• 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!

Danny Manning Credibility Watch

DCDeac said:
I mean, believe whatever you want, but that is utter nonsense. Reasonable literally means backed by justification and explanation, not pure opinion. Uninformed opinions are not reasonable. Sure, it's a message board and you can just think and post whatever you want. Your opinion could be that Manning won't win another ACC game in his coaching career. It could be that Crawford should be benched for Troy Rike. Or that former players don't make good coaches. There are all kinds of absolutely unreasonable opinions.

Your posts are full of certainty with basically zero justification. You just say he's ok but to be successful we'll need someone "better." The response when challenged that "all opinions are valid" is the kind of hippy "let's not keep score" all feelings count nobody is ever wrong stuff that drives people crazy. And of course your opinion is speculative and possibly wrong. You're seriously arguing that your opinion is not speculative?
Click to expand...

It is not an uninformed opinion. We are not in year one of Danny's tenure. We have seen how he coaches. Based upon that data, his years at Tulsa, and his age, I am rendering a very reasonable opinion about his future success at Wake Forest.

Care to elucidate why you three feel so threatened by another viewpoint?
 
RChildress107 said:
Among the 20 seasons prior to [Redacted], this team so far would rank right after our NIT winning team and right ahead of Dino's last team based on sports reference's rating system. This would match up well with Kenpom.

I expect we will end up right about where the 09-10 team ended up but on the wrong side of the bubble due to the strength of the ACC. Not bad for year 3 and encouraging moving forward given that we return our whole team and add a top 30 recruit at our biggest position of need.
Click to expand...

We don't know how the season will play out, but if this ends up being accurate, I would be pleased with the progress. My concern is that we will fall far short of those marks as we did last year. Hope you are right.
 
DeacDaddy said:
In spite of his talents, I see flaws that I don't think he will overcome. You see flaws that you think he could overcome. Neither of us is unreasonable.

We are posting on a 105-page thread entitled "Danny Manning Credibility Watch," populated by numerous smart posters of differing opinions. Yet you alone are the arbiter of what's reasonable?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any flaws that, even if not corrected, would prevent Manning from leading Wake back to that level.
 
DCDeac said:
Just to be precise, what you've posted is that it's not possible for Manning to overcome his flaws and you are certain of it. What other are posting is that they think it's somewhat likely/unlikely that he overcomes those flaws.
Click to expand...

No disagreement. We have several years worth of Manning which allows us to make judgments. I've come to my conclusion, you haven't yet come to yours. It isn't wrong for me to have come to my conclusion, just as it isn't wrong for you not yet to have arrived at yours.

You're acting like Danny just rode in behind the Deacon on the motorcycle on his first day.
 
DeacDaddy said:
It is not an uninformed opinion. We are not in year one of Danny's tenure. We have seen how he coaches. Based upon that data, his years at Tulsa, and his age, I am rendering a very reasonable opinion about his future success at Wake Forest.

Care to elucidate why you three feel so threatened by another viewpoint?
Click to expand...

I mean, originally I was just trying to understand what evidence a rational person has seen that would lead them to such a fully decided position on Manning a couple of ACC games into year 3 of a rebuild. I really was curious.

Now I'm just pointing out how irrational your line of thinking is because I find it moderately entertaining.

Wait, I mean threatening. I feel very threatened about you being 100% sure our coach will never be as "better" as you think he needs to be. Honestly I'm disappointed that there's no logic behind your totally valid opinion, because this is a sports board and I enjoy talking basketball. Instead it was a trip to crazy town. I guess they can't all be winners.
 
DCDeac said:
I mean, originally I was just trying to understand what evidence a rational person has seen that would lead them to such a fully decided position on Manning a couple of ACC games into year 3 of a rebuild. I really was curious.

Now I'm just pointing out how irrational your line of thinking is because I find it moderately entertaining.

Wait, I mean threatening. I feel very threatened about you being 100% sure our coach will never be as "better" as you think he needs to be. Honestly I'm disappointed that there's no logic behind your totally valid opinion, because this is a sports board and I enjoy talking basketball. Instead it was a trip to crazy town. I guess they can't all be winners.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit! Let's have some fun here.

