• 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 2k19 - Charles Coleman de-commits to Wake. :(

John Collins ain't walking through that door. Think those who are patting themselves on the back over a First Four appearance should stop and let's move along.
 
RChildress107 said:
He served it, y’all just didn’t enjoy it. Given the ingredients he was working with the only thing he could have done better was close out some of those close games. It’s hard to argue that roster should have been any better than #30 in the country.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
With only the second top 40 team Wake’s had since Chris Paul left. If y’all only enjoy Wake basketball when we fully reach our roster’s potential then it’s hard to understand why you are Wake fans (or college basketball fans for that matter) in the first place.
Click to expand...

top 30, top 40, doesn't matter

not top 64 though, which is what does matter
 
PhDeac said:
Thank you. It’s not hard to understand. It’s like a chef who prepares a wonderful meal and forgets to serve it.
Click to expand...

no, it's not. At all. Worst analogy I think I've heard in a long time. That analogy is like a rabbit who sees a carrot and then eats the groundhog. See. I can play nonsensical analogy game too.
 
jaybone said:
no, it's not. At all. Worst analogy I think I've heard in a long time. That analogy is like a rabbit who sees a carrot and then has sex with the groundhog. See. I can play nonsensical analogy game too.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
RacerDeac said:
You get so caught up in rankings that you forget about things that matter, like wins. It seems far harder to argue that somehow Manning figured out how to mostly optimize his gameplan, timeouts, player usage, lineups, etc for a single season, that just happened to coincide with JC's explosion, and then promptly regressed the following year. Top 30, top 25...who cares. Evidence from all seasons combined points to the idea that the team likely didn't play very close to it's potential under Manning. He could have closed out some close games. Or maybe those games wouldn't have been close with some better coaching to begin with? Doesn't it seem more likely that Manning was the same coach in Y3 as he was in Y4 (and Y1/2)? You yourself have admitted just how poor of a job he did this past season.



FIFY. Classic case of the Peter Principle combined with the often faulty assumption that success as a player translates to coaching.
Click to expand...

Missing a premise or two to reach that conclusion. If your counter to my argument rests on claiming that the 16-17 roster should have been a top 25 team then I feel pretty good about my argument.

Don’t think the Peter principle is applicable here, but get your point that Manning almost certainly doesn’t have the chops to be the coach at the type of Program Wake was prior to 2010. He likely does have the chops to lead a P5 basement dweller to a mid-tier P5 program, it’s unfortunate that he’s unlikely to reach that potential here.
 
tophats said:
Anyone have an update on Wynn? Is he enrolled and practicing? If not when? Thanks.
Click to expand...

His academic career and late summer announcement of "I'm finally qualified" make him seem like a Lorng shot to me. I'm still not sure what to do with the fact that we have offered scholarships to two of the worst rated recruits in our history who both struggle to even qualify academically. That's a new level of desperation that not even [Redacted] would consider.
 
Maybe the admissions office is trying to save Manning from himself here.
 
Ayo said:
John Collins ain't walking through that door. Think those who are patting themselves on the back over a First Four appearance should stop and let's move along.
Click to expand...

That’s a weird statement considering our best recruit in a decade is walking through that door.

Why would I pay myself on the back for a first four appearance? I had nothing to do with it.
 
The conundrum, for me, is that Danny Manning (and/or staff) is both a very good evaluator of talent, a good big man coach, and not a very good leader of a program at this stage. I wish we could have a discussion that allows these "truths" or narrative to exist in tandem.

I do think success and failure lives on a razor's edge in college sports if you are not a head and shoulders above the rest icon. See Duke, Kentucky in hoops and Alabama and Ohio State and likely Clemson in football. Had Danny and staff done some damn good coaching two years ago, figured out how to get JC to play defense while still being elite offensively, as well as motivate Craw - and we had somehow found ourselves in the Sweet 16 (in hindsight, probably a 10% chance with current staff), the perception amongst recruits would be different. But that good fortune did not happen and our "peak" season was actually historically not that great at all. It was fun to watch a really efficient offense and a great offensive player, but it was frustrating to watch a bad defense and even worse - average to good defenders playing bad defense. The irony is that Dinos and Wilbekin were our hardest workers defensively.

