• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Grading the season

ACCOffice said:
If Crawford takes charge of next years team, like he should, Collins comes back, and Brown delivers, this year will be forgotten.
Click to expand...

A reasonable person would celebrate this season not forget it. We came from having a totally nuked program back to relevancy this year. To not consider this an important and successful year for Wake Forest b ball is to be irrational.
 
i think all season we consistently played like a 30ish ranked team, which i think is about to our talent level. manning did well to quickly raise the talent level there after being in basketball siberia for half a decade, i don't think he particularly over or under achieved with the roster, but gets credit because he brought in all the players and with the staff helped develop them.

does it really make a difference that we were 30th based on the 6th best offense and 170th ranked defense? like is there a reason to feel better about the team with similar results and metrics but more balanced? obviously the ultimate goal for wake is to be better than that and we'll need a much better defense, but as a first step back to not being freaking awful?

and nothing is wasted, the staff will be able to use JC's story on the recruiting trail, non top 100 player to 1st round pick in 2 years, and all the other guys have experienced the tourney and a month of high pressure games that mattered to end the season. they all seemed pretty tight that first NCAA game (other than Arians who played well and of course had already been to the tourney) and hopefully they'll handle it better next time they get there.
 
It's not super complicated. Either Coach Manning will recruit and develop enough talent to be a consistent NCAA team or he won't. This team was much better than I thought it would be. Probably better than it should have been, given what we were running out at 2-4 a large portion of each game.

I see a way that this team misses the tourney the next 2 years and Wake has a really tough decision. I also see a way that this team is the first in a row of teams that make the tourney. Recruiting will tale the tell.
 
We need at least 4 players from the 2016 and 2017 to produce over the next two seasons.
 
DeaconSig said:
It's not super complicated. Either Coach Manning will recruit and develop enough talent to be a consistent NCAA team or he won't. This team was much better than I thought it would be. Probably better than it should have been, given what we were running out at 2-4 a large portion of each game.

I see a way that this team misses the tourney the next 2 years and Wake has a really tough decision. I also see a way that this team is the first in a row of teams that make the tourney. Recruiting will tale the tell.
Click to expand...

Well stated. Rarely did we have role players contribute in sync with eachother. Dinos shows up, Wilbekin disappears. Chill struggles early, Arians plays well. Arians gets torched on D, Wilbekin plays solid minutes. Etc. etc. And then consider the early games where Collins was still learning to play with fouls. The ACC has a plethora of 6'5"-6'10" talented wings/SF and we did not matchup well at the 3/4. Guys too small or too slow.
 
Junebug said:
I think that just looking at preseason expectations is too narrow. It is like looking at a carpet through a straw. Expectations should adjust during the season, which is part of what I'm calling potential.

If we had started 19-0 and beat all of our opponents by the same margin of victory as in the real world and then proceeded to go 0-13 against all of our opponents and lost by the same margin of victory as in the real world, I would grade the coach lower than the grade I gave in the real world. The hypothetical team (which sounds like Clemson many years) had unrealized potential, a characteristic that isn't captured by just looking at preseason expectations.
Click to expand...

If anything you are arguing that simply using preseason expectations is too broad. I actually do think it's too narrow because it doesn't necessarily capture work done in the offseason (though this work often isn't apparent until the season has actually started).

I'm fine if you want to break things up and give Manning an A+++ for the offseason and a B- for the season because the team didn't live up to the potential that Manning created for the team.

But the only way to give a grade for any specified time period is to grade performance against the expectations in place at the beginning of that time period. Doing it any other way penalizes Manning for failing to maximize his team's potential (which I think y'all are vastly overstating) without giving him any credit for putting a team on the floor that had that much potential in the first place.

Through three years of the rebuild Manning gets an A for where he currently has the program. That's all I really care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top