• 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!

BBall Recruiting Thread 2k16- SJM, Washington, Childress & Mitchell sign NLIs; 2017?

scooter84 said:
I think there is a guarantee that we're getting better - maybe not as fast as we would like and maybe not by an order of magnitude - but definitely better.
Click to expand...

What's the guarantee? Our lack of 4 and 5 star recruits? Or is it our lack of a proven coach/recruiter? What exactly is the guarantee that we'll continue getting better at this point and won't just find ourselves mired in mediocrity? I certainly hope we don't, but I see nothing I'd base a guarantee on that we won't. Hopefully Manning turns into a great coach, but I don't consider it a guarantee that he will.
 
We were a top 25 team for 20 years so obviously we had a winning tradition until Dino was fired in 2009. 4 years of Bzz and one year of Manning have not rendered us "historically" awful.
 
wfu22fan said:
We were a top 25 team for 20 years so obviously we had a winning tradition until Dino was fired in 2009. 4 years of Bzz and one year of Manning have not rendered us "historically" awful.
Click to expand...

Dino was fired in 2010.

Keeping the streak alive.
 
DCDeac said:
We're losing Devin and Codi. Sure, that hurts, but we're replacing them directly with sophomore versions of Crawford and Collins. Then we're adding sharpshooting Woods and to a lesser extend Childress. We'll have true centers in Moore and SJM. Dinos stays. Crab stays. Wilbekin stays.

Codi and Devin averaged 26/13 combined last year. Collins and Crawford are averaging 24/10 through two games. Granted that's against bad competition and it's only two games, but their minutes are also far lower.

We also won't be playing Collins at center. Nor will we be playing multiple guards with no outside shot. The potential for the jump forward is that we're replacing established production with similar players with higher ceilings, combined with a much more sensibly constructed, deeper team.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, particularly about being a more sensibly constructed team, but we had one good half against Bucknell that was preceded by 3 halves of Buzz-quality hoops. Let's not all go fap crazy over that just yet.
 
RacerDeac said:
What's the guarantee? Our lack of 4 and 5 star recruits? Or is it our lack of a proven coach/recruiter? What exactly is the guarantee that we'll continue getting better at this point and won't just find ourselves mired in mediocrity? I certainly hope we don't, but I see nothing I'd base a guarantee on that we won't. Hopefully Manning turns into a great coach, but I don't consider it a guarantee that he will.
Click to expand...

I just think that Manning has already proven he has a much better knack for talent evaluation and recruiting than you-know-who. He has proven he is much more personable and better at dealing with the media, fans and supporters. I think he has proven he is a better game coach - though he hasn't proven to be a great game coach yet, by any means. Clearly we are working from a low bar, but, I think these factors guarantee that the program is in a better position than it was under he-who-shall-not-be-named and is guaranteed to get better.

I am not saying we have seen certain evidence yet that Manning will lead us back to prominence - just that we will better than we have been the last 4-5 years.

The two nuggets of proof still to be seen are (i) the ability to land 4 and 5 star talent on a somewhat consistent basis - spotting and landing under-rated recruits is great and can serve as the base of a program, but, to reach a higher level you need to also be able to land some elite talent. And (ii) a more elite level of game strategy and coaching. This is hard to demonstrate without some talent and is harder to quantify.
 
He's signed four 4 star guys in the last two classes right? That's pretty consistent.
 
Miami could have a really big Wednesday.

4-star SG Bruce Brown and 4/5-star PF Dewan Huell are both down to Miami and Indiana/South Carolina, respectively.
 
wfu22fan said:
We were a top 25 team for 20 years so obviously we had a winning tradition until Dino was fired in 2009. 4 years of Bzz and one year of Manning have not rendered us "historically" awful.
Click to expand...

We've already established that you're extremely unsmart, so I'll leave it there.
 
scooter84 said:
I just think that Manning has already proven he has a much better knack for talent evaluation and recruiting than you-know-who. He has proven he is much more personable and better at dealing with the media, fans and supporters. I think he has proven he is a better game coach - though he hasn't proven to be a great game coach yet, by any means. Clearly we are working from a low bar, but, I think these factors guarantee that the program is in a better position than it was under he-who-shall-not-be-named and is guaranteed to get better.

I am not saying we have seen certain evidence yet that Manning will lead us back to prominence - just that we will better than we have been the last 4-5 years.

The two nuggets of proof still to be seen are (i) the ability to land 4 and 5 star talent on a somewhat consistent basis - spotting and landing under-rated recruits is great and can serve as the base of a program, but, to reach a higher level you need to also be able to land some elite talent. And (ii) a more elite level of game strategy and coaching. This is hard to demonstrate without some talent and is harder to quantify.
Click to expand...

Love your optimism, but let's be honest, 'better than [Redacted]' is an extremely low bar to set. We should be comparing Manning's performance to Odom and Skip...not a pile of dog shit.
 
It's the bar we have.
 
PhDeac said:
It's the bar we have.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We have a history of far greater achievement than [Redacted], and in my view, simply exceeding [Redacted]'s achievements does not meet our historical bar.
 
We know where we need to get. We know where we've been. We know the gap is wide. As long as we keep an eye toward the prize and don't stay content with small victories in between, we will be fine.
 
RacerDeac said:
Um, yes we are. Historically, from Odom through Dino we were a Top 25 team over two decades. We're now struggling to be a Top 100 team. That's the very definition of historically awful.
Click to expand...

You (and several others) have a very strange misunderstanding of that phrase. If we were historically a "Top 25 team over two decades" and now we're struggling to be a top 100 team, then we are historically good, but currently awful. We are not "historically awful". The "historically competitive" meme has really thrown y'all for a loop.

birdman said:
I disagree. We have a history of far greater achievement than [name redacted], and in my view, simply exceeding [name redacted]'s achievements does not meet our historical bar.
Click to expand...

Exactly. "Our historical bar" is Wellman's "historical competitiveness", and we are yet to hit it. We will.
 
RacerDeac said:
Um, yes we are. Historically, from Odom through Dino we were a Top 25 team over two decades. We're now struggling to be a Top 100 team. That's the very definition of historically awful.
Click to expand...
Let's not pretend we were Duke or UNC. We finished in the AP top 25 only 9 times during that time period, averaging outside the top 10 in those 9 years. We were ranked at some point of the season 15 of those years but fell out 6 of them (and much lower rankings at the end from the peak in another 6) because of the classic late season Wake Forest collapse that also defined that era...historically. You pining away for that too? That's about the same pattern as the Tacy years and more like a consistent top 50...tourney NCAA bubble team...averaging outside the top 25.
 
Last edited:
We were like 35 games under .500 in the ACC during the Tacy years.

Overall Odom/Skip/Dino: Probably top 25 or just outside overall. Finishing ranked in the final poll 9 of 20 years would certainly put you top 25 overall in final poll rankings.

Tacy: Closer to top 50 (with two really nice runs). Might be a little higher than that in compoosite rankings for periods, but when we were bad, we were really bad.
 
Last edited:
wakephan09 said:
You (and several others) have a very strange misunderstanding of that phrase. If we were historically a "Top 25 team over two decades" and now we're struggling to be a top 100 team, then we are historically good, but currently awful. We are not "historically awful". The "historically competitive" meme has really thrown y'all for a loop.
Click to expand...

So, you admit it's a meme and then you take the time to explain why it doesn't make sense...

You realize the context under which the phrase is being used, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top