• 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!

Danny Manning Credibility Watch

PhDeac said:
A buddy of mine who is a radio color commentator watched the last 10 minutes and had some observations. He thought we have NCAAT talent but don't do the little things like setting good screens and fighting through screens. He said Wake is a team that thinks it's working on D but it isn't. And we didn't run a single offensive set.
Click to expand...

Your buddy is a smart dude. Our big "comeback" last night included plenty of bad turnovers, heinous defensive lapses and bricked free throws.

Our sets are basically, if Collins is in the game, force it into him. If he is out, run motion and try to dribble drive to the rim.

If we somehow maintain confidence, this bunch can actually play a lot better and win a few games (and for their egos ENHANCE their draft or Euro-ball value for scouts).

In other words, don't quit!
 
RChildress107 said:
Given what Manning took over, where should his team be ranked at the end of year 3 for the rebuild to be "on track"?
Click to expand...

Don't really care that much about ranking. I wouldn't expect us to be Top 25 in the polls, and those are the rankings that really matter. I would expect us to not have any or more than one bad loss (check) and to have at least one quality win (no check). Those do not seem like unreasonable expectations.

Sorry, I just can't get my rocks off on point margins and schedule strength.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Don't really care that much about ranking. I wouldn't expect us to be Top 25 in the polls, and those are the rankings that really matter. I would expect us to not have any or more than one bad loss (check) and to have at least one quality win (no check). Those do not seem like unreasonable expectations.

Sorry, I just can't get my rocks off on point margins and schedule strength.
Click to expand...

So you measure progress by our combination of bad losses and quality wins? Still seems kind of arbitrary and schedule dependent but at least it's a standard.

What counts as a quality win?
 
WFU Lurker said:
Don't really care that much about ranking. I wouldn't expect us to be Top 25 in the polls, and those are the rankings that really matter. I would expect us to not have any or more than one bad loss (check) and to have at least one quality win (no check). Those do not seem like unreasonable expectations.

Sorry, I just can't get my rocks off on point margins and schedule strength.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what your definition of a quality win is? I'm not arguing that we have one right now, but what in your mind is a quality win?
 
RC107, do you think playing our best players increases our chances of winning?
 
[Redacted]'s last team had 2 bad losses (BC and GT) and 2 quality wins (Duke, UNC). But we just said this team is 10 points better than that one. Do you disagree? Has Manning really made zero progress?

According to your measure he hasn't.
 
RChildress107 said:
So in other words we are about 10 points better a game than when Manning took over. That almost sounds like progress.
Click to expand...

Better than [Redacted] is not an appropriate standard, IMO. Kenpom rankings are nice and all, but Manning is 8 and 33 in ACC play and 3 and 20 over the last 2 seasons. If not now, when do actual results (wins and losses) matter. Next year? Two years from now? Never, so long as Kenpom likes us?
 
I'm pretty comfortable using various computer rankings to measure Manning's progress. They capture the most data and help me place what I see on the floor and on the recruiting trail in context.

I'd be curious to know what objective standard everyone else is using to gauge Manning's progress.
 
RChildress107 said:
I'm pretty comfortable using various computer rankings to measure Manning's progress. They capture the most data and help me place what I see on the floor and on the recruiting trail in context.

I'd be curious to know what objective standard everyone else is using to gauge Manning's progress.
Click to expand...

Team record is a pretty good objective standard
 
RChildress107 said:
I'm pretty comfortable using various computer rankings to measure Manning's progress. They capture the most data and help me place what I see on the floor and on the recruiting trail in context.

I'd be curious to know what objective standard everyone else is using to gauge Manning's progress.
Click to expand...

Post-season appearances.
 
deac29 said:
Better than [name redacted] is not an appropriate standard, IMO. Kenpom rankings are nice and all, but Manning is 8 and 33 in ACC play and 3 and 20 over the last 2 seasons. If not now, when do actual results (wins and losses) matter. Next year? Two years from now? Never, so long as Kenpom likes us?
Click to expand...

They matter now. But as has been pointed out on this thread wins and losses aren't all created equally.

If you tell me a coach went 20-10 and that's all I know, I can't tell you whether he did a good, bad or mediocre job. I need more information. Context matters.

FWIW, I'd rather have a team that is expected to win more games, than a team that wins a few games it's not expected to win.
 
deac29 said:
Better than [Redacted] is not an appropriate standard, IMO. Kenpom rankings are nice and all, but Manning is 8 and 33 in ACC play and 3 and 20 over the last 2 seasons. If not now, when do actual results (wins and losses) matter. Next year? Two years from now? Never, so long as Kenpom likes us?
Click to expand...

Well in order to stay around 40-45 we are going to have to win 3-4 of our next 6 games, so that will take care of itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top