🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@Kcmatt7

The biggest benefit that the Royals have is the shortened draft. Having a shorter draft gives teams that scout well an advantage if they find diamonds in the rough. It really opens things up for teams that do their homework.

Obviously the big market teams can do that, but finding those key players that are not high picks can help a team. Jarrod Dyson was a 50th round pick. With the draft down to 20 rounds now, the teams that can find those types of players will be at an advantage.

And then of course, the ability to develop players will always be at a premium.

With most rosters still unknown, I don't know how you peg anyone for any seed.

@BShark

I know the family a little. That was something that was very important to him personally, so its no surprise that he sought out another program with a black coach.

I think we will see more players that emphasize that in this social situation.

@bmensch1

As you mentioned, the NBA is a superstar driven league, with the rest of the spots filled with role players and specialists.

Now ask yourself, in his minutes this year, was Bryce Thompson able to showcase his skills in any way that would give an NBA GM a reason to think he has the skillset to fill any of those roles on an NBA team? The answer is clearly NO.

So when you are comparing it to the business world, you see Thompson (or McClung or Grimes, or whoever) as a guy that at their previous school didn't even have the qualifications to apply. They are the equivalent of a resume that doesn't even pass the initial screening to get to the hiring committee.

But by transferring, McClung and Grimes have both gotten opportunities to really show their abilities. Grimes particularly.

You also have to remember that the NBA isn't going to have a lot of guys, particularly role players, that will stay with one team for a long time. Robert Horry, perhaps the greatest role player of his generation, won seven championships with three different teams (and played for four teams, total).

Some of the best role players in the league now have played for 3 or 4 teams already in their career. The Morris twins have each played for multiple teams (Markieff has played for five, Marcus for six).

Most players, especially role players, won't play for just one franchise, so it's doubtful an NBA GM holds attending multiple colleges against them. That may be a benefit, because they have already seen two different systems and coaching staffs.

We cannot always assume that a kid leaving KU is leaving because they:

1) weren't good enough
2) didn't work hard
3) were soft
4) had some behind the scenes problem

Many of these guys can play, and end up having good careers elsewhere. Many end up playing a similar role that they could have played at KU, but were never given the opportunity. Some get bigger roles elsewhere.

Stepping back from athletics for a moment, college is about finding the opportunities that are going to take you into adulthood in the best possible position. That's how I approached college. It's about finding out what you want to do and putting yourself in the best position for a future career.

For "student-athletes" its the same. They have to put themselves in the best possible position for their future career, as well as for themselves. I had a friend (non-athlete) that went to a certain school (not KU). After their freshman year, the school re-vamped the department they were majoring in. After the fall of their sophomore year, they transferred. They felt like the restructured department wasn't going to be good for them, so they left.

Another friend attended a different school, knowing full well that they intended to transfer after their sophomore year. They wanted to go close to home to get some Gen Ed credit (and save some money) before pursuing the school they really wanted to graduate from.

In both cases, those students made decisions that were best for them, and I'm not sure anyone should hold that against them. So why do we treat athletes differently? Bryce Thompson has a shot at being a fringe NBA player. If his career continues on the trajectory it had at KU, that possibility gets less and less likely. Tyon Grant Foster should be a contributor for an NCAA tournament team, or a star for a fringe bubble team. He barely played at KU, even though KU sorely needed a player like him (athletic guy that could defend multiple positions). I wouldn't be surprised if both Thompson and Grant-Foster have big years next season in a new uniform - seasons they likely would not have been able to have staying in crimson and blue.

I'm not saying Ochai will be Keith Langford. Langford was a better recruit, and had a much better collegiate career. But I think Ochai could be a 10 year Euroballer for some good teams, maybe win a championship, etc. He probably has a higher ceiling in Europe than he does in the NBA. He's a good enough player to be a starter (and possible star) in Europe right now with little change or improvement.

I mentioned Kawhi Leonard as career path comp for his NBA star scenario. Ochai isn't Kawhi, obviously, but if he were to become an NBA star, that would likely be the career trajectory that he would follow.

I mentioned Danny Green as a comp for the starter scenario. Danny Green is a very accomplished NBA player after 4 years at UNC and some GLeague time. If Ochai becomes an NBA starter, this is probably the career trajectory that he follows.

Same for the other guys. Those are rough comps, but those are the career trajectories that he likely follows if he gets to that level. The success level will vary, but those are the basic blueprints.

Ochai's best case at the next level is a 3 and D guy that maybe turns into a starter or star with more development.

5% scenario - star after a couple years as he develops his ball handling more and becomes a creator off the dribble. Think Kawhi Leonard.

10% scenario - starter as an impact defender, third or fourth scoring option that can sometimes get hot from three. Think Danny Green.

