Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:03 pm**

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:44 pm So in other words you have no idea who Howard has recruited yet you wonder if he has a bad judge of character. Got it.

Basically.

I wonder if he's worthy of being an assistant coach at Kansas. He's no Dooley or Jank....shouldn't we be staffing up those types of guys?

Is he good in the film room? Maybe he's a special basketball mind and I'm unaware....or maybe he's an overpaid hype man who isn't bringing enough to the team?

Maybe I'm just an asshole who is mad about our team and staff as a whole this year.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:12 pm**

Snacks is certainly number 3 in the pecking order, but he's an ace recruiter whose commit resume can go up against anyone's.

He's not Jank or Dooley and that is by design. Norm gives us what those guys gave us. When Dooley left, Self wanted a recruiting ace and Snacks was as good of a candidate as it gets. Neither Jank nor Dooley ever had Howard's recruiting chops.

Again, we're not getting outworked in the film room or on the chalkboard. Our personnel got shredded this year, end of story.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:26 pm**

If we have Dok, Silvio, Vick and we are having an entirely different conversation right now.

This is life. All things come to an end. Enjoy the rest of the season everyone while it’s here, the Off-season is coming...

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:44 pm**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:12 pm
holidaysmore wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:54 pm
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:30 pm I think Norm Roberts has value.

I think KT has value, but I'm not sure it's the kind of value we need under the watchful eye of the NCAA moving forward.

I am not sure what value Snacks brings to the team. What's he elite at as a coach? Is he the next Jank/Dooley/Danny? If not, is he as good as we can get for his position?
Is Snacks considered the ‘young’ recruiting coach? The coach that can connect with the recruits?
I guess? But maybe he's not always the best judge of character?

Anybody know which big name he's landed us?

Gassnola

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:32 pm**

If we lose tomorrow and the conf title is all but gone, I hope the crowd does one hell of a rock chalk chant in appreciation of what we have all witnessed.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:51 pm**

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:51 pm
cjbooth38 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:08 pm
PhDhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:28 pm
This is right.

You take away the 3 or so crazy ones and they still woulda beat us by 20. They normally shoot 37% from Three. They were 16 of 26. Had they shot their normal percentage they'd have gone 10/26 from downtown. Remove those 6 made threes and they still beat us by double digits. We didn't just loose because they made a couple lucky ones.
I understand what you're saying and agree. However, first, TT shot 35% from three before this game - that would be 9 threes made by them if they hit their average. By your logic, we would've lost by 8 if they met their average from three. However, that's not taking into account that we would've received 7 extra possessions (16 - 9 = 7) if we got every defensive rebound. That would put us close to even depending on how many threes we hit with those extra possessions. Look, I'm not saying this to say we should've won or that it should've been closer - I actually agreed with what you said. Just wanted to provide my input on how ridiculously well they played.
We weren't playing make it take it.

And we weren't rebounding for shit.

I don't understand how cj comes up with us getting extra possessions from missed shots. Actually they would maybe get more possessions, ie. O boards, and that would reduce our number of possessions.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:52 pm**

Gqcolorado wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:32 pm If we lose tomorrow and the conf title is all but gone, I hope the crowd does one hell of a rock chalk chant in appreciation of what we have all witnessed.

Save it for the last game.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:39 am**

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:28 pm
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:00 pm
kubandalum wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:05 pm They shot 62% from three. Tech is really good, but not THAT good. It was a fluke. Who can beat that? Flukes happen, like 150-95.
No team shoots 62% from 3pt land for a large sample size.

But flukes happen when you let them shoot a lot of open 3s in perfect rythm. Then when they bank a couple garbage shots in it really gets magnified in the %.
This is right.

You take away the 3 or so crazy ones and they still woulda beat us by 20. They normally shoot 37% from Three. They were 16 of 26. Had they shot their normal percentage they'd have gone 10/26 from downtown. Remove those 6 made threes and they still beat us by double digits. We didn't just loose because they made a couple lucky ones.

Had they shot their normal percentage they would have never attempted 26 threes. Texas Tech averaged 6.8 made threes a game prior to Saturday. They made 16. That's a 27 point swing.

