drop step and spin faster than any big man I have ever seen.

Perhaps young Wilt was on par with that, but there just isn't enough video from those days to make a fair comparison. If that's the case, though, I can see why Wilt averaged 50 and 20 one year.

It's also tough for big guys to maintain the coordination and balance as they grow. The higher center of gravity makes it much tougher on them. That's part of what made Kareem so amazing. He was graceful even at his height. Hakeem was the same way.

Athleticism cannot be taught, as @Woodrow observed.

You have to have the desire to work and get better, like @approxinfinity said.

The challenge is how much of a player's natural athleticism they can tap into during a game. Does your speed translate when you have the ball in your hands. Can you tap into your maximum vertical. Do your reactions match your physical quickness.

People often say Larry Bird was not athletic. That's untrue. Larry Bird was athletic. But more important than being athletic is that Larry Bird could access his athleticism in full on the basketball floor. You ever notice how some guys are fast, or strong, or quick, but can't really do anything with those skills in game? Larry Bird was the opposite of that. His balance, strength, speed and quickness all blended together perfectly on the basketball floor. You can watch his old highlights on Youtube and see how he's never out of control, never off balance, could finish or pass with either hand. All of that is athleticism and Bird could access every bit of it.

Was he as athletic as Dominique Wilkins? No, but Larry Bird dunked on his share of people. He wasn't as feared, but because he was so dangerous with either hand, you couldn't really line him up until he committed one way or another. Bird was an above average athlete, even for the NBA.

Compare that to someone like Andrew Wiggins. Obviously, Wiggins is a rare athlete. But there are times where I get the sense that he can't access all of his speed and explosiveness in a useful way on the court, so his basketball production is roughly equal to that of a much lesser athlete because he can't use all of it.

The true greats are both very athletic and also very skilled fundamentally. Kobe Bryant's athleticism was well documented, but it was his footwork that many coaches pointed to as elite. Same for a guy like Steph Curry, who can get into his shooting motion in a heartbeat from basically any position.

If I had to rate the importance of different athletic skills, I would rate them in this order:

Balance, Coordination, Strength, Explosiveness, Quickness, Speed, Jumping Ability

You can't point me to a great player that does not have exceptional balance. You may be able to find great players that were not exceptional leapers, or did not have elite speed or quickness, but I doubt you can find a great player that did not have the first two.

And if you find all seven? Well, that's where you find Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, basically a who's who of All Time Greats.

Why are the first two so important? Well, without coordination and balance, you have no chance to access the other skills. You can't access your speed if you are off balance. Your strength and quickness are worthless without coordination. Ever seen anybody try to jump when they don't have a good base?

Why is leaping ability rated so low to me? Most of basketball is played horizontally. The ability to go vertical is great, but you have to be able to play horizontally for that to even matter. I would sooner take a guy with great coordination and balance than a guy with a 50 inch vertical, because the coordination and balance convert more to basketball skills.

Marco said:

And there is the rub, huh? As I have all but said (a good series here or there aside) the constant influx of not-ready-for-primetime players into the NBA has all but killed the league compared to what it used to be. None of them can play D and all want to be stars rather than just playing the game. The me, my, mine aspect of today's NBA is, if you think about it, a very microcosm of America.

I would actually disagree with you there. I would say that the league overall has a much higher skill level than at any time in its history. The difference is just that its so much harder to survive in the league because of that high level of skill.

Think about what many people call the "Golden Age" of NBA basketball, basically from 1982 or 1983 until 1989. Back in the "Golden Age", teams almost always pushed the ball at breakneck pace. As a league, teams were averaging nearly 90 shots a game while turning the ball over in the high teens (17 or 18) and shooting almost 30 FTs a game. The pace was faster, there were more possessions (and turnovers) etc.

Today's game is more efficient. Teams turn the ball over much less - the 17.2 TO per game that Phoenix averaged three years ago would have been one of the lower totals in the League during the "Golden Age."

Teams also shot much worse from the perimeter. As a league, the NBA shot 30% from three in 1986-87. That gets you benched now. No team shot more than about 8 threes a game then. Now, most every team makes 8 threes a game.

The number of assists compared to made shots is about the same (more threes and fewer shot attempts means fewer assist chances). Blocks and steals are also fairly consistent. This also tells us that the turnover numbers are down now because of less sloppy play (balls thrown away, lost out of bounds, etc) and not because of steals.

There are just so many more players that can hurt you from so many different spots now. You have to guard a 7 foot center like Jokic at the three point line or he will hurt you. A guy like Joel Embiid can Euro step off the dribble. There weren't multiple centers in the NBA in the 80's that could shoot the ball from three. Just about every team has a guy that can do that now.