I don't see how a recruit could look at our program and think it is both the best program to get NBA-prep training and possibly win a national championship. I do see the NBA-prep (for big men and hopefully swings), and do see a program that due to the conference is guaranteed to provide good exposure. But as much as might like the campus, the culture, the staff, and the conference, you are likely expecting to be playing for middle of the pack. That is just who we are right now.

I doubt that Manning is able to right the ship. And I expect to see a surprisingly good team this year. I really do. Like JC soph year good. But historically, that ain't great. That's middle of the pack good in the ACC. And then Hoard leaves with possibly Sarr and our 2019 recruits will not be able to recreate the "magic" and it will be another bad season two years from now. That is my current prediction. Would love to be proven wrong by some surprise 2019 decisions.

I also think folks are putting way too much stock in NBA connections. If Greg Anthony actually played a season or two with Danny, then maybe, but I don't think that happened.

What Danny didn't figure out was that he had to come to Wake with a 4 or 5 year plan for creating success. He didn't study the great programs - like Villanova - that you could use as a road map. Instead, he just showed up after an amazing 2-month run at Tulsa in which I believe Manning felt his coaching had created a momentum that led to Tulsa winning 12 or so games in a row. Maybe that DID happen. But that still is not how you build a program. You build it by figuring out how you work recruiting today, 2 years from now, then 4 years from now. I still feels like Manning cobbles together a strategy and find the narrative for it AFTER it happens. Like grad transfers are some sort of long-term strategy to motivate young players by offering these old dudes up as the backbone of the team. Guys whom Manning has known for probably 48 hours before entrusting the backbone to them. Worked with Coron and Arians (a little less so since he was more a specialist) and not at all with Leonard and whoever the guy was that fumbled under the rim last year. It's just a horrific strategy IMO. You spend months and months recruiting kids and their families - these are kids you know, you know their parents. Grad transfers, hardly at all. Just dumb.
 
Last edited:
jaybone said:
The conundrum, for me, is that Danny Manning (and/or staff) is both a very good evaluator of talent, a good big man coach, and not a very good leader of a program at this stage. I wish we could have a discussion that allows these "truths" or narrative to exist in tandem.

I do think success and failure lives on a razor's edge in college sports if you are not a head and shoulders above the rest icon. See Duke, Kentucky in hoops and Alabama and Ohio State and likely Clemson in football. Had Danny and staff done some damn good coaching two years ago, figured out how to get JC to play defense while still being elite offensively, as well as motivate Craw - and we had somehow found ourselves in the Sweet 16 (in hindsight, probably a 10% chance with current staff), the perception amongst recruits would be different. But that good fortune did not happen and our "peak" season was actually historically not that great at all. It was fun to watch a really efficient offense and a great offensive player, but it was frustrating to watch a bad defense and even worse - average to good defenders playing bad defense. The irony is that Dinos and Wilbekin were our hardest workers defensively.

I don't see how a recruit could look at our program and think it is both the best program to get NBA-prep training and possibly win a national championship. I do see the NBA-prep (for big men and hopefully swings), and do see a program that due to the conference is guaranteed to provide good exposure. But as much as might like the campus, the culture, the staff, and the conference, you are likely expecting to be playing for middle of the pack. That is just who we are right now.

I doubt that Manning is able to right the ship. And I expect to see a surprisingly good team this year. I really do. Like JC soph year good. But historically, that ain't great. That's middle of the pack good in the ACC. And then Hoard leaves with possibly Sarr and our 2019 recruits will not be able to recreate the "magic" and it will be another bad season two years from now. That is my current prediction. Would love to be proven wrong by some surprise 2019 decisions.

