• 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

I think Manning is so stubborn and arrogant that if Wellman questions his rotations and line ups and lack of in game adjustments, that he may get so angry he just quits. A guy can dream
 
After Battle fouled out late in the game last night, Boeheim was forced to make his first sub of the entire half. He is a HOF coach and didn't sub one time in the entire 2nd half until he was forced to. It is not a hard concept to play the guys that you think give you the best chance to win.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
Amen and pass the el crasso. He is who we think he is. What makes folks think this is going to change next year and the year after? And if Hoard is as good as everyone says, he'll be gone after 1 year.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. He’s an above average recruiter who has built back up the talent base of the program, slowed somewhat by unexpected early departures and his own mistake in 2016; unable to get his team to close out games against better opponents; more demanding of big men than guards when it comes to filing out PT; a good/great offensive game planner; a mediocre/poor defensive game planner; better at skill development than coaching execution, unable to impact team chemistry, and a great representative of WFU.

There’s some good and some bad in there. A lot that can be covered up by point #1 and some that can’t. It’s added up to two lost seasons rebuilding the shot show he took over, a season that exceeded expectations and an utter shitshow of a season due to Manning’s complete failure to adjust to adverse circumstances.

I think he has a wider variance than past Wake coaches and if he has another class like 2016 I doubt he survives it. But success at Wake worth talking about has always been dependent on talent so I’m not sure his ceiling is any lower than pre [Redacted] coaches.
 
RChildress107 said:
Completely agree. He’s an above average recruiter who has built back up the talent base of the program, slowed somewhat by unexpected early departures and his own mistake in 2016; unable to get his team to close out games against better opponents; more demanding of big men than guards when it comes to filing out PT; a good/great offensive game planner; a mediocre/poor defensive game planner; better at skill development than coaching execution, unable to impact team chemistry, and a great representative of WFU.

There’s some good and some bad in there. A lot that can be covered up by point #1 and some that can’t. It’s added up to two lost seasons rebuilding the shot show he took over, a season that exceeded expectations and an utter shitshow of a season due to Manning’s complete failure to adjust to adverse circumstances.

I think he has a wider variance than past Wake coaches and if he has another class like 2016 I doubt he survives it. But success at Wake worth talking about has always been dependent on talent so I’m not sure his ceiling is any lower than pre [Redacted] coaches.
Click to expand...

Why aren’t you sure? Please provide comparative quantitative evidence.
 
As far as being a representative of Wake, he is certainly much better than [Redacted], but he is no Prosser or Clawson.
 
WFU Lurker said:
As far as being a representative of Wake, he is certainly much better than [Redacted], but he is no Prosser or Clawson.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty subjective, though I agree with you that Manning is somewhere between [Redacted] and 0 on the representation scale.
 
You realize... if this was the end of the season in any other WF sport with this record, and this 8 year record, there would be nothing close to this degree of discussion and analysis on so many threads, right? I find the meta-analysis of the fanbase far more fascinating than the program itself.
 
RChildress107 said:
Completely agree. He’s an above average recruiter who has built back up the talent base of the program, slowed somewhat by unexpected early departures and his own mistake in 2016; unable to get his team to close out games against better opponents; more demanding of big men than guards when it comes to filing out PT; a good/great offensive game planner; a mediocre/poor defensive game planner; better at skill development than coaching execution, unable to impact team chemistry, and a great representative of WFU.

There’s some good and some bad in there. A lot that can be covered up by point #1 and some that can’t. It’s added up to two lost seasons rebuilding the shot show he took over, a season that exceeded expectations and an utter shitshow of a season due to Manning’s complete failure to adjust to adverse circumstances.

I think he has a wider variance than past Wake coaches and if he has another class like 2016 I doubt he survives it. But success at Wake worth talking about has always been dependent on talent so I’m not sure his ceiling is any lower than pre [Redacted] coaches.
Click to expand...

I am not a big fan of variance that involves 20 loss season, First Four loss, 20 loss season. Should we expect another First Four loss next season followed by another 20 loss season?
 
Strickland33 said:
That’s because you’re unreasonable, illogical, and reactive.
Click to expand...

Or is it reactionary? I mean a 20 loss season after a First Four appearance does seem quite a reaction...like in a nuclear reactor when it melts down.

Danny just needs to hire some cadmium bars he can slide in to the line up when the going gets tough!
 
Strickland33 said:
That’s pretty subjective, though I agree with you that Manning is somewhere between [Redacted] and 0 on the representation scale.
Click to expand...

To be this, Danny would have to have something in public. Please explain how Danny has brought disrepute to Wake Forest.

Losing basketball games does not do that.
 
Strickland33 said:
Why aren’t you sure? Please provide comparative quantitative evidence.
Click to expand...