It's harder to play defense because every guy can hit a 20 footer now, so you can't leave that shot open, but you still have to cut off the drive. PGs can rise up and dunk in traffic. That wasn't generally happening back then.

The guys in the NBA are so good now it's almost like we are watching the game evolve right in front of us because the way you have to play offense and defense is much different.

Put it to you this way. 20 or 30 years ago, none of us on this board would be complaining that Marcus Garrett couldn't shoot, because nobody would expect every guard to be able to shoot the three. Now, that's a basic requirement if you are a perimeter player. KU has had tons of teams where they basically only had one or two guys that could actually shoot threes. Now, we see a team like that and criticize the "lack of shooting."

drgnslayr said:

@justanotherfan

Thanks for the response, and your response makes sense.

However...

I'm not satisfied with our development program. Love Hudy... but I think everything else falls short.

Our players.. mostly 5-star players... can't perform the fundamentals. This is what really chaps my backside.

I would start a Mitch Lightfoot over another Q. Q's stat line was so pathetic that it almost looked like he intentionally ran away from the ball. BTW, I like Q! I just want to kick him in the backside and have him for a week in practice.

I'm so sick of 5-star guys that spend all their practice time on fancy dunks, but don't have the slightest clue on how to seal off under the basket. Those fancy dunks lead to... ZERO WINS!

We live in one of the more competitive leagues, and most of our competition thrives on lower recruits. I'm not exactly totally thrilled with their development abilities either.

Under your premise... you are right. As long as we fail in developing players to a higher level, we best keep after recruiting top shelf talent.

I so miss seeing the game played at a higher level. I realize Naismith never experienced basketball near what it is today, but I have a feeling he is doing cartwheels in his grave over how much game we leave in the locker room because our guys fail on the fundamentals.

I think you and I feel the same way. I'm just venting frustration of the direction of D1 and our program.

Your statements are correct!

The big difference is that in order to play D1 P5 basketball today, you must have X level of athleticism. If you do not meet X level of athleticism, you simply cannot play at that level, regardless of how skilled you are.

Once you surpass X level of athleticism, let's pick a random number, say 50, then you are on the scale. Now, you also have to be a minimum skill level. Let's say that's a 50, too.

At that point, your ability to perform at the D1 level is your athleticism charted against skill, but in order to play at the P5 level, you need to be better than 115 total. If you are extremely athletic, you can be less skilled. If you are extremely skilled, you can be less athletic (provided you are above 50).

So we have already eliminated all of the people that are 1-49 on the athleticism scale and the skill scale, as well as a good portion of the 50-65 or so because their skill level did not make up for their athletic limitations or vice versa.

The problem, however, is that because you have to have X athleticism to make it to the D1 level, the kids that make up D1 players are largely kids that have never had to be fundamentally sound because they were so much more athletic than their peers. They were 60+ when most HS players are 30 or less. Their athletic ability was far and away better than anyone they played against (one reason its hard to judge how a non-elite player will translate to the college game).

Take a guy like Conner Frankamp. He was a dominant HS player. Could score from anywhere. Quicker than most anyone that guarded him in HS. Able to get any shot he wanted, any time he wanted.

Skillwise, Conner was probably something like a 65. Athletically, he was probably like a 55. Against most HS players, that's blowing them away. Against a D1 P5 player, that's towards the bottom of the scale.

These are just random numbers, obviously, but you get the point. Conner Frankamp wasn't a mind blowing athlete, but he was a much better athlete than just about anyone he faced in HS. He could have bad footwork defensively and still stay in position. He could ball watch a bit and still recover.

Now move up to someone like Zion Williamson. Athletically, Williamson is probably more like a 90 or better. If Frankamp was overwhelming most HS players, imagine how easy it was for Zion Williamson. I bet Zion Williamson didn't box out more than 5 times in his entire HS career. He was just so physically talented that it didn't matter. He could run around guys, jump over them, etc. He's in the 1% of the 1%.

How do you teach a guy like that fundamentals when he's so much faster than everyone else that he can be a little careless or sloppy and it doesn't show up because he gets the rebound anyway. He blocks the shot anyway. He scores anyway. You can't emphasize fundamentals until he gets to the NBA where he suddenly encounters Kawhi Leonard or Jimmy Butler and he ends up traveling or getting an offensive foul because they are quicker and more talented than anyone he's ever seen before, or until Joel Embiid grabs the rebound because he didn't box him out, or until someone gets a tip dunk on him.

Then suddenly, he has to get back to fundamentals. He has to really box out, not just pretend to. He has to really rotate all the way to the shooter, because Klay Thompson doesn't care that you closed out to within four feet of him. He has to really get into a defensive stance because Damien Lillard is too quick to just bend at the waist. Those guys are 75's and 85's athletically. He can't just half do things.

