• 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

birdman said:
Absolutely no one is asking to go back to that misery, but at least a dozen posters on these boards seem be elated that our BB program is better that it was 3 years ago and that Manning is doing a better job than the last guy. I think the last guy set an awfully low expectation for success. I want Manning to be on par with or better than Skip or Odom and I refuse to settle for "Better than three season ago" as our standard for judging Manning. Fuck that standard. With or without yesterday's victory there is little to no evidence that our program is on a better trajectory that it was in 2012 or 2013, in part because there is not a lot of data but also because recruiting (on paper) seems weak and in game coaching is at least questionable. The reason for reference Bz's win over State, Miami and Duke is to note that yesterdays win, while awesome, doesn't mean a very much in a larger assessment, because even the worst coach in ACC history was able to beat a ranked team on occasion.
Click to expand...

Wilbekin, Dinos, Collins and Crawford were very weak pickups.
 
Hitman Hart said:
Wilbekin, Dinos, Collins and Crawford were very weak pickups.
Click to expand...

Dude, see my previous post on this and note that I said his recruiting is weak "on paper". The one positive trend with Manning as our HC is that so far 5 out of Manning's 7 recruits have out performed their rankings. That is a statistically unexpected ratio even with such a limited sample size.
 
birdman said:
Absolutely no one is asking to go back to that misery, but at least a dozen posters on these boards seem be elated that our BB program is better that it was 3 years ago and that Manning is doing a better job than the last guy. I think the last guy set an awfully low expectation for success. I want Manning to be on par with or better than Skip or Odom and I refuse to settle for "Better than three season ago" as our standard for judging Manning. Fuck that standard. With or without yesterday's victory there is little to no evidence that our program is on a better trajectory that it was in 2012 or 2013, in part because there is not a lot of data but also because recruiting (on paper) seems weak and in game coaching is at least questionable. The reason for reference Bz's win over State, Miami and Duke is to note that yesterdays win, while awesome, doesn't mean a very much in a larger assessment, because even the worst coach in ACC history was able to beat a ranked team on occasion.
Click to expand...

This paragraph is not mutually exclusive from

Hitman Hart said:
Wilbekin, Dinos, Collins and Crawford were very weak pickups.
Click to expand...

this [facetious] statement. You can be happy about yesterday's win while also being cautiously reserved about the future of our basketball program. You can admit that Wilbekin, Dinos, Collins, and Crawford were underrated as recruits, while also recognizing that you cannot sustain a top program that survives off of diamond-in-the-rough finds.
 
WFUtoUSC said:
This paragraph is not mutually exclusive from



this [facetious] statement. You can be happy about yesterday's win while also being cautiously reserved about the future of our basketball program. You can admit that Wilbekin, Dinos, Collins, and Crawford were underrated as recruits, while also recognizing that you cannot sustain a top program that survives off of diamond-in-the-rough finds.
Click to expand...

You CAN sustain a top program by identifying guys that fit your system and playing to their strengths, while landing a highly-valued recruit every now and then (as opposed to constantly chasing the top tier guys). See also: UVA/Tony Bennett
 
CantStandYa said:
You CAN sustain a top program by identifying guys that fit your system and playing to their strengths, while landing a highly-valued recruit every now and then (as opposed to constantly chasing the top tier guys). See also: UVA/Tony Bennett
Click to expand...

Just FYI, UVA currently has the 8th best recruiting class for 2016 (according to ESPN) with the #25, #52 and #77 ranked players in the 2016 class. Maybe not the best example to prove your point. Maybe Bennett recognizes that sustainability depends on talent after all.
 
CantStandYa said:
You CAN sustain a top program by identifying guys that fit your system and playing to their strengths, while landing a highly-valued recruit every now and then (as opposed to constantly chasing the top tier guys). See also: UVA/Tony Bennett
Click to expand...

Alternatively, you can use this (above) to get to this (below). My guess is that this is what Manning is shooting for - establish yourself as a coach with players that work in your system, then bring in highly rated recruits that you can build a system around with your role players (which Manning has already shown a keen eye for finding)

birdman said:
Just FYI, UVA currently has the 8th best recruiting class for 2016 (according to ESPN) with the #25, #52 and #77 ranked players in the 2016 class. Maybe not the best example to prove your point. Maybe Bennett recognizes that sustainability depends on talent after all.
Click to expand...
 
I think you can build a program with recruits outside the top 50-75 but you can't have sustained success without stars.
 
birdman said:
Just FYI, UVA currently has the 8th best recruiting class for 2016 (according to ESPN) with the #25, #52 and #77 ranked players in the 2016 class. Maybe not the best example to prove your point. Maybe Bennett recognizes that sustainability depends on talent after all.
Click to expand...

