• 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!

Melo Eggleston Leaves the Program

So why do you think I agree that we would only need 2 of the 3 to get near the NIT?

I think we have forgotten what it takes to have a good team. Let’s assume Hoard is as good as Collins, we would need the rest of the key contributors to be on par with the rest of that team to be close. That’s a tough ask without Sarr making a big jump to legit ACC contributor and Chaundee being a legit ACC starter.
 
Last edited:
Ayo said:
There were many games that we were in it down the stretch purely because of Crawford.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the lack of scoring down the stretch was everyone's fault.

I remember some terrible Crawford shots (some of which he made!), but I'm not sure who else you'd have wanted to have the ball in their hands.

Woods took a pretty awful (and early) shot at the end of the UNC game when we were down 2, IIRC.

I'm sure I'm annoying in repeating myself on this, but I really think that was one of the 2-3 biggest issues with last year's roster... Nobody to take/make shots in late game iso situations. I'd like to think Brown and/or Hoard could do that this year. Or even Mucius (but that's probably asking a lot).
 
DeacsATS said:
Yeah, the lack of scoring down the stretch was everyone's fault.

I remember some terrible Crawford shots (some of which he made!), but I'm not sure who else you'd have wanted to have the ball in their hands.

Woods took a pretty awful (and early) shot at the end of the UNC game when we were down 2, IIRC.

I'm sure I'm annoying in repeating myself on this, but I really think that was one of the 2-3 biggest issues with last year's roster... Nobody to take/make shots in late game iso situations. I'd like to think Brown and/or Hoard could do that this year. Or even Mucius (but that's probably asking a lot).
Click to expand...

I think Hoard has that type of face up iso game that wouldn’t require Childress to force the ball into him. Hopefully the spacing gives Hoard freedom to operate and find a cutter or shooter.
 
PhDeac said:
So why do you think I agree that we would only need 2 of the 3 to get near the NIT?

I think we have forgotten what it takes to have a good team. Let’s assume Hoard is as good as Collins, we would need the rest of the key contributors to be on par with the rest of that team to be close. That’s a tough ask without Sarr making a big jump to legit ACC contributor and Chaundee being a legit ACC starter.
Click to expand...

I don’t. And why are you using 16-17 as a comparison for what our team will need to look like to be “near NIT.” Last year’s team was much closer to being “near NIT” than the 16-17 team.
 
jaybone said:
1.25? Did I get it right?

Hudson and SJM were dismissed

Mitchell and Woods were rotation players

Rich Wash and Melo were not rotation players.

For me, the guys to focus on who left are Mitchell, Woods, Doral Moore, and Crawford.

Mitchell left despite getting good run his sophomore year and having a sister at Wake. Yes, he was 3,000 miles away, but still. This one was a concern. We have two guys coming in who play some version of his position, so I could see an argument that he felt he was being recruited over, but he would most likely be our starting 4 this year had he stayed. And playing 20+ minutes a game. This one totally on staff

Woods - hard to tell. In some ways, it reminds me of Kawhi Leonard. We have constantly heard reports of Woods' Dad and playing time/usage. Reminds me of Leonard's Uncle. I have a feeling that Woods' Dad is working hard to leverage his son't college career into an immediate pay day playing in Europe. Not a $40,000 a year job in Belgium, but a $250,000 a year job in Italy. Fair enough. There were whispers of problems before Woods got hurt last year. We just couldn't hide his bad defense, either because our staff cannot coach Defense, and/or we didn't have the players to cover his man when he skipped past him. This one is on both Woods and staff.

Moore leaving is all about him wanting to get paid for working so freakin hard to get good. I get it. He was advised by Manning to stay. He didn't. This one is on Moore. I think if Manning was Daddy figure like Coach John Thompson was, he'd have got him to stay for the betterment of his career, but Manning is not John Thompson. He doesn't strike me as the warm and fuzzy mentor at all. He's more lunch pail taciturn. Make me happy today and tomorrow we start afresh. You have to make me happy then too. For some kids, like John Collins, that is easy. For others, like Moore who may want to take a day or two off, maybe it is more difficult. Still this one is on Moore.

Crawford leaving I have to point a finger at Chill. Now, maybe he is conflicted because Craw leaving means more oxygen for his son, but the fact is that Crawford came in a flawed player with a load of borderline NBA talent and left a more experienced, more muscled flawed players with a load of Euro talent. My only positive takeaway is that our strength and conditioning program is elite.
Click to expand...

The only one I care about losing was Donavan Mitchell. We could really use him this year and he should have a very good final 2 years based on improvement as a sophomore.
 
RChildress107 said:
I don’t. And why are you using 16-17 as a comparison for what our team will need to look like to be “near NIT.” Last year’s team was much closer to being “near NIT” than the 16-17 team.
Click to expand...