But you have to hit that wall because most kids don't even realize they aren't doing it properly because their athleticism covers it up.

@drgnslayr

There are plenty of kids that dream of playing at KU one day. But let me ask you this - do you want Mitch Lightfoot to be your starting C of PF?

Because that's what that gets you right now.

I went over to 247Sports to look at their top ranked three star player. Its Christian Braun, who is indeed slated to suit up for KU next year. That's great, except everyone on this board agrees that Braun probably needs a year before he will be ready to contribute at KU. You never know what you are going to get from recruits, but that's especially volatile the lower down you go. Braun might come to KU and absolutely light it up, and turn into a legitimate pro prospect. He also might not ever be anything more than a fringe rotation player. He could land anywhere in between. He could be outright unplayable at the P5 level.

If you recruit all three and four star players you are betting that you never miss on a recruit. There's no room for a Rio Adams, because you won't have one guy with the talent to make up for missing on a guy you thought could be a rotation piece. You can't miss on the guy you were counting on to fill one rotation spot because you won't have the overall talent to make up for a flawed roster.

Put it this way - if KU had all lower level recruits last year, they probably finish fifth or sixth in the Big 12 because there's no Dotson or Lawson to make up for the fact that the roster just didn't work together. Grimes saved our bacon against Michigan State. Dotson probably powered three or four wins himself. Lawson was indispensable. Take those guys off the roster and replace them with lesser players we probably lose five or six more games. Not on the bubble, but definitely a 7 or 8 seed line.

@Bosthawk Athletics is a pursuit that demands tons of confidence to succeed at any level. Part of the reason so many D1 athletes believe that they could someday have a pro career is that they have, at one point or another, gone toe to toe with an NBA caliber player and held their own. The instant a player believes they can't go to the next level, they start to level off from an improvement standpoint because they realize they are outmatched. You think you can advance until one day you aren't good enough to go on. It happens to everyone at some point. The lucky few make it to the NBA and have nice careers, but that's in large part because the process to get there is so rigorous.

So why would Grimes believe that he could go to the NBA? Well, most NBA players were at one time top level recruits, just like Grimes. There were thousands of high school basketball players that were graduating seniors this time last year, and no more than 10 were better than Quentin Grimes. Grimes was ALREADY in the top, elite percentile this time LAST YEAR compared to his peers. If you and I made a bet, and you gave me the top 25 players in the country in any given year, and I gave you everyone else, the chances that my group has more guys that play in the NBA for more than three years is always going to be higher because I always get the Kevin Durant's and Lebron James', while you are hoping for a Draymond Green instead of a Perry Ellis. That top group of players is always thinking that because they are already in the elite group, the same way kids that go to Yale and Harvard Law end up clerking for the Supreme Court - you're in the "Elite Group" already. Chances that you stay in that group are much better than the chances someone outside the Elite Group gets into the Elite Group.

Grimes is in the Elite Group. Maybe he falls out. But he's just as likely to track the career arc of Wayne Selden because he meets the minimum criteria for size and athleticism, unlike 90%+ of HS players.

Defensive effort at the college level is lower, just that they can consistently get bailed out by guys that simply cannot make plays.

If you watched the games yesterday, there were times where the defense had to rotate to the third or fourth pass after help. In college, it is unusual to have to rotate that much because the ball eventually goes to a guy that either can't pass, can't score, or can't do either, forcing the offense to have to reset. When the ball goes from Simmons to Embiid to Butler to Redick to Embiid again, you have to make every rotation there because every guy can hurt you. If the ball goes Lawson to Dotson to Garrett, the chain ends at Garrett because you don't have to close out to the non-shooter.

Moss could be a nice addition. He's not the player that Tucker is, but he gives the guard rotation some more depth.

The downside is that he gives us depth - he's not a guy that can carry the load. He's a nice piece if you already have guys to carry the load in place. That was one of Iowa's problems with him. He was a good player, but not so good that he could make up for the shortcomings on the rest of the roster.

This current KU roster is still a good, but flawed roster. Moss would be a good addition, but he isn't going to cover up any of the flaws already existing with the roster.

The backcourt still needs one more guy, unless Agbaji is making a BIG TIME leap as a sophomore. We saw flashes of that potential, but we need that all season, not just a handful of games. Either that, or we will be leaning on Braun and McBride a lot more than most are going to be comfortable with next season.

I don't think Beilein will last three years in Cleveland. I never took him as a guy that can maximize matchups (crucial to NBA success) or handle the different personalities. He's a system guy to me. The benefit is that Cleveland isn't supposed to be good right now, so he has a year or two before the pitchforks and torches come out.