25% scenario - 3 and D wing off the bench. Think Derrick Jones, Jr. or PJ Dozier.

35% scenario - two way/ 10 day contract guy, followed by a long career overseas. Think Wayne Selden.

24% scenario - high level Euroballer. Think Keith Langford.

1% scenario - no pro ball.

@approxinfinity

Trae Young has a specific skillset that doesn't necessarily help his teammates develop even though he can make them better. Trae Young can stretch the defense in weird ways with his shooting, giving teammates more room to operate than normal. He also is a very talented passer, which, combined with how he bends and twists defenses with his range, makes for some abnormal situations for his teammates on the offensive end. And of course, Trae Young was a below average defender, which meant that his teammates had to manipulate the floor in certain ways on that end to cover for him sometimes.

Cunningham, on the other hand, is a very well rounded player. He's a good defender. He handles, shoots, rebounds and scores well. He can play on or off the ball. He can play inside or out on both ends. That means that teammates can play their normal role with him, as opposed to having to play the role best suited to play around Young, who was really an on ball player, and couldn't really play multiple positions because of his size.

So with Young, if you were a player that really needed to have the ball in your hands to develop, well, too bad, because Young needs the ball in his hands and he's better. Cunningham slides off ball and you keep rolling.

If you're a guy that needs someone to facilitate for you in order for you to play well, Cunningham takes over on ball and gets you the ball where you need it.

You're a big that needs interior space to operate. Cunningham can open up the floor. You're a wing player? Cunningham can slide in at the 4 and play a stretch role, or the high post against a zone. Young couldn't move into any of those roles because of his size. He was strictly a PG.

Basically, Cunningham could change his game to let his teammates do whatever they did best, so they were able to develop their game. Young couldn't because he didn't have the size to move around to different spots and take on different roles on either end of the floor.

@BigBad I watch more NBA than college, too, particularly this year.

The top of the draft is absolutely about talent. But guys that get signed as undrafted free agents are almost always signed because they have a specific fit with their skillset.

Take a guy like Seth Curry. He went to Duke and was undrafted after starting his college career at Liberty. He's been in the NBA for seven seasons now.

He's been able to stay in the NBA because he's an elite shooter/ball handler that understands defensive concepts enough to not get run off the floor.

He spent time in the G-League as well. But the big thing is that he developed after college by getting things to work on from pro coaches that ultimately have made him a solid guard off the bench.

That's likely Jalen Wilson's best hope. GLeague to NBA with the hope of being a rotation guy off the bench for a few years.

And it has worked out nicely for Seth Curry. He's made about $17M in his NBA career.

This sucks. Sorry to hear about your loss.

Stay safe everyone.

Feedback from pro scouts is different because individual teams can tell a player how they might fit in their system.

Golden State is heavy on off ball movement. Philly runs lots of post ups and isos. Portland does a lot of PnR. Denver operates with Jokic in the high post or the extended post. In each of those systems, Jalen's role would be different, so he will get different feedback from each team. Same on defense. Some teams switch everything. Some ice the PnR. Others trap it. Again, each of those roles requires different things, so the feedback is different, and specific in a way that college coaches just aren't going to be because they aren't on the inside of those systems to know what a team may envision someone like Jalen Wilson doing.

This is especially important for a guy like Jalen Wilson that is more likely to be undrafted than a high pick. This information may help him pick the best team to sign with if he does get a chance to break into the NBA in later years. Maybe he impresses a couple of scouts and that opens up the opportunity for him.

@mayjay

Dave McCormack played GREAT down the stretch. He was as good as he could have possibly been. He played well in most every game, and even came up huge against Eastern Washington in a game we likely lose if he doesn't play that well.

But again, that's the problem.

Big Dave played at or near the top of his game and this was a second round team because Big Dave was not a good fit with the rest of this team from a basketball perspective.

Big Dave needs to play with a really athletic power forward that can do the things that are not his strength - mainly rim protection and rebounding. A player like Jonathan Tchamwa Tchatchoua (or Silvio De Sousa) would have been a great compliment to Dave because they would have defended the best interior player from the other team, and provided the rebounding and rim protection necessary to be successful. Once De Sousa was out, KU did not have that anymore.

He also needs creative guys on the perimeter (think a guy like Frank Mason) that can drive and distribute to keep the floor opened up for him. Ideally, that guy is also a really strong defensive player so the other team's PG can't constantly put Big Dave into the PnR, where he struggles. Dajuan Harris could do some of that, but because he wasn't a scoring threat, it limited how effective he was.

And of course, Big Dave needed consistent shooters around him at all times. Other than Braun and Agbaji, this KU team did not have that at all.

