Bill George
Active member
1-17 Well man!
I'm not going anywhere and will take the full force of the "told ya" that I'll assuredly get if we suck next year.
I will not be making excuses, and I don't particularly think I've been making many (if any) "excuses" to this point. Excuses and reasons aren't the same thing to me, and I went into the Manning tenure with the mindset of giving him five years to turn around the Bzzaster. Next year is it for me, and even if we do perform to standards there are other factors that could cause me to still be incredibly skeptical of Manning (namely our 2019 recruiting class).
That's a reasonable stance, sort of. I still don't get the 5 year thing. I think how you do in your first 4 years should determine how many years you get. If things looked promising but the results had not yet really shown up, then yes, more time. I just don't think any one should expect competence in year 5 when it has not been there in the previous 4.
BZ should never have gotten year 2 or year 3. Dino deserved more time. Closing your eyes for 5 years and then making an assessment seems crazy.
I went in thinking 5 years, but if we had four seasons like 1, 2, and 4 then I would be on the other side of the fence. Season three was a show of competence in my opinion, as I didn't expect going into the Manning tenure that we would make the tourney in year 3. 4 was a large step back - now season five is the deciding factor for me. Steady progress would have probably eased some minds here rather than a spike in year 3 and drop in year 4, but it is what it is at this point.
Yeah Clemson should be good again next year. How is Notre Dame going to be with Colson and Farrell gone? Still have Gibbs and Pfleuger with a top 10 class coming in.
The first 2019 bracketology had 11 ACC teams dancing w/ Notre Dame, GT, Wake, & Pitt as the outsiders.
Beyond the record, have you seen competence from Manning? Don't you think we would have had at least one season that was somewhere near average defensively if Manning should be here?
All 4 years have been very bad defensively for a power 5 team.
The first 2019 bracketology had 11 ACC teams dancing w/ Notre Dame, GT, Wake, & Pitt as the outsiders.
This is a Wake basketball thread. We don't do road wins.
Yeah, defense without question has been terri-bad. I want to see if it improves when we have good athletes but there's no arguing we haven't been a good defensive team. My perspective is just different than others because all I want is to get to the tournament and succeed there, I don't care one bit if it's from good defense or good offense. We had an elite offense that year and that showed me that Manning is capable of playing to the team's strengths (he has also shown how capable he is of doing the exact opposite).
TJDK
Yeah, defense without question has been terri-bad. I want to see if it improves when we have good athletes...
What will that prove though? That Manning's defensive system/coaching is so bad that it solely relies on better athletes to be something better than awful?
To answer your question directly, no. Manning clearly isn't some defensive genius, but good athletic defenders can make any coach's scheme look good. I'm not absolving Manning of blame at all, just saying your personnel is incredibly important. I think it's pretty established that I think player ability is much more important than others on the boards do.
Were we less athletic last year than this year? Was Manning's 2014 team just filled with freak athletes that he can't recruit to Wake for some reason? Why did we lack athletic defenders the last four seasons when other schools who recruit further down the rungs had no problem finding "athletic defenders"?
What are you using to determine defensive rankings?