I agree with everyone else though, that this is a weird move.

Of course, Cleveland's ownership hasn't exactly made the best basketball related moves over the years, so this is par for the course for them.

@approxinfinity

Mishandling that pick is going to haunt the Sixers forever.

In addition to the three guys you already listed, they could have also had Jayson Tatum, or traded down for multiple other players and/or picks. Pretty much anything would have been better than what they ended up with. Heck, they probably could have traded down with a team like Sacramento and gotten Fox and another player in that draft (Fox and Mitchell perhaps).

The draft is an inexact science, but missing on that pick is going to have an effect on the NBA for the next decade or more.

Also, Kawhi Leonard hitting the first ever game 7 buzzer beater is why I love watching the NBA. Portland and Denver played a great game earlier, followed by that wild back and forth Philly-Toronto game. And that is just leading up to what will probably be a very tight Milwaukee-Toronto series, and, while probably not close, an entertaining series between the Warriors and Blazers.

KU might be back.

If both Tucker and Hampton go elsewhere, things could be challenging, even if Holyfield joins. I just don't feel great about the backcourt (even assuming Dotson comes back) without another addition. I think there is universal agreement that McBride and Braun can be productive. But I think there is pretty universal agreement that the production probably won't come next season.

That's what makes Hampton and Tucker so inviting. They fill the gap next year before Braun and McBride take over larger roles in the following season.

KU is almost back. They are just missing one more piece (but hopefully adding two).

Lots of road closures throughout central Kansas. If you see a road closed, DO NOT drive on it even if the water has receded. In some areas, water damage may have eroded the road, making it dangerous to drive onto. The road may buckle or give way from the weight of your vehicle without warning. BE SAFE!

@Marco

Holyfield is certainly more polished as a player than De Sousa. But De Sousa adds the energy and athleticism that our front line has lacked the past few seasons. He's not as skilled a player (or wasn't, the last time we saw him), but he can certainly impact a game in ways that Holyfield cannot.

But eligibility is the question. If Holyfield wants to come, he can be penciled into the rotation. De Sousa cannot at this point. We may not know about De Sousa until Fall classes have started, at which point there's no way to fill his spot if he isn't eligible.

The NCAA has made a fine mess of this whole process, waiting half the season to rule at all. The NCAA should have a time frame in which they have to issue a ruling of eligibility, otherwise dragging things out is effectively an indefinite suspension anyway.

The NCAA had a distinct interest in having this verdict play out this way. There's no way they want their major programs all being brought down on something like this.

BShark said:

Kcmatt7 said:

Ferguson got paid $500K to go play overseas. I'd imagine RJ is getting offered at least that, probably closer to $750k.

Ironically if he really wants to play he should pick KU instead of overseas. Lots of grown ass men in China and Australia.

Based on previous players who took this route these seem to be the likeliest two. Personally I'd take Australia over China for too many reasons to count.

If he goes overseas, Australia is the best bet. They speak English, so the cultural transition is easier than it is in some of the European leagues. Additionally, while the competition may not be as good, the teams are more well run than the second and third division teams in Europe. And unlike a lot of the European teams, they will play a kid that's only going to be there for a year.

I think the Holyfield decision will depend more on De Sousa's eligibility than Enaruna. If De Sousa is eligible, that eats up 20-25 minutes at a minimum on that front line. With Doke getting 25 minutes as well, Mitch probably getting 10 or so and McCormack also getting some time, the minutes are getting really thin up front. And that doesn't account for a single second of time for Enaruna.

Without De Sousa, there are plenty of minutes for Enaruna and Holyfield. With him, there really aren't.

I don't know if KU gets Hampton or not. I'm just looking at the potential roster makeup.

With or without Hampton, I think Tucker would be the #1 offensive option at KU. With Hampton, obviously, things get much better. But even with him, Tucker is getting the shots and would be the go to guy down the stretch.

Without Tucker or Hampton, I don't know what this backcourt looks like next season.

BShark said:

ISU 24/7 guy floated out there that KU is behind ISU/Memphis/Auburn due to "wanting to be the man". Hope he's wrong.

Not sure that Tucker would not be the man at KU.

Look at the current roster. Who's the Man?

It can't be Doke because he can't shoot FTs or get his own shot. He will get touches, but he can't have the offense run through him.

We will go ahead and eliminate Lightfoot, Garrett, and the freshmen (Braun, McBride, Enaruna).

That leaves us with Silvio (if he's eligible), McCormack, Agbaji, and Dotson.

We don't know about Silvio's eligibility, so I will mark him out. McCormack will play behind Doke, so he's out.

