• 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!

MTOW, Dan's Post Game Assessment

ChrisL68 said:
Wouldn't you claim it was 0% accurate for Wake since you have talked about what a terrible position Dino left [Redacted]?
Click to expand...

DC probably can't hear you from his high horse.
 
DC, [Redacted] has failed on an historic level to right the ship for our program. If he leaves at the end of this year, he will be leaving us in a dramatically weaker position. There is no way around this fact.
 
RJKarl said:
I NEVER said that.

All that's RELEVANT is what Dino or anyone else would have done with the cards that were dealt for the 2010-11 season in the fall.

To extrapolate that I was saying we'd go 8-24 in April is totally false.
Click to expand...

Well you said a failing season was to be expected. I disagreed with that and posted that Dino would win 15 games. You said not even John Wooden could win 15 games with that roster. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Teams with far less talent than that team had have won 15 games in a season before. You may disagree whether Dino was capable of that but to act like it wasn't possible is disingenuous.
 
Love the Winn commentary

The only factor that keeps [Redacted]'s gig from being No. 1 on this list? The level of expectations, given that he's replacing a guy who had a 61-31 record over the past three seasons and was fired for not winning enough in the NCAA tournament. There won't be any patience for mediocrity at Wake. What makes [Redacted]'s situation such a good one is that he's stepping into a very stable program: He kept Gaudio's entire top-15 recruiting class (including a quartet of four-star prospects) intact, and retained ace recruiter Jeff Battle as an associate head coach. The Deacons may miss the NCAA tournament this season after losing stars Al-Farouq Aminu and Ish Smith, but they're well-positioned for success in 2011-12 and beyond.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/luke_winn/09/15/new.coaches/index.html#ixzz2oz8cEb2G
 
I'm not a hindsight guy. At the time I was just as excited about our recruits as anyone. Article made perfect sense based on their rankings - but rankings are just potential.

I assumed just like the article did that [Redacted] was jumping in with a great glass, retaining an excellent recruiter in Battle, and after a down year would have us right back on track.

Not sure I can be any more critical of how [Redacted] took a year off recruiting when he started and how inexcusable that is. I think he should be fired barring an NCAA appearance this year. In hindsight the class was not only overrated, but we also lost Woods to a freak situation and had some disciplinary issues on the team likely exacerbated by [Redacted]'s inability to relate to the players. I'm in the minority that also holds Battle and Rusty accountable for this as well.
 
Pretty much everybody holds Battle and Rusty accountable.

You can be more critical of Bz by not defending him and not being unreasonably critical of others who are critical of Bz.
 
There is a difference between a down year for Wake (NIT/CBI) winning season but no post season, and the two record setting bad years with a 3rd very bad year added for good measure.
 
PhDeac said:
Pretty much everybody holds Battle and Rusty accountable.

You can be more critical of Bz by not defending him and not being unreasonably critical of others who are critical of Bz.
Click to expand...

Apparently your level of "unreasonable" varies greatly from mine. That he left Colorado in good shape is not an unreasonable assertion. Especially not when they won 48 games in the next 2 years. I haven't said a word in defense of his failure at Wake. But say even the slightest thing about [Redacted] doing anything positive at any point in his career around here and everybody loses their minds.

And maybe I missed "pretty much everybody" being critical of Jeff Battle. Perhaps you can link some threads on that one.
 
I think we need a ranking system for the Bzztards. I propose the following:

Level 1 Bzztard- Someone who thinks he's a lousy coach, but whines about all the non-coaching criticisms (e.g. Prius, yoga, socks)
Level 2 Bzztard- Someone who may think he's a lousy coach, but still makes excuses for how bad his performance has been here (e.g. "John Wooden couldn't have won with those players!")
Level 3 Bzztard- Someone who defends Bzz's coaching, but concedes he hasn't gotten the job done here (e.g. "He's built a nice foundation here, he just isn't good enough to get us over the hump.")
Level 4 Bzztard- Someone who admits Bzz hasn't succeeded, but still thinks he's a good coach and blames the failures on lack of fan support (e.g. "He would have won if the fans had gotten behind him!")
Level 5 Bzztard- Someone who thinks Bzz is a great coach and will still succeed here (e.g. Lectro)
 
DC, why do you feel this persistent need to defend Bz and Wellman?
 