I'm giving evidence for my reasoning and you're choosing not to acknowledge it. That's OK. If we were to start a poll that said, "Will Danny Manning finish his tenure at wake forest with multiple ACC championships and/or sweet 16 appearances?", you would vote "Not enough evidence." OK. I would vote no. A lot of people would vote no. Maybe even more so than would vote yes. All of those people are unreasonable?

DCDeac, we won two conference games last year. We're seeing some improvements this year. Good for us. I still see major red flags with him being able to finish games, and put it all together for the kind of resume that would make us a basketball powerhouse.

2.5 years is not too soon to form a rational opinion. You don't have to agree with it; I give you freedom! Enjoy posting on a message board, fellow Deac! But that doesn't obviate my right to defend it as reasonable.

On the Clawson thread you just posted something regarding the eight year contract. Which I pretty much agreed with. Why can you weigh in on whether a third year coach is the right long-term solution for us to get us to where we could go in football, but I can't yet weigh in on whether a third year coach is the right long-term solution for where we could go in basketball?
 
Ok, seriously really curious. You specifically call out his coaching at Tulsa evidence that supports your 100% decided opinion that he will not succeed at Wake Forest.

I get folks that use Tulsa as a "he wasn't there long enough as a head coach" reason, but his actual coaching? I mean, I can't say I followed his coaching game-in game-out at Tulsa, but he took one of the youngest teams in the country and won a conference championship with them in year 2. Made it to the NCAA tourney...

What is it about his 2 years at Tulsa that helps prove he can't succeed?
 
DCDeac said:
Ok, seriously really curious. You specifically call out his coaching at Tulsa evidence that supports your 100% decided opinion that he will not succeed at Wake Forest.

I get folks that use Tulsa as a "he wasn't there long enough as a head coach" reason, but his actual coaching? I mean, I can't say I followed his coaching game-in game-out at Tulsa, but he took one of the youngest teams in the country and won a conference championship with them in year 2. Made it to the NCAA tourney...

What is it about his 2 years at Tulsa that helps prove he can't succeed?
Click to expand...
When I'm not on my phone I will have some time to utilize the search function. There was much ink spilled about his time in Tulsa when he was hired here. The fact that he had surged out to win his conference that year was actually one of the deflating factors for many people here who did not buy into him, because it made him look better than they feared he was. (Ironically I was not one of those people. I loved his name recognition at the time.) Even recently on this thread, I stated that it doesn't seem like he is learning on the job, and people have commented on how we shouldn't have hired a coach who required learning on the job.

We now have almost 5 years of him as a head coach, and you're using one out of those five. I'm looking at the entire resume. Do I think Danny Manning would be a good fit for school like Tulsa, which doesn't have the potential to be a basketball powerhouse? I think he would be, as evidenced by his success there. Seems an excellent fit. Does that mean that he's automatically the right fit for what we need at a school that does have the potential to become a basketball powerhouse? Of course not. Especially not when we've seen the areas in which he consistently struggles and doesn't seem to be changing.

In the meantime, what are your answers to my questions regarding whether whether everyone who voted no in this hypothetical poll is unreasonable? And why year three of a football coach's tenure is sufficient evidence for you to render an opinion, but not year three of a basketball coach? If anything, forming an opinion on a football coach should take longer.
 
To me it looks like Manning is trying to get the team to believe that if they stay calm and maintain their poise that things will work out they way they want them too. I don't see "deer in headlights" look from him. So far, that hasn't worked well, probably because of the lack of upper classmen - especially seniors - on the team. The coaching staff still has work to do with Crawford to convince him to play within himself and not try to do every other player's job in addition to his own. Once he gets that across, and Crawford really believes it, Wake will get a lot better.
 
It's conceivable that we could finish 5 and 13 in the ACC not beating any tournament level team and still finish with a higher kenpom rating than our last NCAA tournament team. Personally I would not consider that getting back to Dino's level

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
TBD on Manning for me. We still have a lot to see from this team. They need to improve as the season goes on, which did not happen last year.

At this point last year, we had better OOC wins against Indiana & UCLA (neutral floor) Arkansas (home) and LSU (away). We ended up winning 2 ACC games, many of which were double-digit losses.