Agbaji figures to be improved, but I doubt he suddenly becomes a 15-20 PPG guy. I like his upside, but he's probably not there next year. He's out.

Dotson is more of a playmaker than a big time scorer. He will certainly have his games where he scores big, just like he did this season, but I don't see him being the main guy scoring wise.

The only reason to think differently is if you already know Hampton is coming to KU. Even then, there's no guarantee that Tucker isn't still the man on that roster.

I don't think we are at a disadvantage if that's the case. It may come down to system, but role wise he has the same opportunity at KU that he would elsewhere.

Look out for flash floods as well. Most of the ground is completely saturated, so everything is straight runoff. Creeks and rivers could still rise even though the rain has stopped.

@BShark

The problem is the people that created the recommendations only looked at the things they didn't like about the current system, without considering the things that are good about the current system.

For instance, let's say you're a random kid that isn't ranked very high (or not ranked at all), you go to a non-powerhouse school in your state, etc. Under this new system, your chances of proving yourself and getting on a P5 coaches radar are basically gone because you won't get the invite to the camp to go toe to toe with some of the top players in your class. That's how Jevon Carter ended up at West Virginia. That's part of how Frank Mason got on Bill Self's radar. They weren't super high ranked throughout high school. They probably wouldn't have gotten an invite to the regional camp. But the AAU circuit allowed them to prove they could flat out play, and that landed them P5 opportunities. This system takes that chance away for a lot of kids because they won't get those AAU chances to prove themselves.

Yeah, AAU has its seedy characters and questionable ethics, but it also has a lot of programs that give kids exposure that they otherwise could not get playing for their local high school, and playing a role that might be more similar to their college role. There are a lot of 6-6 guys that will be wing players in college, but they are the de facto center on their HS team because of talent and personnel. But on their AAU squad, they play the 3 spot, which is where they need to be to get properly evaluated by college coaches on both ends.

No system would ever be perfect, but neither the old system or this new one really solves the problem. This one tries to take the money out of the top part of the game, but may suffocate the lower tiers along the way. Think of it this way - the kids that get recruited to the low major programs, or the D2 level, are now going to miss out on that type of exposure. Those kids play AAU, too. Maybe they aren't a fit for their local D2 program, but there's a coach in Ohio or Texas or Florida or Arizona that has a roster spot that they fit into. But with these local camps, non major recruiting is going to get really regionalized, which may cost some deserving student athletes a shot.

Crimsonorblue22 said:

http://www.kake.com/story/40431717/maize-hs-standout-grill-commits-to-iowa-state ↗

With Braun already in the fold, Grill was never really in play for KU. Good to see that he will get a shot at the P5 level, though.

BShark said:

KU BUMPSSSS BOIS

McBride up 51 slots in 24/7 ranking and Braun up 99...

Didn't Braun grow an inch or two? I thought he was listed at 6-5 or so, and now is more like 6-7. I may be remembering wrong, though. That would be reason to bump him up.

The biggest thing that Les Miles brings to KU is a guy that can absolutely recruit. The potential that he could bring in some higher caliber talent to move the program up in terms of both prestige and results is big for KU football if the program is ever going to be anything other than a second or third division program.

BShark said:

justanotherfan said:

Embiid does present a unique challenge for GS because of his size and ability to punish smaller defenders. Golden State can usually go small and run the other team into the ground. They can't do that to Philly, and Jimmy Butler is waiting for the challenge of going toe to toe with Kevin Garnett. Butler has always been a bit underrated IMO, but he could change all of that with a nice run here in the playoffs.

Wow Kevin Garnett is back in the league!?? ;)

I think Jimmy Butler would enjoy the matchup with Garnett better than the one with Durant at this point... ;-)

Embiid does present a unique challenge for GS because of his size and ability to punish smaller defenders. Golden State can usually go small and run the other team into the ground. They can't do that to Philly, and Jimmy Butler is waiting for the challenge of going toe to toe with Kevin Garnett. Butler has always been a bit underrated IMO, but he could change all of that with a nice run here in the playoffs.

The biggest thing in our recruitment is that we have to recruit nationally because we do not have enough high D1 level talent to allow us to just recruit locally. We should be looking for the Perry Ellis' and the like, but we have to be a national recruiting force because we just don't have enough guys to fill a roster.

But the challenge with this is that when you recruit lower ranked guys (40-150 rank), you have to factor in geography because that is one of the things that those recruits are considering.

Fully half of the guys ranked 41-100 on ESPN are heading to a "local" school. We would be competing with a school like UMass for a kid from Rhode Island, or trying to convince a kid from Spokane not to go to Gonzaga. That's a tough sell.

