Maybe I'm missing something but how in the hell is that being critical of the hire but giving him a shot? If you believe people are acting just like they did accepting Bz, then you are comparing Manning to Bz, a coach most hate. "Talking themselves into accepting" Manning to start with implies there is little to no redeeming value in his background. That is giving the guy a shot? Seriously?
We have a thread that is running about 50:50 unacceptable hire. Unacceptable means not wanting to give someone a shot.
A lot of people (like yourself) are calling for Wellman's head because of this hire...which means they think it's bad. It's viewed by them as a loss...as if Wellman recruited a bad coach. That is no different than people complaining about Bz recruiting unacceptable players...throwing the players under the bus....or Bz himself doing it because they aren't responding to his coaching. It's passive aggressive nonsense. Labeling the guy "bad" before he even steps foot on our court is "giving Manning a shot"?
Wow. Either you give the guy a shot or not.....and you are complaining that people are talking themselves INTO just giving him a shot.
It was disappointing not to get someone with more credentials and higher profile meaning less risk, but that does not mean Manning is a bad hire worthy of all this passive aggressive negative BS. Wellman and apparently everyone else involved tried to hire a coach with more credentials so it's not like he didn't try. There are legit reasons why coaches view Wake as tough that have nothing to do with Wellman, a person Clawson said was well-liked in the coaching community. Does that somehow not extend to bball, or was the Clawson hire bad?