That's the hope.

1. You build up the program by developing and identifying under the radar guys.
2. You parlay that into success.
3. You parlay that success into getting top 10 type classes.
 
Phase One seems to be (cautiously) working
Phase Two may be starting to take place this week
Phase Three will be a wait and see for a couple of years.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Phase One seems to be (cautiously) working
Phase Two may be starting to take place this week
Phase Three will be a wait and see for a couple of years.
Click to expand...

Tonight and tomorrow will tell us a lot about Phase Two
 
ChrisL68 said:
That's the hope.

1. You build up the program by developing and identifying under the radar guys.
2. You parlay that into success.
3. You parlay that success into getting top 10 type classes.
Click to expand...

I can accept that that is the model, the question that remains is how well is (or will) Manning executing it? In my view there is not enough data to answer the question outright but there are a few troubling data points that increase my doubts. If you are not going to be a great recruiter, you vphave to be a great talent developer or great in game coach. Manning, so far is not a great recruiter (by the rankings anyway), some of his recruits are out performing the ranking so maybe he is an excellent talent developer, and he has made many head scratching/questionable decisions during games, i.e., maybe not a great in game coach. There are some positives but a bunch of negatives too, therefore I am hopeful, but skeptical.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Yeah it was a bad decision to not guard the inbounder.
Click to expand...

It's not a right vs. wrong situation. Just like it isn't the right or wrong thing to do to foul up 3 with seconds left in the game. It depends on personal preference. Does it make the throw harder in terms of lanes and vision? Yes no doubt but if they didn't have any presence in front of half court, we had numbers in our favor.
 
Bluegrass Deac said:
The only two legit wins Bzz had I can think off the top of my head were Miami CJ's senior year (Miami went to Sweet 16) and Duke the next year although Duke ended up losing in first round of NCAA's to Mercer.
Click to expand...

Difference is we were deep in league play and it would have taken some sort of miracle run to get us in the tourney conversation. Not the case when you win a big one on the road/neutral court in November. Gives hope. Something this fan base has lacked in both major sports for quite some time.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
one time 24 years ago a team was up and didn't guard the inbounder and the other team threw a miraculous pass and converted an equally miraculous shot so you always mention that game when deciding whether or not to have a 5 on 4 advantage in the half court or guard the inbounder
Click to expand...

Another time, even longer ago, a team put a big defender on the inbounding guard. The guard ran away from him and threw a 3/4 court strike to a jump shooter who hit the game tying basket. The same team later won in overtime.

There is at least one less banner (and probably several fewer banners) in Cheater Hill because of that game in the 1973 ACC tournament. The last seeded Wake Forest team beat the second seed UNC team, when only the ACC tournament winner went to the NCAA tournament. ACC best team, NC State, was on probation and ineligible for NCAA tournament, so tourney runnerup (Maryland, which beat Wake in the next round) went to NCAA tournament. If Wake had lost, UNC/MD played for NCAA berth.
 
TUA01576 said:
It's not a right vs. wrong situation. Just like it isn't the right or wrong thing to do to foul up 3 with seconds left in the game. It depends on personal preference. Does it make the throw harder in terms of lanes and vision? Yes no doubt but if they didn't have any presence in front of half court, we had numbers in our favor.
Click to expand...

I would argue that is is a lot closer to a 50/50 decision with 1.5 seconds or less left in the game because then deflecting the ball could kill the game because the clock starts once it is touched. But with 3+ seconds left that deflection doesn't matter as much and after DT got his hand on the ball it could have gone anywhere, including a lucky bounce to an open IU player. I'm glad that it did not.

And I do realize that we theoretically have a 5v4 advantage on that half of the court to win that 2nd ball after the deflection, but I'm not sure that's the case since the player that deflected it probably won't get to the ball first since he is falling to the ground, so it is 4v4 or 3v3 assuming two defenders converge on the pass and the one offensive player that is targeted is also taken out of the fight for the loose ball.


I hope that made sense.
 
I think another idea behind it is that even though the inbound defender may not tip/deflect it, the pass is clearly going to have to be thrown higher (and obviously be in the air longer), which makes it more likely that a defender in the court of play can get to the ball in time and make a play.

That can make a huge difference in reaction time of a defender to the ball, especially if he has been screened before the pass is made.
 
TownieDeac said:
I think you can build a program with recruits outside the top 50-75 but you can't have sustained success without stars.
Click to expand...

In addition to Wisconsin and Gonzaga, Tony Bennett is on quite a run at UVA without stars (Butler, Xavier and Wichita State also). If you can consistently recruit top 100 players, and you can implement a well coached system, you can have sustained success without lottery pick talent. Also, once you build the program, it's a lot easier to attract stars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top