• 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

RJKarl said:
I've made my position absolutely clear for next year. It won't change.

No Dance, No job.

It's that simple.

But keep making shit up about me. You seem to love to do it.
Click to expand...

This is really bizarre. I can't edit my posts.

My only edit here was to add the word "next" to the first sentence.
 
Lohengrin said:
Bottom line: The ONLY reason not to fire Manning now is Wellman. The premise is that we should wait another year b/c he'd just pick another loser this year. Why does anyone think Wellman won't still be here after S5? His retirement is not at all a given. If Wellman remains after S5, are we still firm in not firing Manning? Does Manning get an indefinite hall pass until Wellman leaves?

If we're waiting on Wellman, then we may be waiting a long time. Perhaps the Wellman rationale shouldn't even be a consideration unless we know for certain he is leaving prior to S5.
Click to expand...

Here’s the problem with that argument. It requires absolute certainty that Manning won’t succeed next year or in the future. If you are already there then yeah firing him now is the way to go. If not, then each subsequent year that he sucks increases the confidence that Wellman can find a better replacement.

I don’t think most of you are nearly as sure as you pretend to be.
 
Lohengrin said:
Extend your logic, RChill. It doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Let’s say based on performance to date, Manning has an X% chance of meeting your expectations for the program.

Let’s also assume that the overall quality of the pool of available coaches is the same each year, that Wellman’s ability to identify and hire a coach with a >X% chance of meeting your expectations for the program, and your risk tolerance are constant year to year.

If X goes down based on another year of data then Wellman’s ability to hire a coach with >X % chance of succeeding goes up.
 
Because it can go on infinitely. You never know "for certain" about anything in the future. It's why you give four years. If the results don't appear by then, then it's done. There's a cutoff. Had Manning had last year this year, perhaps another year could be "defended". I don't see it after this S4 however.
 
^^^^
This

S4 and 20 losses would get 99.9% of all other ACC bball coaches canned- guess who the .1% is. :tard:

400 pages and DM is still the coach....
 
A) You should probably apply to be a GM then

B) Nuh-uh, my eye test is better than your eye test.

And here’s the thing. I actually agree more or less with your analysis of 15-16 and have incorporated that into my assessment that Manning sucks at beating teams better than his or outperforming his talent level. It’s a flaw. It’s fixable to an extent with talent.
 
A) I don't agree with that in the least. Otherwise, why watch sports? I knew when it was time for the Falcons to fire Mike Smith...they did it a year too late IMO. Dan Quinn has worked out pretty well thus far, but I have my misgivings about his in-game management and ability to think under pressure. In fact, any Falcons fan paying attention knew that Sarkisian was a risky hire. He was very questionable in his management of what was supposed to be Kyle Shannahan's and Matt Ryan's offense. Dan Quinn knows it, Arthur Blank knows it and Thomas Dimitroff knows it. Hence why Greg Knapp was hired to help Sark bridge the communication gap between the playbook and Matt Ryan next year. Fans of the Falcons for years contended that Ryan had elite QB potential. He proved it with the right system and play-caller in 2016. 2017 was a regression due to poor coaching, period. Perhaps some O-line injuries contributed but they could have won the division, gotten a better seed with better play-calling. Anyway, the point being is astute fans knew just as well as Arthur Blank that some type of change needed to be made. They brought in Knapp. We'll see. I didn't need a whole lot of statistical analysis to convince me otherwise. Personally I would have preferred firing Sark and hiring someone better, but Ryan deserves continuity so we'll see with Knapp helping Sark.

B) If you asked me how I pick the ponies, I would be able to furnish you an entire system of data analysis and show you how I pick my horses for each race. But you know what, like you said, sometimes it just boils down to talent and in the case of the horses, CLASS. It seems rather obvious to apparently 75% of the people who post here that Danny is out of his depth, he's a game claimer who can't win at even the Grade 3 stakes level. It's not going to happen. Even if Hoard is a beautiful thoroughbred and Mucius proves to be a hot, feisty colt who doesn't know that he's not supposed to be running with experienced "'cappers" at a mile and a quarter.

