• 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

thatguy2016 said:
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
Click to expand...

The second one. Feel free to join in on that discussion.
 
i don't see how it's wrong to say that crawford was a good player (who had good #s, even last year) who was hampered by poor coaching.

especially since, given the same coaching staff, we are seeing huge backwards steps now that we've lost that good player (along with two other good players, moore and woods)
 
RChildress107 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doral and Key for starters? How is Crawford a weak example? Doral's success in the G-league is debatable, but he obviously seems effective in limited role at a much higher level.
 
Last edited:
mako1331 said:
Doral and Key for starters? How is Crawford a weak example? Doral's success in the G-league is debatable, but he obviously seems effective in limited role at a much higher level.
Click to expand...

I think people are underestimating how good the ACC is and how good Doral was last year (and Crawford and Woods the year before).
 
RChildress107 said:
I think people are underestimating how good the ACC is and how good Doral was last year (and Crawford and Woods the year before).
Click to expand...

Fair argument. If that's the case, the question still remains. Why were we so shitty?
 
Manning should absolutely be grilled for his performance last year, which was a complete failure to get anywhere close to the sum of our parts. We don’t need to pretend that Manning stymied players individual growth in order to conclude he’s a bad coach. The data doesn’t support the argument and it’s logically inconsistent with the other (valid) arguments against Manning.
 
RChildress107 said:
Manning should absolutely be grilled for his performance last year, which was a complete failure to get anywhere close to the sum of our parts. We don’t need to pretend that Manning stymied players individual growth in order to conclude he’s a bad coach. The data doesn’t support the argument and it’s logically inconsistent with the other (valid) arguments against Manning.
Click to expand...

So you're saying players developed at an acceptable rate under Manning's tenure? Because that seems to be a tenuous argument.
 
RChildress107 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tepid support!
 
mako1331 said:
Fair argument. If that's the case, the question still remains. Why were we so shitty?
Click to expand...

Does it? The answer to that question has been obvious any time it has needed to be asked. The only uncertainty was how far back in the causal chain you needed to go. 97-99: Odom, but he’ll fix it. 05-07: Skip, but he’ll fix it. 10-12: [Redacted], but surely Wellman will fix it. 12-16: [Redacted], but really Wellman (maybe he fixed it?). 17-present: Manning, but really Wellman, but actually really Hatch and the BOT.

This isn’t rocket science.
 
mako1331 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This year's team would have been the most talented group since Dino by a wide margin. Granted Hoard isn't as good as JC, but he's likely to be drafted as highly or higher than JC. Doral was massively better than he was when JC was here. With better players around him and not having to cover up for others, Bryant would have been much better than he was with JC's team. We didn't have anyone nearly as good as Chaundee on JC's team. We wouldn't have had anyone as good as Dinos, but as a sub, rather than a cornerstone, Sarr has value. Mucius is better other bench player that team by a giant margin. I'll take Sharone over Wilbekin every time.

If Danny was able to get JC's team to the NCAA, it would be logical to think he could get a more talented and much, much deeper team into The Dance and likely into the Top 25.

I'm not saying Danny is a plus coach, but we do have evidence of what he did the only time he had some talent (not getting the talent is his fault). There are legitimate questions about Danny's ability marginal talent to being competitive, but if everyone returned, we'd have been tough to beat no matter who was coaching us.

As Skip used to say, "It's not the Xs and Os. It's the Jimmies and Joes." We would have had a lot of good Jimmies and Joes.
 
mako1331 said:
So you're saying players developed at an acceptable rate under Manning's tenure? Because that seems to be a tenuous argument.
Click to expand...

I’m saying that players leaving Wake’s program don’t actually play significantly better upon leaving the program.

I’ll also say that all of the players y’all are citing are currently playing better than one would have suspected based on where scouts had them pegged before they entered the program. Draw your own conclusions from that if you want.
 
RChildress107 said:
Does it? The answer to that question has been obvious any time it has needed to be asked. The only uncertainty was how far back in the causal chain you needed to go. 97-99: Odom, but he’ll fix it. 05-07: Skip, but he’ll fix it. 10-12: [Redacted], but surely Wellman will fix it. 12-16: [Redacted], but really Wellman (maybe he fixed it?). 17-present: Manning, but really Wellman, but actually really Hatch and the BOT.

This isn’t rocket science.
Click to expand...

K. Cool. If you're trying to draw any correlations to the clusterfucks of the last 9 seasons to any time during Odom or Skip's tenures, then we probably aren't going to get anywhere discussing much of anything. Jesus.
 
mako1331 said:
K. Cool. If you're trying to draw any correlations to the clusterfucks of the last 9 seasons to any time during Odom or Skip's tenures, then we probably aren't going to get anywhere discussing much of anything. Jesus.
Click to expand...

Good thing I’m not. Just pointing out then when a team is shitty it ultimately falls on a coach, and sometimes goes beyond that. The reason Skip and Odom aren’t comparable to [Redacted], Manning, or Wellman, is that they were capable of fixing their mistakes. Flossing over that fact is an insult to their legacies at Wake, not a tribute.
 
RChildress107 said:
Good thing I’m not. Just pointing out then when a team is shitty it ultimately falls on a coach, and sometimes goes beyond that. The reason Skip and Odom aren’t comparable to [Redacted], Manning, or Wellman, is that they were capable of fixing their mistakes. Flossing over that fact is an insult to their legacies at Wake, not a tribute.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you trying to do then?

You’re not just pointing things out when you start talking about causal chains and causality. You’re using statistics language and justifications to make an argument that doesn’t involve statistical analysis.

It really seems like you’re just being difficult to be difficult.
 
RChildress107 said:
Good thing I’m not. Just pointing out then when a team is shitty it ultimately falls on a coach, and sometimes goes beyond that. The reason Skip and Odom aren’t comparable to [Redacted], Manning, or Wellman, is that they were capable of fixing their mistakes. Flossing over that fact is an insult to their legacies at Wake, not a tribute.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's my headache, maybe it's my lack of reading comprehension skills, or maybe you're just really shitty at making a point, but the things that you say in clarification aren't anywhere close to what's coming across in your posts, big guy.
 
mako1331 said:
Maybe it's my headache, maybe it's my lack of reading comprehension skills, or maybe you're just really shitty at making a point, but the things that you say in clarification aren't anywhere close to what's coming across in your posts, big guy.
Click to expand...

That’s probably the point. Some people go to therapy. Some people maintain a board schtick. I’ll let you guess which camp RChill falls into...
 
Strickland33 said:
What exactly are you trying to do then?

You’re not just pointing things out when you start talking about causal chains and causality. You’re using statistics language and justifications to make an argument that doesn’t involve statistical analysis.

It really seems like you’re just being difficult to be difficult.
Click to expand...

Mako said the question of “why are we shitty” still remains.

I was just pointing out that the answer to that question is always obvious. If a team sucks it’s the coach’s fault. Sure, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances completely outside a coach’s control (like taking over a dumpster fire) but for the most part, it falls on the coach. If a team sucks for a certain length of time, it becomes the AD’s fault as well, and then the president, and so on.

Is this really that controversial?
 
mako1331 said:
Maybe it's my headache, maybe it's my lack of reading comprehension skills, or maybe you're just really shitty at making a point, but the things that you say in clarification aren't anywhere close to what's coming across in your posts, big guy.
Click to expand...

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Go back and read my first response and tell me what you think it says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top