@BShark

Looking at that MSU roster, for KU to do the same, they could go as far as maybe St. Louis to the east, the entire state of Kansas, Des Moines and Omaha to the north/northeast, Tulsa, OKC, Little Rock to the south/southeast.

Their roster next year would be Braun, McBride, Ochai, Lightfoot (since his parents were alums) and then we really start searching for scholarship players. And I can't think of many guys that are currently D1 guys that KU outright missed on locally.

@BShark makes a great point about the difference between KU and Michigan State. We don't have a consistent pipeline to draw 50-150 talent from. Lots of kids in that range are either looking to stay closer to home, or looking for PT. KU may not offer either of those things. We have never consistently been able to land those types of players, and if you strike out on those guys you are moving way down the talent pipeline with your recruits.

The Kansas City area doesn't produce enough players in that range. In order to work, the KC metro would need to produce 2-3 top 150 players every year. That's just not happening right now. Maybe we could pull off some sort of Texas thing, but even then, we risk losing those kids to TCU or Baylor because its closer to home and more likely that they get to play right away.

BShark said:

I feel like we are getting Enaruna.

That probably means TJ Holyfield is heading to Illinois to reunite with his old coach. I can't see any way both of those guys would come to KU together.

Texas Hawk 10 said:

@nuleafjhawk There's talent here in the city, it's just not top end HS talent for the most part. The best player to come from this city in the past 5 or so years is DeAaron Fox.

In the 2019 class, only 4 of the top 32 players from Texas are Houston area kids based on 24/7 rankings.

Just did a quick scan of the 2020 Football recruits from Texas, and at least 10 of the top 32 are from the Houston area. Could the popularity of football be keeping elite HS athletes out of basketball in the Houston area?

Kcmatt7 said:

It's funny that Kyree shot so well, yet any film I have found doesn't show it at all.

But stats are there to back it up. He's shot 40% from 3 in his entire HS career on 418 attempts. 47% on 117 attempts this past season. That's not a fluke.

He's at least a good enough shooter to make guys stay honest. 117 attempts is more than enough to show he can take and make threes. And he's such a threat off the dribble that his jumper just needs to be adequate, not great.

nuleafjhawk said:

@justanotherfan I would give option 1 a lot more weight. What if he was a man in high school and a boy in college? I'm talking only as it pertains to the game of basketball, NOT his character. He may just be in over his head until he develops more.

That's a possibility. However, we saw Grimes play well against some of the better teams we faced last season.

21 points on 7-14 shooting in a win against Michigan State.

19 points on 7-14 shooting in a loss to Iowa State.

15 points on 5-11 shooting in a loss to Auburn.

13 points on 5-9 shooting in a loss to Kentucky.

That's four of his best games, all against teams that feature very good guards.

Not only that, but it stands out to me that as the season progressed, Grimes' role wasn't really ever reduced long term. In 9 of his last 10 games he played more than 25 minutes, and played more than 30 minutes in 7 of those contests. If Self had determined he had better options, Grimes would have gotten the Bragg/Diallo treatment. Yet he logged pretty heavy minutes all season (averaged 27 mpg). That suggests to me that even though he struggled in games, Grimes was consistently one of our best guards in practice, otherwise Self would have flipped his rotation.

That's why I leaned more towards a middling performance, with a breakout showing slightly more likely than a complete dud. We don't have evidence that Grimes can't handle this level. If we did, teams like UK and Michigan State would have forced him off the floor, rather than him playing some of his best basketball against those squads.

Not surprised Grimes was invited. The player everyone saw throughout high school and last year during the FIBA tournament flashed at times during his time at KU, but never showed up consistently. As @BShark said, pedigree matters. Grimes came to KU as a highly skilled player. The combine is to determine if he was simply playing out of position, if something else was wrong, or if he simply doesn't have the skillset to succeed. But if you go back and watch the tape, what happened to him this past season is difficult to explain.

I see three potential outcomes.

1. He goes to the combine and just gets overwhelmed. Doesn't do well in athletic testing, plays poorly, shoots worse, looks lost on both ends and generally stinks up the joint. We all see that this season wasn't really a fluke. I think this is the least likely outcome, but I'd say there's a 20% chance it happens.

2. He goes to the combine, does a decent job in the athletic testing, but shoots poorly. His play is unsteady. He flashes some skill at times, but disappears for long stretches at others. Has some moments where he looks like a lottery pick, but just as many where he looks like a G League project. Ultimately convinces a team to take him in the late first round or early second round because they have the infrastructure to get his game right. I'd put a 55% chance on this happening. It's easily the most likely scenario given his inconsistency at KU.