The dude begins his argument for Manning by completely and totally writing off Y1 and Y2 because feelings. For a guy who claims to rely on stats, he has zero explanation for why those seasons can't be analyzed and considered. In RChill's mind, Y3 was the first time we could even evaluate Manning, so of course an "over-achievement" due to one over-achieving player makes Manning look good and makes it easier to excuse the shit show of this year. From that perspective, we just finished up Y2 of Manning, and the successful season he's predicting for next year would make him 2 out of 3.

Never mind that Manning took over after [Redacted]'s best season, inherited his best players, and we still went downhill. Never mind that Dave Odom took over an awful situation and had us at the top of the conference in his S2. Never mind that Manning makes the same mistakes today that he made in Y1. Never mind that multiple successful coaches question his boneheaded decisions during game broadcasts. Never mind other examples of coaches who have turned programs around in less time. Never mind all that. Because Kenpom.
 
Last edited:
Why the Deac Not said:
Or is it reactionary? I mean a 20 loss season after a First Four appearance does seem quite a reaction...like in a nuclear reactor when it melts down.

Danny just needs to hire some cadmium bars he can slide in to the line up when the going gets tough!
Click to expand...

You just don’t understand statistics, man. Next year is going to be the year !
 
RJKarl said:
For this to be true, Danny would have to do have something in public. Please explain how Danny has brought disrepute to Wake Forest.

Losing basketball games does not do that.
Click to expand...

Couldn't edit with copying...weird..
 
Strickland33 said:
Why aren’t you sure? Please provide comparative quantitative evidence.
Click to expand...

I think there’s a lot of projecting going on here. Y’all want me to claim that my conclusion is the only reasonable one, that Manning is clearly the guy, y’all are idiots for not agreeing with me, that he has no flaws, that this season isn’t his fault, that there’s no chance he fails again next year, and that I’m willing to bend my argument and contradict myself at every turn to go to bat for Manning. If I did it would be far easier to justify your own absolutism. It’s not going to happen.

I’m also not going to claim that statistics provide certainty. That would be silly.
 
Strickland33 said:
You just don’t understand statistics, man. Next year is going to be the year !
Click to expand...

In a world where S1/S2 are completely excused and ignored, I guess I understand how he considers everyone else to be reactionary. But that world only exists in his head.
 
i mean, TNG is a great show but S1 and S2 are bad to very bad...so....

hope this helps
 
RacerDeac said:
The dude begins his argument for Manning by completely and totally writing off Y1 and Y2 because feelings. For a guy who claims to rely on stats, he has zero explanation for why those seasons can't be analyzed and considered. In RChill's mind, Y3 was the first time we could even evaluate Manning, so of course an "over-achievement" due to one over-achieving player makes Manning look good and makes it easier to excuse the shit show of this year. From that perspective, we just finished up Y2 of Manning, and the successful season he's predicting for next year would make him 2 out of 3.

Never mind that Manning took over after [Redacted]'s best season, inherited his best players, and we still went downhill. Never mind that Dave Odom took over an awful situation and had us at the top of the conference in his S2. Never mind that Manning makes the same mistakes today that he made in Y1. Never mind that multiple successful coaches question his boneheaded decisions during game broadcasts. Never mind other examples of coaches who have turned programs around in less time. Never mind all that. Because Kenpom.
Click to expand...

Your point is proven by the prediction poll for this past season. All sunshine and roses.
 
RacerDeac said:
The dude begins his argument for Manning by completely and totally writing off Y1 and Y2 because feelings. For a guy who claims to rely on stats, he has zero explanation for why those seasons can't be analyzed and considered. In RChill's mind, Y3 was the first time we could even evaluate Manning, so of course an "over-achievement" due to one over-achieving player makes Manning look good and makes it easier to excuse the shit show of this year. From that perspective, we just finished up Y2 of Manning, and the successful season he's predicting for next year would make him 2 out of 3.

Never mind that Manning took over after [Redacted]'s best season, inherited his best players, and we still went downhill. Never mind that Dave Odom took over an awful situation and had us at the top of the conference in his S2. Never mind that Manning makes the same mistakes today that he made in Y1. Never mind that multiple successful coaches question his boneheaded decisions during game broadcasts. Never mind other examples of coaches who have turned programs around in less time. Never mind all that. Because Kenpom.
Click to expand...

I’ve explained ad nauseum over the past four years that I don’t care about Manning’s ability to win 14 vs 11 games with shit talent, that he should be afforded the freedom to do whatever he needed to do to deliver results beginning in year 3, even at the expense of wins and losses, and that building a talent base takes time. I compared his first two years to similar rebuilds, demonstrated with data why the situation he took over was worse, and outlined what specific results I expected in years 3 and 4.

I’ve spent far too many words dismantling the claims made in your second paragraph, using actual data, and defending my conclusions. If you really want me to rehash these arguments and are willing to engage with them let me know. Or just fee free to post your own expectations and defend them as reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top