So the ideal Big Dave lineup this year would have been McCormack, De Sousa, Braun, Agbaji and a better scoring version of Harris (or a more confident Thompson). You notice that Marcus Garrett and Jalen Wilson, arguably KU's other top players this year, are not on that list. And that's where the problems start.

To play Big Dave, you have to basically sit two of your other best three or four players. That's not sustainable. On the other hand, if you spread the floor and play small with Wilson at the 4 or 5 with a variety of guards around, you end up not really playing Big Dave (except with the above lineup, switching in Wilson for De Sousa and accepting that you are going to give up some rebounds), but the majority of the minutes you play very small.

As I said before, that may have gone horribly. I can clearly see the flaws and the potential to get destroyed defensively and on the glass.

But I can also see a bunch of lineups where teams can't figure out how to guard Wilson and Garrett at the 5 and 4. Garrett using his quickness and smarts to take advantage of slower bigs that play off him. Wilson dragging 5's out to the three point line. The other perimeter guys feasting on the open lane, getting drives and backcuts for layups and dunks, or open threes as defenders help when Wilson and Garrett drive.

I can see a scrappy, trapping defense that can switch more or less anything, forcing just enough turnovers and rebounding just enough to create opportunities and keep teams from grinding them in the paint.

Could that type of team make a deep run in the tournament? Yes. Could that type of team miss the tournament entirely? Also yes.

But this is Kansas. We don't hang banners and hold parades just for making the tournament.

@Fightsongwriter said in Does Baylor's title make Self hungrier?:

In the same amount of time (18 years), Self and Drew have the exact same number of NCs. Think about that. And Self inherited a Rolls Royce. Drew inherited an exploded Pinto.

Drew inherited a flat tire. Seven scholarship players in his first year. Huge scandal. No upside at all.

@FarmerJayhawk said in Bears v. Dogs:

Was texting one of my best friends who is wicked smart about hoops this exact thing. This is the optimal way to build a college basketball team. 🐦 View Tweet?s=21

I’m not friends with Bill James but I would really like to be lmao

The best way to build a college basketball team is always three ballhandlers, two shooters, one post scorer and three athletic interior guys.

Three ballhandlers gives you three guys that can create shots for themselves or others at any time.

Two shooters allows you to space the floor around your ballhandlers for spot up looks to punish a collapsing defense.

One post up guy gives you an interior player that you can run plays for out of timeouts, or when you need to slow things down.

Three athletic bigs eliminate the risk of foul trouble because those guys are interchangeable and can always defend and rebound, regardless of which combination is on the floor.

As Baylor demonstrated, you can get away with not having the post up big if you have enough creators on the perimeter. Baylor actually had four this year (Mitchell, Butler, Teague and Flagler). That made a huge difference with being able to always draw the defense for a lob to a lurking big man inside.

But more than that, the most important thing is to have at least three NBA caliber players on the roster. Mitchell and Butler are sure things, and it wouldn't surprise me to see one of those big guys make it as well. I could see Flagler or Teague also get a shot in the NBA.

The biggest takeaway from last night, though, is that Gonzaga still needs more NBA caliber talent to win a national title. Timme looked overwhelmed at times. Only Kispert and Suggs didn't seem rattled at any point. Ayayi was a nonfactor. Nembhard disappeared. They got very little from their bench.

I thought the Zags had three or four NBA caliber guys. Turns out they may have only had two. And that's why they lost.

@Texas-Hawk-10 said in So- with all these players coming and going, what is next years team gonna look like?:

That post isn't to say that Dave is better than everyone else on that list because he isn't. In a vacuum, the players that I believe Dave is better than, or at least equal to, are Darnell Jackson, Landen Lucas, Cheick Diallo, Jamari Traylor, Sasha Kaun and Chenowith. Those players also had far better supporting casts than Dave has and none of those players were tasked with being the go-to player on their team the way Dave was.

I agree with your general assessment. So the question is "Why did Self try to make Dave the focal point of the offense?"

This isn't to start a campaign against Bill Self or anything silly like that. But in all honesty (and I agree with @Texas-Hawk-10 here) if Big Dave is more equivalent to Lucas/Jackson/Kaun then why did we force feed the post in the second half of the season?

I knew that if Big Dave was our main guy offensively we would be a Round of 32 team. Going small was our best chance to get deep into the tournament.

That has always been my largest criticism of Self. Self wants the highest possible floor for every team. He doesn't want to go 9-17 or 16-12 or whatever, even if that means artificially capping the potential of certain teams.

