• 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!

Wake Forest Offseason Basketball Thread: Deacs in Inaugural Myrtle Beach Invitational

Multiple things are true.

-Collins was underrated.
-Manning did an amazing job of developing him.
-Manning underplayed Collins as a freshman.
-Our team underachieved as a whole in 16/17 even though Collins overarchived his recruiting ranking, mostly because Manning, while a great developer of big men, is awful as a team and game coach.
 
RacerDeac said:
Multiple things are true.

-Collins was underrated.
-Manning did an amazing job of developing him.
-Manning underplayed Collins as a freshman.
-Our team underachieved as a whole in 16/17 even though Collins overarchived his recruiting ranking, mostly because Manning, while a great developer of big men, is awful as a team and game coach.
Click to expand...

Agree with the first three. Underachieved as compared to what?
 
This discussion is a typical example of every discussion we have about Manning. Someone makes a factually inaccurate statement (in this case the implied statement was “it’s been a while since we’ve exceeded the experts’ preseason expectations), I correct that statement, other people jump in to start arguing against something I never said, usually by failing to accurately determine the meaning of a word by using context clues. Rinse and Repeat.
 
Ayo said:
Just from one game thread I brought up -- Collins's second game of his career vs. Bucknell.



LOL, Grant O'Brien replaced John Collins in a basketball game.
Click to expand...


Again, I’ve never argued that people weren’t claiming Collins was underrated from the jump, merely that no one predicted he would be as good as he was his sophomore year.

But while we are on the subject, y’all might want to go back and read early season game threads from the [Redacted] years before you pat your Nostradamus selves on the back too much.
 
RChildress107 said:
This discussion is a typical example of every discussion we have about Manning. Someone makes a factually inaccurate statement (in this case the implied statement was “it’s been a while since we’ve exceeded the experts’ preseason expectations), I correct that statement, other people jump in to start arguing against something I never said, usually by failing to accurately determine the meaning of a word by using context clues. Rinse and Repeat.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t the word originally used “overachieve”? I don’t think that is synonymous with exceeding preseason expectations, which are largely based on Manning’s failings as a coach.

If this year’s team wins 16 games, will it have overachieved? Personally, I think you have to look at that in the context of broad program expectations, not year to year message board win total predictions.
 
deac29 said:
Wasn’t the word originally used “overachieve”? I don’t think that is synonymous with exceeding preseason expectations, which are largely based on Manning’s failings as a coach.

If this year’s team wins 16 games, will it have overachieved? Personally, I think you have to look at that in the context of broad program expectations, not year to year message board win total predictions.
Click to expand...

Case in point.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
For some reason, nothing tangible of course, I have a feeling we're going to be better than the experts think. Probably wishful thinking, but it would be nice to overachieve for a change.
Click to expand...

Unless those two sentences are completely unrelated, “overachieve” is referring back to “what the experts think.” This post was in the midst of a discussion about the experts’ preseason expectations.

If y’all want to argue about whether the 16-17 team reached its potential, do it somewhere else. I’ll save you some time though, as with every Wake team in living memory, and virtually every college team ever, the answer is No.
 
RChildress107 said:
Agree with the first three. Underachieved as compared to what?
Click to expand...

Relative to the talent on the team. That should be the only measure that matters. Who cares what some guys that spent 5 minutes reviewing Wake's record and who who was lost and who was added think.
No "experts" spend any time on an in depth analysis of Wake basketball. It has been irrelevant for too long.

The people on this board are the closest you will get to "experts" since we are probably the only ones actually watching the games.
 
knowell said:
Relative to the talent on the team. That should be the only measure that matters. Who cares what some guys that spent 5 minutes reviewing Wake's record and who who was lost and who was added think.
Click to expand...

The argument that we DIDN'T underperform in 16/17 relies on believing that somehow Manning did a great job at team building, game prep, game management, etc, etc in 16/17, and that it was a major improvement over the two years previous, and that he forgot all that he had learned in the year immediately following. Manning has been the constant over the last 4 years. The argument for him when hired was that he was still learning and could grow into the coach we needed him to be, but we've seen little/any development of himself as a head coach. How often has he said that he needs to get better? Do we have any info that he's sought outside help or consulting? Maybe he has and I've tuned it out?

16/17 stands out slightly from the abyss of the other three seasons because of talent, but Manning was still the same coach through it all. He gets credit for the talent and talent development (things we knew he was good at from the start) that led to Collins and others having a great jumps in their individual abilities, but there's no evidence that he had one year where he suddenly became better at every other aspect of the job before regressing back to himself.
 
Last edited:
Yep. And all that is relevant in an ongoing discussion about whether or not Manning should keep that job.
 
RacerDeac said:
The argument that we DIDN'T underperform in 16/17 relies on believing that somehow Manning did a great job at team building, game prep, game management, etc, etc in 16/17, and that it was a major improvement over the two years previous, and that he forgot all that he had learned in the year immediately following. Manning has been the constant over the last 4 years. The argument for him when hired was that he was still learning and could grow into the coach we needed him to be, but we've seen little/any development of himself as a head coach. How often has he said that he needs to get better? Do we have any info that he's sought outside help or consulting? Maybe he has and I've tuned it out?

16/17 stands out slightly from the abyss of the other three seasons because of talent, but Manning was still the same coach through it all. He gets credit for the talent and talent development (things we knew he was good at from the start) that led to Collins and others having a great jumps in their individual abilities, but there's no evidence that he had one year where he suddenly became better at every other aspect of the job.
Click to expand...

So another point to support the bit of coaching lore,

Coach A, "How do I become a better coach?"
Coach B, "Get better players."
 
In an attempt to get us back on track, our secret scrimmage is in 4 days (10/27) at East Carolina. Are Les/Conor invited to those type of events?
 
Deaconblue said:
So another point to support the bit of coaching lore,

Coach A, "How do I become a better coach?"
Coach B, "Get better players."
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't make someone a better coach. That makes for a better team despite the coach.
 
WFUWaldo said:
In an attempt to get us back on track, our secret scrimmage is in 4 days (10/27) at East Carolina. Are Les/Conor invited to those type of events?
Click to expand...

I expect 30 from Wynn. In YOUR face ECU!
 
knowell said:
Relative to the talent on the team. That should be the only measure that matters. Who cares what some guys that spent 5 minutes reviewing Wake's record and who who was lost and who was added think.
No "experts" spend any time on an in depth analysis of Wake basketball. It has been irrelevant for too long.

The people on this board are the closest you will get to "experts" since we are probably the only ones actually watching the games.
Click to expand...

I agree that we underachieved relative to our talent, nearly every college team does. I disagree that is the only measure that matters. In fact I think it doesn’t matter at all. If you could choose from the following coaches to replace Manning, who would you choose?

1. A coach who will recruit 3-star talent and get the most out of that talent, finishing as a surprise bubble team most years but never doing much better than a tournament appearance.

2. A coach who will recruit 3-star talent, turn it into 4-star talent, but will slightly “underachieve” with that talent, finishing as a bubble team most years with the occasional higher seed or tournament run.

3. A coach who recruits 4-star talent masquerading as 3-star talent, doesn’t develop those players and slightly “underachieves”, finishing with similar results to coach 2.

4. A coach who recruits 5-star talent, relies on that talent to perform as expected and gel on their own as a team, the talent never reaches its full potential and sometimes vastly underachieves. His default will be high seed early round flameouts; he will make a few deep tournament runs but will also completely miss the tournament one year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top