• 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!

Bryant Crawford in Israel

6th in the league at 19 ppg.

He’s averaging 19 and 5.3 with good percentages. He’s 3rd in the league in VAL, what I assume is an advanced metric. He’s right up there with a former NBA player who is 10 years older than him.

Yet Wake fans mock him because he left our beloved dumpster fire of a program and got paid.
 
Was about to post about this. Those numbers are in the league, not the team.

Good for him then, he is yet another one of many players to seem to play better after leaving here while Danny stays. Wonder if Bryant will be an advocate or supporter of Wake Forest basketball further down his career, or if he left with bad overall feelings towards being here.
 
Good for him then, he is yet another one of many players to seem to play better after leaving here while Danny stays. Wonder if Bryant will be an advocate or supporter of Wake Forest basketball further down his career, or if he left with bad overall feelings towards being here.

This is my new favorite board meme. I get that every piece of Wake Basketball News has to be spun in the light most negative to Manning (not that most of it needs any spinning), but this one is by far the most comical.
 
This is my new favorite board meme. I get that every piece of Wake Basketball News has to be spun in the light most negative to Manning (not that most of it needs any spinning), but this one is by far the most comical.

Why? It seems obvious that the vast majority of our players that leave are more engaged and effective in basketball after they leave our program. What would you attribute that to?
 
Good for him. Wish him well. I bet MSD is using his salary in "average salary after leaving Wake Forest" calculations.
 
Who knows. It’s comical in a “it’s so sad you can’t help but laugh” kind of way. How does Manning

What’s so funny to you?

Are you going to pull out some ridiculous logic that Manning should get credit for underachieving at Wake with players who go on to have good careers?
 
Could it be that he has more good players around him? Nah, that would make too much sense for a PG.
 
Soon, the 5% who are still Manning lovers will be crediting Danny boy and staff for molding BC into a fine, professional player.
 
Could it be that he has more good players around him? Nah, that would make too much sense for a PG.

Or the million other transfers or early grads who have gotten the fuck out of this toxic atmosphere?
 
Or the upper level recruits and talent that are losing to Richmond and Houston Baptist, and pulling out nailbiters against Western?
 
Could it be that he has more good players around him? Nah, that would make too much sense for a PG.

Better than the great big men Danny boy has developed, like Collins, Dinos and Doral? You surely must be joshing.
 
I wonder which of the following tangents is more appropriate:

1. A discussion of Presidential politics in a thread concerning the WF Athletic Director; or
2. A discussion of the competency of the WF head basketball coach in a thread concerning a former WF basketball player
 
If you look at most of the transfers, they were scrubs. Dinos left for a butt load of money that he would never have gotten in the US. He made the right decision and was helped by Danny in making it. His leaving was positive. JC leaving was the biggest positive of the program in this dark era. It showed a player overachieving and getting paid.

Losing the players last Spring was a slam against Danny, but before it the defections were due to PT and lack of ability.

The irony is if they came back we'd likely be a Top 25 team and their(Doral and Bryant) ability to make money in the US would have increased.
 
If you look at most of the transfers, they were scrubs. Dinos left for a butt load of money that he would never have gotten in the US. He made the right decision and was helped by Danny in making it. His leaving was positive. JC leaving was the biggest positive of the program in this dark era. It showed a player overachieving and getting paid.

Losing the players last Spring was a slam against Danny, but before it the defections were due to PT and lack of ability.

The irony is if they came back we'd likely be a Top 25 team and their(Doral and Bryant) ability to make money in the US would have increased.

Danny would still be coaching them. With Collins dominating his sophomore year and the surrounding cast, we were a play in team and didn't sniff the top 25. I have no idea what makes you think Manning would be able to coach that group into a top 25 ranking.
 
What�s so funny to you?

Are you going to pull out some ridiculous logic that Manning should get credit for underachieving at Wake with players who go on to have good careers?

Manning should be credited/blamed for the talent he brings in, he should be credited/blamed for how his teams perform, and he should be credited/blamed for how players progress under his tutelage. He shouldn�t be blamed for made up claims about the last of those.

Based on his sophomore year, Crawford�s performance in Israel is in line with what you�d expect for a player that continues to progress. Crawford saw a dip in his junior year but wasn�t nearly as bad as this board made him out to be. I�d imagine his struggles were due to a number of factors: progression isn�t always linear, there were obvious chemistry issues between Crawford/BChill/Woods (which are ultimately on Manning), and Crawford has some attitude issues (which were at least somewhat on Manning).

I know nuance is anathema to this board, but I thought we could avoid plainly untrue statements like �the vast majority of players that leave awake are obviously more effective in basketball after they leave.� Crawford is a pretty weak example of that even if you are only comparing this year to last year, I�m not aware of any others, much less a vast majority.
 
I wonder which of the following tangents is more appropriate:

1. A discussion of Presidential politics in a thread concerning the WF Athletic Director; or
2. A discussion of the competency of the WF head basketball coach in a thread concerning a former WF basketball player

2. When the question is why the player achieves now after continually underachieving while playing for said basketball coach, you don't think the discussion is relevant? Or am I just slow and missing sarcasm?
 
Back
Top