KU's best advantages this year were always playing small with Wilson at the 4 or the 5. They were also at an advantage when they could play with Garrett or Harris and at least three shooters to offset the lack of perimeter shooting from those two guys. And of course, Harris needed to play with four other offensive threats to be sure not to stagnate the offense. That was fairly clear after a handful of games.

Now, if KU does that, I readily admit that it could have all gone very wrong. They probably have a few games where they get smashed on the glass, can't get stops and ultimately lose by 10-15 points. They went 21-9 this year. I could easily see them losing 4-5 more games if this lineup doesn't work because playing that small that much makes them vulnerable. That's a given, and Bill Self doesn't want to be that vulnerable every night.

But that was the only lineup that would have also given KU any chance of a deep run in this year's NCAA tournament. So the choice was, essentially, risk a 15 loss season for a chance to get to the Elite Eight or Final Four, or guarantee a 20 win season that won't make it out of the first weekend.

@Texas-Hawk-10 said in Bill Self Emperor of Kansas:

@justanotherfan Duke has solid history pre Coach K with multiple Final Fours and title game appearances so Coach K didn't exactly build that program from scratch. Duke played in the title game in 1978 which was only 2 years before Coach K arrived.

Duke reached the Final Four in 1963, 1964, 1966, and 1978 including the 1964 and 1978 title games. So much like UCLA, their history is more than one coach.

Agreed. The only thing that separates UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, etc. from most programs is that they have all succeeded more or less regardless of who has been the coach. Duke has really only had three successful coaches - Vic Bubas (led them to those first three final fours), Bill Foster (1978 final four), and Coach K. If the person after Coach K keeps up this level of success, then they are on the level with KU, UK, UCLA and UNC.

Kentucky has Rupp, but also Hall, Pitino, Smith and Calipari with titles.

UNC has Dean Smith, but Williams has three titles, Frank McGuire won their first title, and Bill Guthridge went to a Final Four.

Kansas has three titles, each by a different coach, plus final fours from other coaches as well.

It doesn't matter who has coached at those places - they succeed or are replaced (insert jokes about Billy Gillespie here).

Every KU coach since Phog Allen has been to a Final Four. Every single one. Every UNC coach since the 50's has as well, except Matt Doherty.

Same for every UK coach except Eddie Sutton and the aforementioned Gillespie.

I detailed UCLA above.

Add one more coach to Duke's history, and they have a similar story. Duke is close. They just need one more coach with that success rate.

If this is based purely off production at KU, my starters are Frank Mason, Ben McLemore, Josh Jackson, Marcus Morris and Markieff Morris, with a bench of Devonte Graham, Thomas Robinson, Udoka Azuibuke, Perry Ellis and Tyshawn Taylor.

I like the ability to mix and match lineups here. Could go super small with Perry Ellis at the 5, Jackson at the 4, McLemore at the 3, and Graham and Mason in the backcourt, or go HUGE with Azuibuke, the Morris twins, Jackson and Taylor. I can space the floor from all five positions, or play four shooters around Doke. I can play Robinson and Ellis together and not compromise my rebounding. I can suffocate defensively with Mason, Graham and Jackson on the perimeter. Just a ton of flexibility here.

UCLA had the bulk of their championships under Wooden, so I agree with you on that, @tundrahok.

But here's the crazy thing about UCLA. Since Wooden retired in 1974, they have had the following coaches:

Gene Bartow coached for two years and took them to one Final Four in 1976.

Gary Cunningham coached the next two seasons - UCLA finished both of those campaigns ranked second in the country.

Larry Brown was next, leading the program from 1979-1981. He took the Bruins to a title game (later vacated).

Larry Farmer and Walt Hazard were next, and were both legitimately average, winning about 70% of their games overall.

Jim Harrick coached UCLA from 1988 to 1996. He led the Bruins to their only other title in 1995.

Steve Lavin followed Harrick and had some good teams, advancing to the Sweet Sixteen in five of six seasons. His teams were never great though. They didn't ever make a Final Four or really even challenge for a national title.

Ben Howland did what Lavin could not, taking UCLA to three consecutive Final Fours, but again, no titles.

Steve Alford was next in Westwood. He was okay, but never great and did not reach the Final Four.

And now they have Mick Cronin, who has taken them to a Final Four in his second season.

That's ten coaches since Wooden - half have taken UCLA to the Final Four, and only Farmer, Hazard and Alford really weren't very good.

UCLA's history is much more than Wooden. It's just hard to make your mark on a program that has 10 banners hung by one man.

Best jobs in the NCAA, ranked:

1. North Carolina - blends history, results, recent success with having a very nice recruiting base nearby, plus the $$$ from Jordan Brand.

2. UCLA - has the history and a very fertile recruiting ground. The only downside is being on the west coast, but that gives them a lot of advantages.