This season, we have had 5 real tests and lost every one of them. Questionable decisions in the Clemson games with rotations, etc. The potentially scary thing is that our best win is College of Charleston. Beating a Virginia/Duke/North Carolina/Louisville would be a big boost. We are about to learn a lot.
 
PaddyWF said:
TBD on Manning for me. We still have a lot to see from this team. They need to improve as the season goes on, which did not happen last year.

At this point last year, we had better OOC wins against Indiana & UCLA (neutral floor) Arkansas (home) and LSU (away). We ended up winning 2 ACC games, many of which were double-digit losses.

This season, we have had 5 real tests and lost every one of them. Questionable decisions in the Clemson games with rotations, etc. The potentially scary thing is that our best win is College of Charleston. Beating a Virginia/Duke/North Carolina/Louisville would be a big boost. We are about to learn a lot.
Click to expand...
TITCR
 
Good post.

I wish the people who are bashing skeptics would just admit that they are basing their opinions on hope and moral victories.
 
PaddyWF said:
TBD on Manning for me. We still have a lot to see from this team. They need to improve as the season goes on, which did not happen last year.

At this point last year, we had better OOC wins against Indiana & UCLA (neutral floor) Arkansas (home) and LSU (away). We ended up winning 2 ACC games, many of which were double-digit losses.

This season, we have had 5 real tests and lost every one of them. Questionable decisions in the Clemson games with rotations, etc. The potentially scary thing is that our best win is College of Charleston. Beating a Virginia/Duke/North Carolina/Louisville would be a big boost. We are about to learn a lot.
Click to expand...

The late game rotations and sitting Collins/Crawford was termination worthy.

Looking at our remaining schedule, I see 4 wins. Maybe 5.
 
Posted the following shortly after Manning's first season. I will update in a subsequent post:

There's been a lot of handwringing about Danny Manning's coaching ability after the last three games. This strikes me as an overreaction to a small sample size, but the ensuing discussion raised some interesting questions about how much should be read into a coaches ability to "get the most" out of a team's talent level.

I've had some time on my hands (spring break) so I went through each of the last 11 seasons and calculated each teams overall talent level. I gave each player a talent score (recruiting ranking in stars + .3 for each year of experience).

Codi, for example, was a 4 star recruit and has 2 years of experience so he has a talent rating of 4.6.

I then took the weighted average for each team based on minutes played. Here are the results of the past 11 years along with wins, SRS (basketball-reference's simple rating system), and kenpom ranking.

2014-2015: Talent: 3.16; Wins: 13; SRS: 5.19; Kenpom: 118

2013-2014: Talent: 3.69; Wins: 17; SRS: 5.49; Kenpom: 118
2012-2013: Talent: 3.59; Wins: 13; SRS: 3.41; Kenpom: 134
2011-2012: Talent: 3.76; Wins: 13; SRS: -.75; Kenpom: 217
2010-2011: Talent: 3.76; Wins: 8; SRS: -4.43; Kenpom: 271

2009-2010: Talent: 4.17; Wins: 20; SRS: 11.45; Kenpom: 59
2008-2009: Talent: 4.15; Wins: 24; SRS: 15.63; Kenpom: 27
2007-2008: Talent: 3.73; Wins: 17; SRS: 9.29; Kenpom: 69

2006-2007: Talent: 3.51; Wins: 15; SRS: 6.08; Kenpom: 102
2005-2006: Talent: 3.96; Wins: 17; SRS: 8.16; Kenpom: 82
2004-2005: Talent: 4.45; Wins: 27; SRS: 20.24; Kenpom: 7
 
The last time we had a good coach and this level of talent was Skip's last season. That team won 15 games and finished outside the Kenpom top 100. Manning is currently on pace to do better than that.

So if getting back to Skip levels is the bar, Manning skepticism should be based on his ability to bring in Talent, not on his abilities to manage that talent in-game.
 
To that end, here is a very early and very rough minutes projection for next year (based on a 30 game schedule):

BC: 1000
Woods: 900
Collins: 800
Dinos: 750
Brown: 700
Mitch: 500
Chill: 400
Moore: 400
Sam: 200
Bench: 250
Walkons: 100


That would yield a Talent score of 3.79.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top