• 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!

Wake Forest Offseason Basketball Thread: Deacs in Inaugural Myrtle Beach Invitational

RacerDeac said:
No, that doesn't make someone a better coach. That makes for a better team despite the coach.
Click to expand...

RacerDeac said:
You serious Clark? I gave him credit for spotting and developing Collins multiple times in the last few posts.
Click to expand...

If getting better players is squarely within the responsibilities of being a college coach, then getting better players would under make a coach better.
 
RacerDeac said:
No, that doesn't make someone a better coach. That makes for a better team despite the coach.
Click to expand...

knowell said:
Obviously one of these is not like the others. Wake Forest is not going start recruiting 5 star players year in and year out regardless of who the coach is. There are a handful of coaches that can do that and they have proven themselves as good at either bench coaching or player development or both in order to attract those players. Also helps to have blue blood.

If you are asking whether I would prefer to watch an 18 win team that is mega talented but is otherwise poorly coached and looses games because of it VS an 18 win team that is not overly talented but plays hard every play and is well coached and plays above their talent level, I will take the latter every time.

I want my team to win but I also like watching basketball for it's own sake. Nothing is worse that wasted potential. Nothing is more frustrating than watching good talent poorly employed.

If nothing else, if I have a good coach than is not a great recruiter, I can always hope he gets lucky on a recruit or two. If I have a coach that screws up the talent he has, it will be just as frustrating watching him screw up at a higher level.
Click to expand...

That’s not what I’m asking. I take it from your post you don’t think #4 is a realistic get for Wake, you are probably right. That still leaves 1, 2, or 3.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
For some reason, nothing tangible of course, I have a feeling we're going to be better than the experts think. Probably wishful thinking, but it would be nice to overachieve for a change.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
Obligatory “we overachieved literally 2 seasons ago” post.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
Unless those two sentences are completely unrelated, “overachieve” is referring back to “what the experts think.” This post was in the midst of a discussion about the experts’ preseason expectations.

If y’all want to argue about whether the 16-17 team reached its potential, do it somewhere else. I’ll save you some time though, as with every Wake team in living memory, and virtually every college team ever, the answer is No.
Click to expand...

Why the Deac Not said:
Yup, pretty much this. As usual RC only wants to argue what he thinks are the parameters of said discussion. It's obvious to anyone paying close attention to that team in that season that they underachieved relative to their level of assembled talent. Anyone can say Wake Forest exceeded or overachieved "expert" expectations or predictions because most experts didn't care to take the time to analyze or assess a team that just came off a pathetic and underachieving 2-17 record in the ACC the year before. But you also could tell early on that that same '16-'17 team wasn't going to win with defense. That was also easy to diagnose after a few games. So at that point, any comparison to '15-'16 was irrelevant for the folks on this message board who dissect this shit like it's their job.
Click to expand...

Not really an argument. Those are the parameters of the discussion being had. Contrary to your apparent belief though, you can have any discussion you want to on here without my permission and over my objection.

Agree with the rest of your post though.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
We should ALL be a united anti-Manning front at this point...what is there to be excited about when it comes to the coaching of Smokin' Danny Manning!? There ain't no "miracles" up those tiny lapel-breasted suit coat sleeves of his.
Click to expand...

We are, and have been for a while. There is no “pro-Manning” faction that I’m aware of. The most “pro” Manning statement you’ll find on here since early last season is basically “I think Manning will do less damage while we wait out Wellman than Wellman will do in hiring a new coach.”
 
WFUWaldo said:
The more evidence, the increased clarity of the outcome.

If we are an ACC bottom-feeder again, I don't see how anyone would be able to defend Manning. If we are an NCAA tournament team, particularly with the expectations that are currently set for the program, it would be hard for anyone to be very anti-Manning.

For everyone's sake, hopefully we don't fall in the middle and have another 12 months of this crap.
Click to expand...

No one is defending Manning. Plenty of people will still be anti-Manning if we make the NCAA tournament, which might be justified depending on our seed and how the 2019 class ends up.
 
RChildress107 said:
No one is defending Manning. Plenty of people will still be anti-Manning if we make the NCAA tournament, which might be justified depending on our seed and how the 2019 class ends up.
Click to expand...

Even if we sneak into the NCAA Tournament, given our current roster, Manning will have proven himself to be a component in-game coach. That would remove a lot of the stigma surrounding Manning.