3. Tie between Kansas and Kentucky. Both are great jobs, but neither has the recruiting ground. UK slightly better recruiting area, KU slightly better recently.

4. Indiana - a blend of KU and Kentucky, with better recruiting area than both.

Duke is a great brand, but is almost completely tied to Coach K. We don't know if that's a great job, or if its just Coach K.

@BeddieKU23 said in NBA Draft Entrants:

@FarmerJayhawk

The young supporting cast might return though. Anderson was becoming a dude

Cunningham helped several of those guys develop by taking the pressure off them this year with his talent. OSU may have taken two steps forward even by having him for one year.

I am concerned about next year, to be honest. I think we are going in the wrong direction.

Jalen Wilson is most effective as a stretch 4 or a small ball 5, where he can use his quickness and ball handling against slower, bigger guys. When Self went away from that, Wilson's production fell. Moving him to the 3 would eliminate his MUA and he would be an average or so player at that spot.

KU needs more athleticism on the perimeter, not less. They need more versatility. I don't see that right now coming in. That's going to make next season very similar to this one. Maybe we have to go through these two seasons to clear out some of this, but I don't see things improving from this year right now.

@drgnslayr said in Gonzaga:

@nuleafjhawk

That would be me. I remember the old days... when Larry Bird was mocked for being athletically inferior.

The point isn't to say athleticism is a negative. It's obviously a great asset. But without basketball IQ athleticism is squandered. When you have a player that marries IQ and athleticism... hello NBA!

Bird was a really good athlete (until his back gave out). If you watch his early years (basically through 1987) Bird was very quick for his size and also quite agile. He didn't have the straight line speed, but he wasn't slow.

Now, compared to someone like Dominique Wilkins or Julius Erving, Bird appeared to be athletically inferior, but you are talking about two of the all time great pure athletes in NBA history. The "Bird wasn't a good athlete" talk is a myth that is reinforced by his later years, when his back really sapped his quickness and agility.

Taking this back to Gonzaga, of the guys on this team, I think only Suggs is a likely NBA starter. The others are strong bench guys. But I think Gonzaga puts 4-6 guys off this squad into the League.

I think this is a good deal for both parties. Ends the rumors on both sides. Gives recruits some clarity. Settles some of the chaos around the athletic department. Its a win-win-win.

I am critical of Self from time to time, but I also realize something very simple - there's not a better coach for KU out there right now. So while I may criticize, I am NOT on the fire Bill Self trail. That's just stupid. If KU were to fire him, we would have to hope we did as well with the next hire.

This Gonzaga team has four sure thing NBA guys (Suggs, Timme, Nembhard, Kispert) and several others that could eventually make it to the NBA. Probably not 9, but I could see five or six.

But Baylor has three or four future NBA guys as well (Butler and Mitchell seem safe, Vital, Teague and Tchamwa Tchatchoua have very solid chances). I could see a national title game with seven or eight future NBA guys.

@wissox said in Bill Self and who he's lost to.:

@justanotherfan I agree to a point except Doke was hurt against Auburn and our offense suffered. Still not sure we'd beat them but we don't know. This year wasn't our best year but Covid stole our momentum big time. Villanova in 2018, I'll take your word for it since you are not just another fan, your a fan who knows his stuff.

But there's 2020. I really believe that team would have won the championship. They were on a roll. 6 more games is all it took. So if it happens then this year we're singing a different tune?

This conversation is definitely different with a 2020 Final Four, which I think was likely.

I don't think KU should be looking for a new coach, but I do think Self needs to adjust. The game is changing. If Self doesn't adapt, we are in trouble.

Self started at KU in the 2003-04 season. At that time, the lineup he played had a PG that was a below average shooter (Miles), a midrange specialist (Langford), an athletic 3 and D guy (Giddens), a post up 4 (Simien) and an intimidating big man (Graves). That lineup was perfect for that time. That lineup is not an Elite Eight/Final Four lineup today.

Playing only one three point shooter in a lineup now would crush spacing and kill an offense - and that KU offense was elite at the time.

KU has to change. We just have to. There is no way to win with the types of teams that we played when Self first arrived. The only teams Self has had in the first ten years at KU that would be good now are the 2008 champs (just so overwhelmingly talented up and down the lineup) and the 2007 group (equally as talented, and could have challenged for the title that year had they been healthy).

The 2011 group would have run into the same types of problems they ran into then - not enough perimeter talent without Selby. 2012 team didn't have the depth and shooting. Every other team would have been felled by the same issues they had at that time.

Self has to adjust. He has to get more ballhandlers, more creators and more versatile big men. If he doesn't, we are either going to have to be so overwhelmingly talented that it doesn't matter, or we will finish our season the same way (double digit loss) more often than not.