3. Grimes slides over to the point and is a revelation on the ball. Plays downhill, aggressive getting to the rim. Sees the floor well. Surprises people with his explosion and bounce. Basically, looks like the guy we were promised in the mixtapes. Getting on the ball helps his jump shot, which suddenly evens out as he looks like a big, athletic PG that will be a handful. Sews up a spot in the late lottery. This is slightly more likely than him playing very poorly, probably a 25% chance.

So overall, there's probably an 80% chance Grimes makes it into the draft in some capacity, with a 20% chance that he's a complete bust (and a chance that he's a superstar in waiting). There are plenty of teams that missed the playoffs that will take those odds all day long.

Holyfield is an interesting piece. He's a solid player. He won't be a star at the P5 level, but he will be a legitimate rotation player at the P5 level.

He's a solid forward with some small ball 4 potential. He hasn't shot a ton of threes in his career, but his percentages from deep and from the FT line suggest he could be a decent to good shooter (Career 36% from three, 75% from FT) with the right looks. I don't think you can run the offense through him, but pairing him on the floor with Doke could work well since he has the ability to punish teams from deep, plus rebound and defend against 4's. He could also post up smaller guys, which would give the KU offense some different looks.

He would be a nice addition to round out the class, but this team would still need someone to run the offense through.

Kcmatt7 said:

@justanotherfan I think he has a plan. I think his plan is simple. Fill needs in the order he thinks of importance.

Because of this, I'm afraid he devalues the draft and over values Free Agents though.

You make a great point about this. I think that is why I evaluate him differently. He is looking at need and prioritizing that individual need if it is first on his list. At times, that may cause him to overvalue a specific need without looking at the whole picture.

He zeroes in on a Tyreek Hill clone, rather than looking at the entire draft and seeing that he can trade down in the second and land a corner, a receiver and another piece without trying to directly replace Hill.

Sometimes I think Veach has too many different plans going at once. It seems like he wanted to improve the defense through free agency (which he did), at which point the focus of the draft should have been offense. But Veach seemed to try and split his picks between offense and defense, without having a high pick to grab an impact guy. He made some good picks I think, but I am not sure how all of it will fit together in the end.

Kyree Walker will turn 19 this year, so if he reclassifies, it won't be a surprise (birthday is in November). RJ Hampton turned 18 in February, so he would turn 19 midway through his freshman year. Also would not be a surprise to reclassify.

I think both of these guys reclassify because they would both be 19 by next year's draft, making them both draft eligible. If they don't reclassify, they wouldn't be draft eligible until 2021. I agree with @BShark and others - I would be surprised if both did not reclassify.

Hardman is roughly as raw as what Hill was coming out of school, but not quite as fast. The Hardman pick basically sealed the deal on what I am guessing is the Chiefs waiving Hill sometime this week. The rest of the draft addressed needs and depth. Good overall strategy. Each pick has some serious athletic tools. The question is how that translates to their pro roles. The Chiefs also made some decent non drafted signings, so we will have to see on that. Those guys are just as valuable as 6th and 7th rounders.

Hill has been suspended indefinitely by the Chiefs. He is probably done with the team, maybe done in the league.

Marco said:

@justanotherfan I agree with you on all points save for one. It is the defense or lack thereof (with this year being painfully obvious, especially in the NBA) and the pompous, entitled attitudes of the players that I believe is - and I am aware of the ratings - soon going to start biting them, that and the constant reconfiguring of teams. A league cannot long survive by giving away the kind of power that both leagues are now giving to players.

@Marco

Defense - The NBA defenses are FAR superior to college defenses. College players look like they are working hard on defense mostly because they aren't athletically gifted enough to make the plays that NBA guys make look so routine. If you go to a college game one night, then an NBA game the next, the differences are stark. The amount of ground NBA guys can cover, the talent they have, is just amazing.

Now, you may argue that lots of points are being scored in the NBA. This also has a lot to do with pure talent. In college, good defenses are based not around stopping people, but rather around forcing the ball into the hands of the 1 or 2 players on the floor that cannot hurt you.

We have decried on this very board Coach Self insisting on playing different players (from Morningstar to Traylor to Lucas to Garrett) that were not offensive threats. A very good college defense forces the ball into those guys' hands to make plays. A very good college defense doesn't stop Zion Williamson because they don't have the talent to do so. It doesn't stop Udoka Azubuike because it doesn't have the talent to do so. It forces the ball into the hands of a non-shooter like Jones (Duke) or Garrett (KU).

In the NBA, that's not really an option. If you take the ball out of James Harden's hands, its going to Chris Paul, or Eric Gordon, or one of the shooters or lob threats that Houston has surrounded them with. If you force the ball out of Steph Curry's hands, it goes to Klay Thompson, or Kevin Durant, or someone else that can score. There are very few players in the NBA that flat out cannot hurt you if left open the way some guys in the college game can. As a result, even if you play good college defense, you're probably still giving up points in the pro game.