Next year's team will flame out, even if they have a good first half of the season because Danny does not have the head coaching CLASS of roughly 85% of the ACC. He's in over his head. I thought he would know enough basketball from playing (and observing when oft-injured) so long and apply some of Self's principles or better yet, Coach Brown's. Maybe he does, but sometimes I wonder if Self is overrated as he has the luxury of playing average defense due to his higher rated stable of talent. But I'm not seeing anything that would lead me to believe Manning is applying what he learned effectively.

Perhaps he has the wrong assistants and their is a grave disconnect between the message he's trying to relay and how it's being applied in practice and with respect to game-planning. His in-game management smacks of someone who is constantly searching or looking for a magical combo rather than settling on a rotation he trusts and playing to the percentages. But Manning has been out-classed in close games by better coaches for the last 3 years.

Year 1 IS a throw-away cuz he didn't have his first real recruiting class and depth was severely lacking. That '15-'16 team was much better than 2 ACC wins. Yes, they had a brutal 4 game stretch as we entered ACC play, having to deal with Duke and L'ville after Xavier and LSU. But the next 3 games were winnable and we screwed the pooch after beating NC St. And funny, looking back, both Gott and what's his face from LSU are both gone...cuz they consistently lost to coaches like Manning despite having better talent.

Anyway, the Murderer's Row gauntlet of late January probably did us in (freshmen!!), but the back end of that sked was very "gettable." Yet, the team finished the string 1-9. The same team that started out 10-3 with wins over IU, UCLA, Arkansas, LSU with Ben Simmons then fell flat on their faces after Buzz's plucky band of overachievers exposed the hell out of Danny Manning. He had plenty of time to change course, work on defense, install zones, figure out how to dictate with your best lineup rather than REACTING to what the other team wants to do etc., but can we really say he has improved in any of those areas? Especially after this year??

My answer at this point is no. He needs to drop back down to the Claimer division and beat up on shitty C-USA teams.
 
RChildress107 said:
No they don’t. In college basketball, coaching includes acquiring talent.

I love JC but calm down. I love that PER is unassailable when it suits your argument but Kenpom is completely irrelevant.

And we aren’t worse this year than years 1and 2.
Click to expand...

You don't think that bad coaches post 19-12-esque records? Gott, Pelphry, and Gaudio, among literally hundreds of others, disagree.

You're putting words in my mouth. I neither think PER is unassailable nor think Kenpom is completely irrelevant. That being said, we're sitting at 90 kenpom.

The 10 teams above us? Northwestern (15-17), Temple (16-14), SMU (16-15), Stanford (17-14), Vanderbilt (12-19), Utah Valley (21-9), Belmont (24-9), UNCG (27-7), Buffalo (23-8), and South Carolina (16-15)

The 10 teams below us? Iowa (14-19), Oregon State (15-15), ETSU (25-9), Furman (23-10), Georgetown (15-14), Northern Kentucky (22-9), Northeastern (23-10), Washington (20-11), UCF (18-12), and DePaul (11-19).
 
Paul Hewitt made a natty title game.

People forget that
 
wsc8521s said:
Paul Hewitt made a natty title game.

People forget that
Click to expand...

Kevin Ollie did, too. He's about to get fired five years after that because he's not a good coach. There are a lot of bad coaches who ride great players to good records and NCAA Tournament appearances. Brad Underwood also comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
why is 19-12 being thrown around as WF's record last year? the record was 19-14
 
wsc8521s said:
Paul Hewitt made a natty title game.

People forget that
Click to expand...

seriously, how can you fucking forget this fucking guy:

jan-2004-luke-schenscher-of-the-georgia-tech-yellow-jackets-during-picture-id110356753
 
Strickland33 said:
You don't think that bad coaches post 19-12-esque records? Gott, Pelphry, and Gaudio, among literally hundreds of others, disagree.