A lot of the earlier tournament losses didn't bother me. The last couple have. Here's why.

I knew going into each of the last three losses (Villanova in '18, Auburn in '19 and USC this year) that KU was going to lose that game. I wasn't even mad at the team afterwards. I knew it would happen, and that's what bothers me.

Self has consistently put a lid on the success of the last few teams.

We knew Doke could not get out and defend against Villanova in '18. Self sat there and watched us get obliterated. We never had a chance. Lost by 16, but trailed by more than 25 at one point.

We knew Auburn had all of that speed and athleticism. We didn't adjust. Auburn led by 26 at the half. The final score is irrelevant when you are getting run like that.

This year, same general result. Another blowout loss to end the season against a team with mobile, athletic big men. I am starting to see a pattern.

Bill Self still wants to play with a more traditional style of lineup. Even Eastern Washington exploited us with their stretch bigs. USC was a more athletic version of that and they just destroyed us.

That's three straight blowout losses to end the season, and there have been ZERO adjustments. I'm not saying that Self should be fired, but we keep doing the same thing and, wouldn't you know, getting the same results. That's not on the players.

I'm glad TGF is transferring because its what is best for him. I wouldn't be surprised if he's starting for a good team when he's eligible, whether that's next season or the following year.

On a side note, I always imagined that Quentin Grimes would be the leading scorer on a team heading to the Elite Eight.

This one is easy to understand from the player perspective. Harder from the coaching perspective.

Looking at Burnett's game log, his minutes were all over the place. Here's his minutes in order by game on the season. 19, 20, 9, 19, 15, 30, 18, 21, 15, 18, 22, 6. That's a player that has no idea what his role is supposed to be. That is an impossible way to develop as a freshman.

From the coaching side of things, maybe they saw something in practice. Hard to say. But either way, its a bad look. Either Beard misread his talent, or mismanaged him.

There have been a lot of doctors saying we are better off giving 1 dose to lots of people (about 80% effective) than giving two doses to half as many people. Having 80ish-M people 95% immunized isn't as good as 150m+ 80% immune. 150M can effectively cut off spread in a lot of communities and might save 100k+ lives in the interim.

@drgnslayr said in This is a Second round team if they keep playing McCormick:

I think I've been perhaps one of the most critical people commenting on Big Mac. And I really love this guy! He totally brings the right attitude.

But his limitations are well known by everyone we play. His lateral dexterity is awful. He's a guy that can be taken off the drive by another big guy from the top of the key. So that means... any big can drive or shoot on him facing the basket as well as nail him down low on back to the basket moves. He is part of what keeps us from being a fast team.

I think the spots at the 4 and 5 are still hard to decide and should be made based on upcoming opponent for now.

So if we do go without a real 5 we need to adjust offense and defense to best take advantage of it. We still need ball screens and other tactics used with a real big man. Most of that is an attempt to get the ball handler an advantage by being defended by a big anyways.

The real key to our offense is keeping the ball moving, proper spacing, and plenty of motion (off-ball and driving). This isn't rocket science.

If we don't bring energy to a game we will probably lose. Texas proved that.

Having said that... we still need to have a valid big man this season. How do you keep him able to contribute if he rides the bench most of the game. It's a real dilemma... one that I know Self thinks about.

I think the biggest structural issue with this team is keeping Marcus at point. After he recoups from this injury he needs to be rewarded by putting him back at the 2. Tell him to mentally flush most of the crap he has had to deal with all year at point. Bring back the old Marcus! And though he can play at bigger positions.. his natural position is the 2, and he has already proven he can be National Defensive Player Of The Year at the 2.

Braun and Ochi have been good, but a bit inconsistent. See how it works to rotate them in, maybe also in the three-man rotation with Marcus, so he gets well-rested.

I honestly like Big Dave. I think he's a good player. Unfortunately, he needs to play in a more traditional lineup to be most effective and this team cannot play a traditional lineup and still have their best 7 players playing consistently.

Big Dave was the guy that was hurt the most with Silvio being out this year. If Silvio is still on this roster, we can play him and Big Dave together with a more traditional look, with Mitch backing them up. That team looks a lot different and can play a completely different style than this one can.

Big Dave just isn't the type of player that is a 4 out center. He's not a big time shotblocker or power post presence. He's an effective passer, but he's more of a face and shoot big than a power on the block player. That's what makes him effective with another big on the floor. But that's not this roster.

Trying to force the rest of the roster around him is a bad fit when you have a roster full of guys (Garrett, Agbaji, Braun, Wilson, Thompson, Harris, TGF, Enaruna) that actually do fit together well as cohesive units. It's not that Mitch and Big Dave are bad players. They just don't fit with what this roster can potentially do best. The eight man rotation I noted above is effective together in any mix of units. Trying to replace any of those guys with Big Dave or Mitch just doesn't work.