No. Just no. Even the basic math doesn’t work there. There are far more teams between an 11 win team and the bottom of the NIT at-large field than between the NIT bottom and the First Four.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. A "huge jump from Brown, a big jump from Sarr, and a special player in Hoard" won't even get us near the NIT unless several other players step up including freshmen.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
Near the NIT is a pretty low bar. 2 out of 3 of those things happening could be enough to get us near the NIT.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
"Near the NIT" would be the 2nd best Wake team in the last 9 years.
Click to expand...

Is the second bold saying anything materially different than the first? Is it responding at all to the disagreement at hand:

Ph: Even if Hoard, Sarr, and Chaundee are good/great we won’t even be near the NIT

RC: actually we just need two of those three to be good/great to be “near NIT”
 
RC, you have made a name for yourself defending Manning. I reminded you that low bar was quite good for Manning.

As for the second part, you’re putting words into my mouth instead of using what I specifically said. You’re not arguing in good faith.
 
PhDeac said:
No. Just no. Even the basic math doesn’t work there. There are far more teams between an 11 win team and the bottom of the NIT at-large field than between the NIT bottom and the First Four.
Click to expand...

KP ranks of last year’s last 4 NIT at large bids (which are by definition better than “near NIT”):

BYU:73
BC: 77
Temple: 86
UW: 98

Wake was 89.
 
For us to be any good, we have to be talented enough to be in 90% of our games with 5 minutes to play and then we have to execute down the stretch. Unfortunately, I have seen nothing on the court that gives me any sort of good feeling on our ability to out-execute opponents because frankly, the opposite has happened. We have lost games, home games, to inferior teams because all 5 players on the other side were in sync and knew what they were supposed to do on the court. We have not shown that discipline or even an understanding of roles to match teams that have at least high mid major talent and are well coached. I will say with one significant exception - Chaundee. That gives me a glimmer of hope, though I admit, he could and most likely walked on campus with that ability. Much like John Collins walked on campus with a higher motor and work ethic than his conference peers.

The way I see it, we need two possibly three of the following to be ACC-level contributors by Day 30 of the season: Michael Wynn, Jamie Lewis, Sharone Wright Jr., and Isaiah Mucius. ACC level means a guy who could average 8 pts per game in conference play. Have a few 4 point games but also a handful of 17 point games. We need three of these guys to produce like that IMO or one of the 4 to emerge out of nowhere to be a high level ACC talent.

That's a tall task IMO. It is essentially like hoping we've been gifted one Tim Duncan (2star unknown recruit) spread out across four players.
 
We needed at least 5 more wins to be eligible for the NIT. That’s pretty far away.
 
PhDeac said:
RC, you have made a name for yourself defending Manning. I reminded you that low bar was quite good for Manning.

As for the second part, you’re putting words into my mouth instead of using what I specifically said. You’re not arguing in good faith.
Click to expand...

Defending Manning from comparison to [Redacted] of endless kvetching about trivial matters =\= defending Manning as a successful coach. He hasn’t been. I’ve said this dozens if not hundreds of times at this point.

I’m drawing logical conclusions from your words: “A huge jump from Brown, a big jump from Sarr, and Hoard being special would mean two good players and one great one, correct.
 
RC, why are you clarifying my words instead of just going with what I said? I further clarified what those jumps would mean from Chaundee and Sarr yet you ignore it. Sarr was far from good. A big jump would make him a contributor.
 
PhDeac said:
RC, you have made a name for yourself defending Manning. I reminded you that low bar was quite good for Manning.

As for the second part, you’re putting words into my mouth instead of using what I specifically said. You’re not arguing in good faith.
Click to expand...

Here's the fucking thing though, unless I am suffering from reading comprehension fail, RC is NOT simply defending Manning as our "answer." All he's said is that Manning inherited a disaster, and has been an improvement over retired Colorado funny man, Bzd. That's it. He's had some really good recruiting wins. He's found at least one diamond with a 3star ranking, and RC "hopes" that Manning hasn't hit his ceiling and can improve as a coach and leader of a program. He's essentially acknowledged Manning's shortcomings. Now, because he doesn't want Manning gone yesterday he is somehow "all in" on Manning???

It just sucks that our program conversations fall into this terrible black-white trap. Especially from a pretty knowledgeable poster like yourself. I think you should lay off the absolutes (and Asbolute).

I am pro-Manning and I am on record stating I think we will overachieve this year. The reason I am pro-Manning is simply because I do want Wellman to hire the next Wake Forest basketball coach. I'd rather watch a Manning-coach team try to claw out 16-20 wins over the next 3 or so years and wait for either a) Wellman to retire or b) CP3 to win an NBA championship and retire. It is as simple as that. I'd rather root for Manning than the next Mark Turgeon or some third-choice coach we end up with should this season fall apart and Manning get canned after it.
 
NOT letting me Edit my post. To clarify - I DO NOT want Wellman to hire our next bb coach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top