On top of that, the best players in the world are the best for a reason and no amount of defense will stop them when they get rolling. Remember how we thought Lagerald Vick was burning down the gym for a couple of games this past season? Well, a guy like Klay Thompson gets that hot twice a month. Steph Curry has been shooting like that since 2013. James Harden was that hot for six weeks earlier this year. Damian Lillard was that hot in the series against OKC the last couple of weeks.

Speaking of Lillard, he dropped 50 points in the series clinching win, including the game winner. If you haven't watched it yet then here you go.

[Lillard](

What more is Paul George, an all world level defender, supposed to do to prevent Lillard from dropping a 30something foot step back? And although George said it was a fluke, Lillard shot 39% from 30+ feet this season (that's 10 percent better than Marcus Garrett shoots from the college line) on 51 attempts. That's not a fluke.

And Lillard is by no means even the best POINT GUARD in the NBA, let alone the best player.

As for entitlement, or player attitudes, that's a personal opinion. From my perspective, people pay to see the players play, and the NBA is as valuable as it is right now because of that. The NBA has made basketball the second most popular sport in the world behind soccer, with millions of fans overseas in places like Africa and Asia. The players are what's behind that. If you have ever seen video of NBA players touring other countries for camps and games, you can see what I mean.

The global market is what makes the NBA so profitable. It's what will continue to separate the NBA from college hoops. And that is almost exclusively player driven, so it makes sense to give the players a healthy share of that pie they created. When the NBA was mostly a regional thing, the owners had to do a lot more to promote the game and the teams. Now, that has shifted to the players. The financial rewards of that have shifted as well. That makes sense to me, but as I said, this is more a matter of opinion as to whether you think the players have bad attitudes or are too entitled.

This deal was inevitable. Its a top tier deal, as some have noted above. KU needed this deal, both for football and basketball. Don't doubt that Les Miles had some input into how this was going down.

BeddieKU23 said:

approxinfinity said:

@BeddieKU23 Dave was still an All-American. I'm not sold that he's thinking he's a 4 year player. Hope so.

I definitely focus on Doke's weaknesses, but I'm trying this year to be realistic about where we stand, relying somewhat on others to speak of the positives re: Doke :)

I feel confident saying Dave is a different type of All-American that had different expectations coming in. He wasn't always a top recruit and it wasn't until he changed his body, won a championship on his AAU squad and played on a loaded Oak-Hill team did he get recognition that some carry their entire HS career. This is a high character kid that comes from a good family and values his education. My expectation is he stays all 4 years and leaves a beloved Hawk

Part of the reason that Big Dave wasn't an elite recruit until very late in his career is that he was never an elite athlete and, until late in his HS career, wasn't all that refined as an interior player. That meant that he wasn't on a lot of radars until much later on. Big Dave was just another big kid until he worked on his body and refined his skills inside. He's not an athletic freak. That, along with the changing pro game, means he's probably here for three years, if not four anyway.

The NFL may be in trouble because fewer and fewer kids are playing youth football, which means that there will be less interest in football from the younger generation. Participation at the youth level has dropped by more than 30% since 2010, and high school football is starting to see similar declines as the first wave of kids that didn't play growing up (the 9 and 10 year olds from 2010 and 2011) have moved into and through HS. As participation continues to decline, the challenge of where to find the next wave of talent will become a greater issue.

As for basketball, there are two tiers of fans that we have to think about. There are college basketball fans and pro basketball fans. In places like Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, and a few others, the primary basketball fans are college basketball fans. But in places like LA, NYC, Texas, Florida, etc. the fans are primarily NBA fans. That's why college programs like UCLA, Texas, and others do not draw as well as KU, UK, UNC - fans in those places just prefer the NBA product to college.

Where both struggle is attracting the casual fan. College markets their coaches as stars to attract casual interest in the game. The NBA markets its star players. There was an era where the NBA struggled with this, but now they have a large crop of very likable stars. Even guys like James Harden, Lebron James and Russell Westbrook that have been portrayed as "villains" are likable community figures that have not been involved in off court trouble.

College basketball's most passionate fans typically align with a specific team (Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, others) and may not follow other teams or conferences all that closely. NBA fans, meanwhile, may align with a specific team, but still tune in to watch other NBA games not involving their favorite team or player, and tend to follow the league overall. College fans are typically more regionalized. NBA fans are more nationally focused and based in a lot of places.

The NBA is stronger financially and in popularity than it has been in years. I don't think its going anywhere. The NFL has a participation problem creeping up from the youth levels. That may impact the league in another 5-10 years.