• 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

Pilchard said:
The line tomorrow will be around a pick.

This weekend's game at State will also be close to a pick.

WF will be less than a 5 point dog at Cuse, at home against Duke, home against L'ville and at VT. If you want to claim that WF can't match up with those teams bet a s-load against WF because those lines will be low.

WF will be favored by 5+ at BC and home against GT, State and Pitt.

The only game the rest of the way that WF will be more than a 5 point dog is at ND.

You can try to play down expectations to shield Manning, but every game the rest of the way is winnable. If WF wins 5 or less ACC games (meaning WF goes 4-9 or worse the rest of the way), the problem is not with the quality of the ACC, but a staff and team that doesn't know how to win its fair share of winnable games.
Click to expand...

RJ already does that.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Also, @Duke, but Pilchard has a really good post.
Click to expand...

Yes, caught that game at Cameron and edited.

Essentially, those that are using the KP ratings (which include myself) to claim WF basketball progress can't have it both ways. Either WF is much improved and will win at least some of the close games that they are about to play against other ACC teams or WF is not improved. WF can't go 4-14 (or 5-13) in the ACC with losses to Miami, State, Pitt et al, and claim that the program is moving in the right direction. The meltdown loss to Clemson was disturbing (to say the least), but otherwise this WF team has improved from last year based upon how it has beaten some decent opponents (and how it has been competitive with some the very best teams in the ACC), resulting in a solid KP rating. Now, the step has to be win some (not all) close games against our peers (teams ranked within 20 spots of WF). WF is about to have multiple chances.
 
Last edited:
Pilchard said:
Yes, caught that game at Cameron and edited.

Essentially, those that are using the KP ratings (which include myself) to claim WF basketball progress can't have it both ways. Either WF is much improved and will win at least some of the close games that they are about to play against other ACC teams or WF is not improved. WF can't go 4-14 (or 5-13) in the ACC with losses to Miami, State, Pitt et al, and claim that the program is moving in the right direction. The meltdown loss to Clemson was disturbing (to say the least), but otherwise the WF team has improved from last year based upon how it has beaten some decent opponents (and how it has been competitive with some the very best teams in the ACC), resulting in a solid KP rating. Now, the step has to be win some (not all) close games against our peers (teams ranked within 20 spots of WF). WF is about to have multiple chances.
Click to expand...

In other words, you summarized the two sides of the argument that permeate this thread.
 
rj has always set unreasonably low expectations for coaches he wants to protect in a certain season.

GT has 3 wins!
 
ChrisL68 said:
rj has always set unreasonably low expectations for coaches he wants to protect in a certain season.

GT has 3 wins!
Click to expand...

some fans love to predict doom and gloom so any moderate amount of success can make them happy.
 
ChrisL68 said:
rj has always set unreasonably low expectations for coaches he wants to protect in a certain season.

GT has 3 wins!
Click to expand...

It's not unreasonably low and I gave specific reasons why. It's not about "protection" barring a 1-17 ACC season, Danny isn't getting fired this year.

But don't let logic and facts get in your way.
 
Agreed. No matter what he is returning for another season. We should be looking at the season after.
 
RJKarl said:
It's not unreasonably low and I gave specific reasons why. It's not about "protection" barring a 1-17 ACC season, Danny isn't getting fired this year.

But don't let logic and facts get in your way.
Click to expand...

Your logic is deeply flawed. You claim we are a top 50 team and then indicate that we have no chance of beating hardly anybody in the ACC so that Manning has no way of not meeting your expectations this year.

Again, GT is 3-2. 5 ACC wins is an absolute failure of a season with the talent we have.
 
Tech is now slated to go 7-11 in the ACC too. Conference is hard as hell. That's a damn good job by Josh Pastner, he's getting them to play hellacious defense.

Okogie and Lammers are good.
 
We have a lot more talent than Georgia Tech and are in year three of the rebuild. Yes the ACC is hard. It's no excuse for having 8 conference win six games into year 03.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
ChrisL68 said:
We have a lot more talent than Georgia Tech and are in year three of the rebuild. Yes the ACC is hard. It's no excuse for having 8 conference win six games into year 03.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We can quibble about what reasonable expectations were for years 1-2 and whether Manning met them. It sounds like we agree that 16-14, 7-11, top 50 Kenpom is a reasonable expectation for year 3.

As of this morning Manning is on track to meet that expectation. So I'm really not sure what all the complaining is about.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Your logic is deeply flawed. You claim we are a top 50 team and then indicate that we have no chance of beating hardly anybody in the ACC so that Manning has no way of not meeting your expectations this year.

Again, GT is 3-2. 5 ACC wins is an absolute failure of a season with the talent we have.
Click to expand...

What I've said is the COMPUTERS say we're a Top 50 team.

I also didn't say "indicate that we have no chance of beating hardly anybody in the ACC". Five wins means we probably beat 4 ACC teams.

Let's look at a game most here think we should win- State. If Gott could coach, they should beat us by close to 10. We may steal one of those games.

JC v s. Abu - This one favors Wake. If JC, stays out of foul trouble this is in our favor
Dinos vs/ Yurseven - This is a draw to slightly in our favor
Dinos vsDorn- Dorn has been much more consistent than Dinos
Henderson vs. Arians - This one goes big time to State
Rowan vs. Woods -If it's the pre-ACC Keyshawen this is a push. If it's the ACC Keyshawn. it goes to State
Bryant vs. Smith- As much as I like Bryant, this is a mismatch for State
Our bench is mediocre as is theirs. Their Top 7 versus our Top 7 gives them an advantage.
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
We can quibble about what reasonable expectations were for years 1-2 and whether Manning met them. It sounds like we agree that 16-14, 7-11, top 50 Kenpom is a reasonable expectation for year 3.

As of this morning Manning is on track to meet that expectation. So I'm really not sure what all the complaining is about.
Click to expand...
Let's beat someone other than bc at home

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
Complacent Deac said:
Exhibit A and B: Grobe and Prosser
Click to expand...

Prosser took over a pretty great situation, Manning did not.

Tony Bennett is a good example. He's pretty much the gold standard for college rebuilds and UVA is a pretty good comp for Wake.

Let's agree to use the Tony Bennett standard to measure Manning's progress (keeping in mind that Bennett clearly exceeded expectations).
 
No question we should have beaten Clemson. However some here are acting like we should have beaten UVA, F$U or UNC.
 
It's unreasonable to expect Manning to have us much better than 40th in the country halfway through year 3.

The 40th best team in the country would be expected to go 10-7 (1-4) against our schedule. If we were 13-4 (3-2) as some of you seem to think we should be, we would be much higher than 40th in the country.

Since it's unreasonable to expect us to be any better than 40th, it's also unreasonable to expect us to be much better than 10-7 (1-4).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top