They took way more threes Saturday than they normally take because they were red hot. If they were shooting their average, they would have gone about 6 or 7 of 19 instead of 16 of 26.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:41 am**

Gqcolorado wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:32 pm If we lose tomorrow and the conf title is all but gone, I hope the crowd does one hell of a rock chalk chant in appreciation of what we have all witnessed.

At least the half of the crowd that didn't exit early to get home 10 minutes quicker.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:01 am**

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:39 am
PhDhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:28 pm
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:00 pm

No team shoots 62% from 3pt land for a large sample size.

But flukes happen when you let them shoot a lot of open 3s in perfect rythm. Then when they bank a couple garbage shots in it really gets magnified in the %.
This is right.

You take away the 3 or so crazy ones and they still woulda beat us by 20. They normally shoot 37% from Three. They were 16 of 26. Had they shot their normal percentage they'd have gone 10/26 from downtown. Remove those 6 made threes and they still beat us by double digits. We didn't just loose because they made a couple lucky ones.
They took way more threes Saturday than they normally take because they were red hot. If they were shooting their average, they would have gone about 6 or 7 of 19 instead of 16 of 26.

Had they shot their normal percentage they would have never attempted 26 threes. Texas Tech averaged 6.8 made threes a game prior to Saturday. They made 16. That's a 27 point swing.

The point is they outplayed us in multiple ways, it wasn't like they ONLY got hot shooting.

They outrebounded us, they had fewer turnovers, more assists, they extended their lead in the second half, had more second chance points, more points in the paint, more fast break points.

If they had attempted fewer threes, they would have attempted more 2's, where they shoot 53%. So it would have been substantially less than a 27 point swing.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:06 am**

I can't understand why people think we lost because they got hot shooting. We lost because they killed us in every aspect of the sport of basketball....we lost by 30pts.

They shot 26 3s because about 18 of them were wide fucking open....and of the 16 they made, only 3 were "lucky" prayers/bank shots.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:26 am**

Some of them were tough 3's, not just the 3 prayers.
They hit their shots.
We had 20 points in the first half.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:32 am**

Guess we shouldn't bash Tony Bennett for their offensive output....we aren't much better.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:40 am**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:32 am Guess we shouldn't bash Tony Bennett for their offensive output....we aren't much better.

The difference is they play that way on purpose.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:45 am**

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:40 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:32 am Guess we shouldn't bash Tony Bennett for their offensive output....we aren't much better.
The difference is they play that way on purpose.

I know. Self did similar when he was at Illinois.

I think Bennett would evolve if he had access to the types of recruits he'd be able to get at a place like Kansas.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:51 am**

I know you had already forgotten but Bennett lost to a 16 seed for the first time ever in the tournament.
They scored 54 points against them in that game ( against a sub 100 defense ).
He's made it to the 2nd weekend twice in his ten years at Virginia and has never made a Final Four.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:55 am**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:45 am
PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:40 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:32 am Guess we shouldn't bash Tony Bennett for their offensive output....we aren't much better.
The difference is they play that way on purpose.
I know. Self did similar when he was at Illinois.

I think Bennett would evolve if he had access to the types of recruits he'd be able to get at a place like Kansas.

Average tempo Virginia 2018-19: 351st.
Average tempo Illinois 2002-03: 127th.
So, not really.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:19 am**

You also just likely picked the fastest tempo team Illinois had with Self, but whatever. We know you're a cherry picker when it comes to stats.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:24 am**

It was a joke. Don't blow a gasket.

Kansas is averaging 76.4pts per game.

Virginia is averaging 71.5pts per game.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:25 am**

I picked his last year at Illinois.
I picked Bennett's last year at UVA.
Bennett's tempo has gotten progressively slower since he's been at UVA.

His Virginia team has never been above 316th ( his first year ) and has averaged a tempo around 340.
Self's teams never went below 160.
Last year's Kansas team was 144th which is around his years at Illinois.

You lost this argument so it's time to shift the goal posts.*

*Ah, I see we already have - it was a joke, don't blow a gasket. OK. Good joke.

Kansas Crimson

Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!

Re: Race to 15!