@KirkIsMyHinrich

And then this afternoon happened...

This KU team has to lean into small ball as its primary style of play. That means maybe only 10-12 minutes per game from Big Dave, and basically no time for Lightfoot and others. That's just how it is going to be this year, unfortunately for those guys.

This team is just not a great fit for those guys. That's not their fault, or anything against them as players. They just don't fit into what KU can do best right now.

KU has to play 5 out to maximize the potential of this team.

@BShark said in Chasing the Steelers:

!alt text ↗

Holy shit

At first I couldn't find the Chiefs on the chart and wondered where they were, then...

I think it's pretty smooth.

I just don't see a way to get every single game in. Hopefully everyone gets to 15 or so games, but even that might be a stretch if teams have to pause for longer than the bare minimum of days. The max number of games any team can play during a week would be three - Monday, Wednesday or Thursday, Saturday. The max for any two week period is probably five (a Mon/Thur/Sat followed by a Wed/Sat). That means if more than a couple of games get skipped, there's not enough time to squeeze in make up games.

The champion will probably revert to the highest winning percentage, provided every team has played a minimum number of games (maybe 12?), but that is for people more important than me to figure out.

@Texas-Hawk-10 said in Coaching Carousel:

@COHawk said in Coaching Carousel:

@FarmerJayhawk True, but too often a player is overlooked simply because of size. Not overlooking legions of undersized guys; just saying that size doesn't mean everything when it comes to recruiting. There are some small guys in pro sports doing quite well after doing well at the collegiate level.

Todd Reesing checked pretty much every box other than heighth when looking at a QB. If he was even 6-0 or 6-1, he probably would've been a 4 QB and competing with Colt McCoy at Texas instead of coming to KU. If he was 6-3 or taller, decent chance he could've been a 5 or very high end 4* player.

I liked Reesing, but his height wasn't the only thing that held him back. He also did not have great arm strength. He was top notch on decision making and was very mobile, along with being accurate, but his size and arm strength is what had a lot of recruiting services down on him. Even if he were taller, he probably would not have been a 4* because of that, unless he was a better runner that could have made him a higher rated dual threat.

If KU is to turn this around, the key is to convince everyone that this is going to be a 3-5 year process. We aren't going to attract the type of talent necessary to turn things around in a single year. A Cam Newton type isn't walking in to just fix 80% of the flaws on one side of the ball just by showing up in town. So we have to solve those problems recruit by recruit. That takes time. That takes development. And that takes patience.

I would anticipate that not everyone is going to play the full 18, so that's a starting point.

I would also anticipate that at least one or two games will have teams missing a key player. I think 13 wins probably gets it done, but that doesn't mean 5 losses. Probably more like 13-3 or 13-4.

Every now and then, I have a debate with my friends about when they would turn off the TV if our favorite team is behind, whether its KU, the Royals, the Chiefs, etc.

2015 Royals - when the other team squeezes the last out.

2019 Royals - down 2 or more after the 6th inning.

2016-17 KU Basketball - down 12 or more with less than 3 minutes to go.

2019-20 KU Basketball - down 7 or more with less than 3 minutes to go.

The differences, of course, depend on the style of the teams. Yeah, the 2019-20 KU team was the favorite to win the title, but they weren't built to score points in bunches very quickly.

All that to say when we discussed the Mahomes Chiefs, we settled on down 20 with less than 6 minutes to go, and the other team has the ball, with the Chiefs having only one timeout left. We argued about it quite a bit. It was a fun debate. But given what Mahomes has done and how quickly this team can score, anything less than three scores just isn't that scary.

Two TDs down? Chiefs can tie that game in less than five minutes.

Down 24 after a quarter? No sweat, they can hang a 50 spot.

Need a TD with less than 2 minutes left? Mahomes and Co. only needed 75 seconds against the Raiders.

Being behind is more of an inconvenience than an actual threat.

And for the record, even if Mahomes and Co. were down by 20 with 5:30 on the clock, I'm still not sure I'm turning off the TV, just in case.

Cuffe absolutely explodes off the floor. I had to check his height again to be sure he was really just 6-2.

His jumper is a bit deliberate right now. He needs a lot of reps to clean it up, but as @jayballer67 said, it isn't broken by any means. I would say Cuffe looks like a bigger, more athletic version of Frank Mason. Frank's shot wasn't broken coming out of HS. It just needed some work. Same here, but with the added bonus that Cuffe is bigger and more athletic, so can lean on some of those skills on either end. I don't know if he will progress like Frank did (that would be a dream), but I could see him being a Day One starter at the point.