We are in a significantly different position than the 2016 offseason. Making the "First Four" with the current returning talent should unanimously be seen as an accomplishment.

You can debate whether or not we should be better off in Year 5 of the program, but that would be a far better trajectory than the one we are currently on.
 
WFUWaldo said:
Even if we sneak into the NCAA Tournament, given our current roster, Manning will have proven himself to be a component in-game coach. That would remove a lot of the stigma surrounding Manning.

We are in a significantly different position than the 2016 offseason. Making the "First Four" with the current returning talent should unanimously be seen as an accomplishment.

You can debate whether or not we should be better off in Year 5 of the program, but that would be a far better trajectory than the one we are currently on.
Click to expand...

If people are more excited about being “last 4 in” in year 5 than they were in year 3 then they are dumber than I thought. That might be enough to get him back to “better him than letting Wellman pick his replacement” territory, but absent Cole Anthony shocking everyone, he’s going to need more than another 11 seed to earn the support from fans as Wake’s coach moving forward.
 
RChildress107 said:
If people are more excited about being “last 4 in” in year 5 than they were in year 3 then they are dumber than I thought. That might be enough to get him back to “better him than letting Wellman pick his replacement” territory, but absent Cole Anthony shocking everyone, he’s going to need more than another 11 seed to earn the support from fans as Wake’s coach moving forward.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're missing here.

The biggest knock on Manning is that he is a poor in-game coach (including items like substitions, time out management, game planning, play calling, etc). People generally agree that he has been able to develop talent (at least in the post), and that he can be a decent recruiter when coming off of a successful season (which is not a give-in).

If he takes this junk roster and turns it into a competitive team, then he must have either a) improved as an in-game coach, or b) been able to recruit quality, under-the-radar players. Evidence of either a or b would make more people comfortable with Manning's future and our potential trajectory, even if "first four in year 5" isn't where we want to be as a program.
 
WFUWaldo said:
Not sure what you're missing here.

If he takes this junk roster and turns it into a competitive team,
Click to expand...

So now it's a "junk" roster that Danny Manning oversaw the recruiting of, but it's okay to recruit poorly as long as he proves himself to be a good "in game" coach??

This is a different slant on the excuse making. And I thought it was all about putting the talent on the floor and it will all fall into place?? I'm confused guys. Make up your minds.

If the prevailing sentiment around here -- that Danny isn't a good "in game" coach -- and this roster is junk, you realize we're really in trouble already right?

Convenient how y'all love to forget the start of last season when we had less "junk" and more experienced "talent" on the roster.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
So now it's a "junk" roster that Danny Manning oversaw the recruiting of, but it's okay to recruit poorly as long as he proves himself to be a good "in game" coach??

This is a different slant on the excuse making. And I thought it was all about putting the talent on the floor and it will all fall into place?? I'm confused guys. Make up your minds.

If the prevailing sentiment around here -- that Danny isn't a good "in game" coach -- and this roster is junk, you realize we're really in trouble already right?

Convenient how y'all love to forget the start of last season when we had less "junk" and more experienced "talent" on the roster.
Click to expand...

Not sure who you're arguing with.
 
That also happens to be the current theme of NBA talent evaluators. "Versatile player who can guard 1 through small ball 5." Or "versatile wing who can guard multiple positions." "Wing who is versatile enough to play the four or even small ball five."

If you look at the Wake roster, there are some guys who legitimately can play more than one position. So Danny has learned the cliche of the year in basketball.
 
So they’re channeling Dick Vitale talking about Grant Hill. Or before that anybody talking about Danny Manning.
 
This would be more relevant to next year's offseason thread, but per Jon Rothstein Wake will be playing in the 2019 Wooden Legacy in Anaheim, CA. Other participants include: Arizona, Providence, UCF, Charleston, Penn, Long Beach State and Pepperdine. I haven't seen official dates yet, but historically the tournment has started on Thanksgiving and ran through weekend.

This was formerly the Anaheim Classic (and the DirectTV Classic, and the 76 Classic), which Wake won in 2008 by beating CS Fullerton, UTEP, and Baylor as part of our 16-0 start to the year.

The Anaheim Classic also gave us the one of the best gifs (and moments) in boards history.
 
I hope there are more people at the games next year than that year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top