You're putting words in my mouth. I neither think PER is unassailable nor think Kenpom is completely irrelevant. That being said, we're sitting at 90 kenpom.

The 10 teams above us? Northwestern (15-17), Temple (16-14), SMU (16-15), Stanford (17-14), Vanderbilt (12-19), Utah Valley (21-9), Belmont (24-9), UNCG (27-7), Buffalo (23-8), and South Carolina (16-15)

The 10 teams below us? Iowa (14-19), Oregon State (15-15), ETSU (25-9), Furman (23-10), Georgetown (15-14), Northern Kentucky (22-9), Northeastern (23-10), Washington (20-11), UCF (18-12), and DePaul (11-19).
Click to expand...

Well, you just did that to me, so.
 
RChildress107 said:
A) You should probably apply to be a GM then

B) Nuh-uh, my eye test is better than your eye test.

And here’s the thing. I actually agree more or less with your analysis of 15-16 and have incorporated that into my assessment that Manning sucks at beating teams better than his or outperforming his talent level. It’s a flaw. It’s fixable to an extent with talent.
Click to expand...

Shit son, it's not like I don't look at stats and trends and analyze them in helping me come to a conclusion. I've seen less talented teams with my own damn eyes beat "better" teams with more talent just as much as anyone. In fact, my brother's HS team was the poster child for that when I was growing up during my formative years of learning basketball. Sometimes yes, all it takes is that ONE special player to put you over the top. But the foundation needs to be set and the system needs to be sound. As Dino proved in 2009, you can't just roll out the basketball and hope they figure it out. Sometimes you actually need to coach! Maybe football is easier to analyze from afar since it's the ultimate team game with 11 players and strategy is evident from watching formations and sussing out how plays worked after the fact. I could sit at home and analyze a game to death on a DVR and give you myriad decisions Manning should've done differently. But I've already seen enough.

Next year will just delay the inevitable if Danny has 80% (thanks to Wellman) of the success you contend he needs to have to keep his job. But the 2019 Class may be the lynch pin in all of this. As it turns out, the 2016 class is proving to be the reason for this decline probably as much as Manning's inability to extract the best out of them. To me, the risk of doing it now and hiring a better coach with a fresh start is less risky than letting this drag on another two seasons. Personally I don't think Hoard, Mucius and Wright will prove to be enough (even if Woods came back and another Austin Arians came walking through that gymnasium door) to get us to 20 wins and making us a cold lock for the post-season. It's too much to put on most freshman, even if Hoard plays like Ben Simmons (doubtful).
 
Lohengrin said:
Because it can go on infinitely. You never know "for certain" about anything in the future. It's why you give four years. If the results don't appear by then, then it's done. There's a cutoff. Had Manning had last year this year, perhaps another year could be "defended". I don't see it after this S4 however.
Click to expand...

Certainty isn’t needed. You could do an expected value calculation for keeping Manning vs firing Manning. The expected value of firing him and hiring a new coach will stay pretty constant year to year. The expected value of keeping him will change based on your confidence level in Manning.

Unless you are already certain, that confidence level is likely to change based on another year of data. There’s a break even point at which the confidence level won’t change (for me that’s probably an 8 seed, KP #30, and a class similar to 2015) but otherwise the expected value for keeping Manning will change.

If the expected value of keeping him is already lower than firing him then how’s the time to make the change. If not then you should advocate waiting.
 
CharlotteDeac1 said:
Well, you just did that to me, so.
Click to expand...

I did? Last time I brought you up, I guessed that you'll make excuses for our team's performance next year. If you don't, then great. But, I still think you'll give this team a pass if we lose Key and Craw, don't get a grad transfer, and Hoard and Mucius do what freshmen do. You remind me a lot of myself circa 2012. That's what I did until about December, iirc. After a certain point, it's impossible to try to rationalize the irrational. At some point, I realized that coaches need to consistently win basketball games or it's time to move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top