"Level 2 Bzztard- Someone who may think he's a lousy coach, but still makes excuses for how bad his performance has been here (e.g. "John Wooden couldn't have won with those players!")"

Be accurate, I've also said [Redacted] is the worst end of game coach I've ever seen on any level. I've also said he's horrible rotations and has no real sets.
 
RJKarl said:
"Level 2 Bzztard- Someone who may think he's a lousy coach, but still makes excuses for how bad his performance has been here (e.g. "John Wooden couldn't have won with those players!")"

Be accurate, I've also said [Redacted] is the worst end of game coach I've ever seen on any level. I've also said he's horrible rotations and has no real sets.
Click to expand...

It only took you a couple years to get there.
 
PhDeac said:
DC, why do you feel this persistent need to defend Bz and Wellman?
Click to expand...

This coming from you?

Why do you feel a persistent need to correct people when you think they are misinformed or are misinforming others?

As a general response though, I think the fair criticism and reasoning to fire [Redacted] is watered down by weak, bullshit-filled arguments. Now that disco Dan is representing board opinion as the "voice of the fans" or whatever you want to call it, I think rational, fact-based arguments for his dismissal are more effective than all this crap about Wellman being an idiot or [Redacted] failing at everything he's ever done. The arguments get tagged with the lunatic fringe moniker and ignored.
 
I believe people should have good information so they can make rational, fact-based arguments.
 
Do you think saying [Redacted] had little or nothing to do with Colorado's success during the 2 years after he left is rational and fact-based?

Do you think saying a good hire could win 20+ games each year for the next 2 years at Wake is irrational?
 
DCDeac said:
Do you think saying [Redacted] had little or nothing to do with Colorado's success during the 2 years after he left is rational and fact-based?

Do you think saying a good hire could win 20+ games each year for the next 2 years at Wake is irrational?
Click to expand...

Barring getting a real star, it is irrational to think this squad could win 20+ games next year with the new ACC schedule.
 
OldGoldBeard said:
I think we need a ranking system for the Bzztards. I propose the following:

Level 1 Bzztard- Someone who thinks he's a lousy coach, but whines about all the non-coaching criticisms (e.g. Prius, yoga, socks)
Level 2 Bzztard- Someone who may think he's a lousy coach, but still makes excuses for how bad his performance has been here (e.g. "John Wooden couldn't have won with those players!")
Level 3 Bzztard- Someone who defends Bzz's coaching, but concedes he hasn't gotten the job done here (e.g. "He's built a nice foundation here, he just isn't good enough to get us over the hump.")
Level 4 Bzztard- Someone who admits Bzz hasn't succeeded, but still thinks he's a good coach and blames the failures on lack of fan support (e.g. "He would have won if the fans had gotten behind him!")
Level 5 Bzztard- Someone who thinks Bzz is a great coach and will still succeed here (e.g. Lectro)
Click to expand...
This is pretty outstanding (see pos rep). I'd only comment that we might need an additional level -- perhaps 1B -- for people who for whatever reason think [Redacted] was a good and/or justifiable hire initially but admit he's underperformed at Wake. (I'm thinking specifically about posters who might think [Redacted] was "a good choice to come in and clean up the program" or "was a proven program-builder, it just hasn't worked out at Wake." Maybe there aren't any such posters, but w/e.)
 
None actually. It's being saved for the tags I guess. Either way I couldn't care less.

I think there might be 4 or 5 posters so irate about [Redacted] that simply saying he left Colorado in good shape and hopefully after we fire his ass we can win immediately sets them off in fits of anger, name calling, and other childish garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top