I also think folks are putting way too much stock in NBA connections. If Greg Anthony actually played a season or two with Danny, then maybe, but I don't think that happened.

What Danny didn't figure out was that he had to come to Wake with a 4 or 5 year plan for creating success. He didn't study the great programs - like Villanova - that you could use as a road map. Instead, he just showed up after an amazing 2-month run at Tulsa in which I believe Manning felt his coaching had created a momentum that led to Tulsa winning 12 or so games in a row. Maybe that DID happen. But that still is not how you build a program. You build it by figuring out how you work recruiting today, 2 years from now, then 4 years from now. I still feels like Manning cobbles together a strategy and find the narrative for it AFTER it happens. Like grad transfers are some sort of long-term strategy to motivate young players by offering these old dudes up as the backbone of the team. Guys whom Manning has known for probably 48 hours before entrusting the backbone to them. Worked with Coron and Arians (a little less so since he was more a specialist) and not at all with Leonard and whoever the guy was that fumbled under the rim last year. It's just a horrific strategy IMO. You spend months and months recruiting kids and their families - these are kids you know, you know their parents. Grad transfers, hardly at all. Just dumb.
Click to expand...

Great post. I especially agree with the bold.
 
jaybone said:
The conundrum, for me, is that Danny Manning (and/or staff) is both a very good evaluator of talent, a good big man coach, and not a very good leader of a program at this stage. I wish we could have a discussion that allows these "truths" or narrative to exist in tandem.

I do think success and failure lives on a razor's edge in college sports if you are not a head and shoulders above the rest icon. See Duke, Kentucky in hoops and Alabama and Ohio State and likely Clemson in football. Had Danny and staff done some damn good coaching two years ago, figured out how to get JC to play defense while still being elite offensively, as well as motivate Craw - and we had somehow found ourselves in the Sweet 16 (in hindsight, probably a 10% chance with current staff), the perception among recruits would be different. But that good fortune did not happen and our "peak" season was actually historically not that great at all. It was fun to watch a really efficient offense and a great offensive player, but it was frustrating to watch a bad defense and even worse - average to good defenders playing bad defense. The irony is that Dinos and Wilbekin were our hardest workers defensively.
Click to expand...

I like this paragraph. Pretty much sums up the frustration with Manning as there were signs all along that we were never going to reach our full potential in terms of results and perhaps a run at the Sweet Sixteen. If you watched the games all season, it was fun to a point because we were so good offensively, but each game was also maddeningly frustrating because we couldn't stop anyone. We couldn't even beat a VaTech team that was even more challenged than us defensively on a neutral court. You could easily argue that we exceeded our potential because we really were not a well-rounded basketball team. I watched most games sipping a high-octane "Collins" mixture to mask my own worry and anxiety that we would blow any lead we had. And we usually did.

The effectiveness and sheer talent of one John Collins -- as well as the sharp-shooting of Arians, Woods & Wilbekin to free up Craw to the point where he could exploit some defensive overplaying on the perimeter by opponents -- was able to mask many deficiencies, but not enough of them to realize anything close to what would be considered a good or even solid defensive team. So while you have to give Danny all the credit in the world for recognizing the immense talent of the scandalously under-recruited John Collins, as well as the development of his game, you can't do so without Danny receiving the brunt of the blame for that team's woefully deficient commitment to playing any semblance of defense. They were barely adequate, really. So it cuts both ways. But there seems to be a certain faction (ahem, cough, one guy, cough) who keeps on harping on an end of season ranking that doesn't really matter to somehow prove that Manning is a better coach than he is. That's like saying Jerry Glanville was a good coach because the Falcons once led the NFL in passing one year on the way to the playoffs in '91. They were a deeply flawed team and it was just a matter of team before they would be "found out." One somewhat fun, but oh so maddening season of wild scoring and "ole" defense isn't enough to give Danny a passing grade of any kind.
 
Are you serious, RC? Everybody you argue with agrees with the bold. Everybody agrees on the first two. We argue about the third.

jaybone, add that offense's failure to execute down the stretch.
 