Agbaji is a very solid player. I have not necessarily been on board with him being a potential NBA player. I think he's a four year guy with a chance to stick after a stop in the GLeague. But that's not a criticism. That means he's a very good college player as a floor. He's probably not a star, but you could win a national title with him as your second or third best player. In a lot of ways, that's what made last year's team so dangerous. Agbaji wasn't under pressure to be the top dog (or even the second guy). He's just really solid.

With few or no fans, home court advantage means nothing, so there's less of an intimidation/momentum factor for home teams. We could see some really weird results.

Also, with guys maybe missing practices/games for COVID reasons, you never know who is unavailable.

Put all of that together and you have a really unpredictable season. I think midmajors could make some noise.

Weber is not a strong recruiter and he has a tendency to alienate some of his best players at times. That was his problem at Illinois. That is his problem now. He can have great years, but cannot sustain that because he will have lulls in recruiting and lose guys to transfer. It's a vicious cycle. He was in a similar position a few years ago before Dean Wade and Barry Brown basically saved his job. He will need something similar next season, but I don't see that type of talent on the roster now (guys likely to break out) or coming in via recruiting.

In a normal environment, I would guess KU finds a way to win this game by 7. But with COVID and all of the changes in protocol, you can't be sure what a team will look like in any given situation. Creighton may show up not ready to play, or absolutely ready to go, or somewhere in between. I have watched several games where it looked like one team slept through a half of basketball. I don't know if its the smaller crowds (or no crowds at all). KU may show up ready. They may not.

Individual players may not be 100% focused if there are family situations, especially in a COVID world where you could find out bad news at any moment.

@Kcmatt7 said in After 5 games- Discussion:

@justanotherfan I'd like to see Braun be the ball handler at the end... We saw Garrett against NDSU and it was not pretty. Was hard watching him get blocked like that over and over and over.

I keep wondering if Garrett is 100%. I still don't think so, despite what tests and coaches are saying.

@jayballer67 said in How long ? -- - How long till it gets called:

@Crimsonorblue22 said in How long ? -- - How long till it gets called:

There is no vaccine for kids yet.

and that's sad

They have not done a vaccine trial for children. It is possible that the current vaccine(s) could work for kids (all three, or any of the three). They just haven't been tested yet.

Under normal circumstances, that would have been part of the testing trials, but since they are working to get this out ASAP, they have worked to clear it for adults immediately, then work on the issue with kids, which seems smart because you can start distributing vaccines now rather than running a U18 trial and delaying the release of the vaccine.

This team is probably better offensively, defensively and on the glass with Wilson, Braun, TGF, Agbaji and Garrett on the floor than with McCormack or another traditional big. If I am Self, that's the lineup I am hoping can eventually be my main 5 to close games with. Switch everything defensively, swarm and trap, whoever rebounds pushes and everyone else run and spot up, with Garrett acting as a cutter or working from the dunker's spot on the baseline.

I would probably be shooting for a starting 5 of Harris-Agbaji-Garrett-Braun-Wilson. This team needs Harris' steady hand to start the game. Probably finish with that group, but switch TGF for Garrett eventually for shooting purposes.

At this point in the season, who are the best players on this team?

Wilson has been the top player. Agbaji and Braun have probably been the best two after him. Harris makes this team work with his distribution skills. Garrett is still the top defensive player on a variety of guys even with his health issues.

And then... Thompson has had some flashes, but almost needs to play exclusively with Harris on the floor to get him comfortable. TGF is starting to get his explosiveness back. He may have passed Enaruna and McCormack.

Either way, this team is best with 5 perimeter players on the floor. McCormack is probably only good for about 15 mpg. KU may have to stagger Harris and Garrett's minutes quite a bit, or play Garrett as a nominal 4 man on offense, running the baseline. Right now, the pieces to this puzzle just don't fit very well.

But players, given their age and health, will be among the last to get vaccinated. College students overall will be among the last to get the vaccine since older adults, health workers and those at higher risk will be among the first to receive the vaccine. That makes it hard for the vaccine to really benefit sports unless they allow athletes to move up the line.

The only problem with that is that we don't have a lot of doses to go around initially, so it doesn't make sense to prioritize lower risk populations.

@Marco said in Eventually:

@AsadZ Who could argue with that? But to @justanotherfan 's point, how old would Wright be then?

I think Wright is actually older than Self. I know they are about the same age, so even if he's younger, it's not by much.

The idea of Aaron Miles from @Crimsonorblue22 isn't bad. He's in the right age category, not too much older than Case. My only hesitation is that Miles seems to be on a pro coaching path rather than college.