KU ***** Official 2018-2019 Kansas Basketball Repository Thread ***** - Page 154

These Auburn players are talented

Attached: 3EC4B99D-50A6-44A8-9113-3FA4316F9A75.jpg (78.8 KB)

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Snore. We are vs the following, per sagarin

1) Villanova -11.5
2) Villanova +1
3) Villanova + 6
4) Villanova +2.5

Cumulatively that�s low odds to win all 4, but individually? Each is possible, not shocking at all.

FYP
[Reply]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
These Auburn players are talented

:-)
[Reply]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
It goes without saying, but this is a difficult draw. The Midwest regional location only matters if you get there and there's a less than 50/50 chance that Kansas does. To start, Northeastern is one of the most efficient shooting team in the country (5th in effective field goal percentage). More crucially for our purposes, they both take and make a ton of threes. 46.3% of their shot attempts come from behind the arc (22nd in the country) and they make them at a 38.8% clip (14th in the country). As some have been fond of pointing out, this KU team struggles to guard the three (not so much percentage wise but they allow teams to shoot 41.4% of their shots from there which is well below average). Northeastern also play a four guard lineup, which has proven to be the death of Self teams several times in the past and will likely require an adjustment in our own lineup (Dotson/Grimes/Agbaji/Garrett/Lawson). In sum, these guys are basically Villanova-lite and we will need them to miss a lot more shots than they generally make to survive even to Saturday.

[Reply]

Originally Posted by BWillie:
Call me crazy, I actually like Braun and McBride. I think Braun is sneaky and underrated, because well, he's a white Kansas kid who looks like a paperboy. McBride is a great shooter and scorer, but undersized.

I think both are going to be great players. We need to be making our living in the 50-20 recruiting rankings range. OAD players are extremely overrated in terms of collegiate value IMO. Zion is a once in a generational player, even if you get the #1 guy there is no guarantee. Wiggins was nice, but I'd take Frank Mason or Devonte Graham 4 years over Wiggins ANY day. Selby was a complete bomb and some services had him #1 as well.

I might take Mason over a OAD Wiggins. But I would take OAD Embiid over Mason. If Embiid's health had held up a little longer KU could have won it all.
[Reply]

Did we lose yet?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
I might take Mason over a OAD Wiggins. But I would take OAD Embiid over Mason. If Embiid's health had held up a little longer KU could have won it all.

Just Baffling. Embiid was good player in his one year of college, but he wasnt even as good as the best years of Aldrich, Simien, Withey, or Thomas Robinson.

Id take 4 years lf Frank Mason over virtually any 1 year player. Gives you the best chance at sustained excellence. Id take 4 years of Graham over Josh Jackson. No hesitation. I don't see how its even close.

Of course you can't pick and choose but the flop rate of a OAD recruit and the fact you get them for one year are all huge detriments. OADs are highly overrated for COLLEGIATE value akin to dinosaur baseball thinking in terms of only looking at batting avg and rbis.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by BWillie:
Just Baffling. Embiid was good player in his one year of college, but he wasnt even as good as the best years of Aldrich, Simien, Withey, or Thomas Robinson.

Id take 4 years lf Frank Mason over virtually any 1 year player. Gives you the best chance at sustained excellence. Id take 4 years of Graham over Josh Jackson. No hesitation. I don't see how its even close.

Of course you can't pick and choose but the flop rate of a OAD recruit and the fact you get them for one year are all huge detriments. OADs are highly overrated for COLLEGIATE value akin to dinosaur baseball thinking in terms of only looking at batting avg and rbis.

Embid progressed throughout the year to be a majorly impactful player, better than most, if not all of those guys you mentioned. I would take him (when healthy) over just about every one of those. Look, I get your point about one and done players. And I, too, am sick of it. It's hit and miss and it really is making college hoops worse, IMO. But I think you forgot just how good Embid was. I would also take the KU Josh Jackson over Graham.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by BWillie:
Just Baffling. Embiid was good player in his one year of college, but he wasnt even as good as the best years of Aldrich, Simien, Withey, or Thomas Robinson.

Id take 4 years lf Frank Mason over virtually any 1 year player. Gives you the best chance at sustained excellence. Id take 4 years of Graham over Josh Jackson. No hesitation. I don't see how its even close.

The streak was nice. I'm glad KU got the all-time record before it came to an end.

At this point, I'm less interested in sustained excellence and more interested in titles. There are not a lot of OAD players I would take over Mason. But Embiid I would. By the end of the year before he went down with injury, his rim protection was incredible.

Aldrich better than Embiid before he went down? I'm not sure I watched the same games you did.

Now if you want to factor in that Embiid was unavailable for the tourney, sure.
[Reply]

Ultimately, I think we can all agree that you need a mix of both OADs and 3-4 year players.

2017 is a great example.

Josh Jackson was a matchup nightmare and a Swiss Army knife of a player. Those guys don’t play 3-4 years in college.

Frank Mason was an incredibly competitive leader and a great 4 year player.

The two together created a team that was really tough to beat.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
The streak was nice. I'm glad KU got the all-time record before it came to an end.

At this point, I'm less interested in sustained excellence and more interested in titles. There are not a lot of OAD players I would take over Mason. But Embiid I would. By the end of the year before he went down with injury, his rim protection was incredible.

Aldrich better than Embiid before he went down? I'm not sure I watched the same games you did.

Now if you want to factor in that Embiid was unavailable for the tourney, sure.

They got a #1 seed almost every year, the overall #1 seed a handful of times. That is all you can ask your team to do. I think many of you have clouded views of how good Embiid was due to him being likely the best NBA player coming from KU since Wilt Chamberlain. All that matters though is how good he was when he was HERE.

Quite frankly, last years Final Four team was probably the 6th best team, if that, from our 14 year conference title run. Just because they made the Final Four, doesn't make them better. It's hard to win a National Title, even if you are the best team.
[Reply]

I don't know what to think anymore. I just found out BWillie likes the female Ghostbusters movie.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
I don't know what to think anymore. I just found out BWillie likes the female Ghostbusters movie.

Yeah it was pretty good. The only reason people dont like it is because of nostalgia. It wasn't what they grew up remembering Ghostbusters was like. It would be if they made Golden Girls but with men. People would naturally be pissed. But as a stand alone movie if you dont include nostalgic expectations it was good.

Why did it get 75% on RT if it was so bad?
[Reply]

Bwillie has the most bizarro socio-political takes here. But on sports he’s quite good.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by BWillie:
Yeah it was pretty good. The only reason people dont like it is because of nostalgia. It wasn't what they grew up remembering Ghostbusters was like. It would be if they made Golden Girls but with men. People would naturally be pissed. But as a stand alone movie if you dont include nostalgic expectations it was good.

Why did it get 75% on RT if it was so bad?

If they had done a better job of casting Patty, it would have been a pretty good movie. As is, it was passable. Writing should have been better as well.
[Reply]