Last edited:
Why the Deac Not said:
I like this paragraph. Pretty much sums up the frustration with Manning as there were signs all along that we were never going to reach our full potential in terms of results and perhaps a run at the Sweet Sixteen. If you watched the games all season, it was fun to a point because we were so good offensively, but each game was also maddeningly frustrating because we couldn't stop anyone. We couldn't even beat a VaTech team that was even more challenged than us defensively on a neutral court. You could easily argue that we exceeded our potential because we really were not a well-rounded basketball team. I watched most games sipping a high-octane "Collins" mixture to mask my own worry and anxiety that we would blow any lead we had. And we usually did.

The effectiveness and sheer talent of one John Collins -- as well as the sharp-shooting of Arians, Woods & Wilbekin to free up Craw to the point where he could exploit some defensive overplaying on the perimeter by opponents -- was able to mask many deficiencies, but not enough of them to realize anything close to what would be considered a good or even solid defensive team. So while you have to give Danny all the credit in the world for recognizing the immense talent of the scandalously under-recruited John Collins, as well as the development of his game, you can't do so without Danny receiving the brunt of the blame for that team's woefully deficient commitment to playing any semblance of defense. They were barely adequate, really. So it cuts both ways. But there seems to be a certain faction (ahem, cough, one guy, cough) who keeps on harping on an end of season ranking that doesn't really matter to somehow prove that Manning is a better coach than he is. That's like saying Jerry Glanville was a good coach because the Falcons once led the NFL in passing one year on the way to the playoffs in '91. They were a deeply flawed team and it was just a matter of team before they would be "found out." One somewhat fun, but oh so maddening season of wild scoring and "ole" defense isn't enough to give Danny a passing grade of any kind.
Click to expand...

The sad part, to me, is that Manning was, I think, positioned to recognize his weaknesses before last season and try to rectify them - either by seeking out some behind the scenes coaching guidance specific to his deficiencies or going out and hiring someone who can take the baton on those pieces of coaching, and it seems he failed to do so.

While on one hand I don't want to compare Danny Manning, a relatively young coach to the Jerry Glanville I remembered who seemed like an old man then, it seems ridiculous for me to try and buy any narrative that paints Danny Manning as a young coach able to grow into this role. He's 50 years old. Every year he is the head coach at Wake he is one year removed from whatever program building/sustaining he observed first hand at Kansas.

The narrative seems more like the ship's captain whose boat has lost the engine and all communication and is essentially just floating by the current. The more days the boat is out there floating, the less valuable his captaining skills are and the more valuable his survival skills become.
 
There are teams that had top-10 ranked players who then went as top draft picks that didn't even make the tournament in any respect. And yet there are people here harping that Manning should have done more than a First Four appearance with a 3-star recruit (who become almost ACC POY as a sophomore) and a bunch of other parts. Those other parts consisted of Dinos, Arians, Woods, Crawford, and Doral. Now, maybe we could have played better D, but the one thing that team really lacked was athletic wings. Our backcourt was slow and unathletic. You need guys to guard the perimeter and stop dribble drives.
 
MichDeac25 said:
There are teams that had top-10 ranked players who then went as top draft picks that didn't even make the tournament in any respect. And yet there are people here harping that Manning should have done more than a First Four appearance with a 3-star recruit (who become almost ACC POY as a sophomore) and a bunch of other parts. Those other parts consisted of Dinos, Arians, Woods, Crawford, and Doral. Now, maybe we could have played better D, but the one thing that team really lacked was athletic wings. Our backcourt was slow and unathletic. You need guys to guard the perimeter and stop dribble drives.
Click to expand...

Manning has underachieved every year he has been at Wake. His adjusted defensive ranks are:
2015: 125
2016: 128
2017: 176
2018: 130

That's absolutely pathetic, and he's shown that he's been a terrible defensive coach with a variety of rosters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top