• 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!

BBall Recruiting Thread 2k19 - Charles Coleman de-commits to Wake. :(

Bluegrass Deac said:
Donovan had a nice stroke and some skill that clearly could be developed. A good coach will find a way to play him to his strengths rather than worry about some archaic style that struggles to figure out if he's a 3 or a 4.
Click to expand...

Yep. He was big enough to play the 4 in today's game. He and Key are the kind of guys that ere essential to building a program. You need those guys along with the more talented guys unless you are Duke or Kentucky.
 
PhDeac said:
Woods was the 3rd leading scorer for a First Four team. I think he could be a main contributor on a good team if healthy.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting we were a good team last year?

That team lost three of its best players, Arians, Dinos, and Collins. Woods needs to play behind Brown.
 
MichDeac25 said:
So you're admitting we were a good team last year?

That team lost three of its best players, Arians, Dinos, and Collins. Woods needs to play behind Brown.
Click to expand...

No. I said he did it on a First Four team so it’s not a stretch that he could contribute on a good team.
 
Guys like D Mitch are important to good teams. But they also need development time. 3* players are conventionally described as "contributors in junior and senior seasons. Donovan was a little ahead of schedule, contributing as a soph. He apparently didn't want to continue to be a reserve behind Sarr, Hoard and possibly Mucius at 4 and 3. Too bad he left. He should have been playing 15 min or more a game for 2018-2019 Wake.
 
Deaconblue said:
Guys like D Mitch are important to good teams. But they also need development time. 3* players are conventionally described as "contributors in junior and senior seasons. Donovan was a little ahead of schedule, contributing as a soph. He apparently didn't want to continue to be a reserve behind Sarr, Hoard and possibly Mucius at 4 and 3. Too bad he left. He should have been playing 15 min or more a game for 2018-2019 Wake.
Click to expand...

Maybe he decided that playing behind TT and sometimes not at all while his team lost 20 games meant his coach was clueless and he may be better off somewhere else.
 
knowell said:
Maybe he decided that playing behind TT and sometimes not at all while his team lost 20 games meant his coach was clueless and he may be better off somewhere else.
Click to expand...

This.
 
More likely than he didn’t want to play for Manning is that manning has Hoard slotted as the starting 4 and taking a ton of minutes Mitchell wants as a junior. Manning wants to play a three guard lineup with an athletic 4 and a big 5. If Mitchell doesn’t fit the mold of a 3, which I assume Manning knows better than we do, then he would receive spot minutes again as a junior and slightly better as a senior when Hoard is a sophomore.

I agree you need spot guys like him on really good teams and I hate to see him go, but the narrative of “he left because Manning sucks” is dumb. I get the negativity though.
 
jaybone said:
Loved Woods but I think we will be addition by subtraction because of the discontent and because he was such a defensive liability. The Mitchell transfer hurts IMO. He was going to get 15 important minutes. I would love to know how Woods went from locker room leader his redshirt year to mature discontent 2 1/2 years later. Does not speak well of staff. Or him.

Viva la Deacs!
Click to expand...

Dad telling you, that you should be starting or featured on offense? Why else would Woods' father have interjected himself with Manning? If Woods was not happy not sure how the staff is responsible for that unless their was some sort of injustice inflicted on Woods. Given that Manning didn't appear to take it out on him by cutting minutes not sure what could have been done.
 
PhDeac said:
You don’t think the 3rd leading scorer is a main contributor?
Click to expand...

I do, but then you followed that up with that our team wasn’t good after saying he’d be a “main contributor on a good team”. So he was a “main contributor” on a team that wasn’t good (according to you). A sixth man that can’t play defense shouldn’t be a main contributor on the type of team I’d like to see at wake forest.
 
A player who is capable of being a main contributor on a decent team is probably capable of being a main contributor on a good team.

I don’t know how that’s hard to understand.
 
PhDeac said:
A player who is capable of being a main contributor on a decent team is probably capable of being a main contributor on a good team.

I don’t know how that’s hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Hm, guess we have different definitions of main contributor then. Your statements are all contradicting themselves is the problem, but you’re welcome to whatever opinion you want to have.
 
No. You’re purposefully not understanding the very simple statement I just made.
 
PhDeac said:
No. You’re purposefully not understanding the very simple statement I just made.
Click to expand...

No, your last one was the only one that made any sense, and that’s with your opinion of main contributor being different than mine. The first two statements did not.
 
RChildress107 said:
Player identification and development, inbounds sets, overall offensive game plan.
Click to expand...

Offensive game plans? I've watched Wake basketball since 1962 as a little kid and played high school ball at a high level and I can't figure out what Manning is doing on offense the vast majority of the time. Please enlighten me as much of what I see is standing around, way too much dribbling and a panic drive for a desperation floater at the end of the shot clock more often than not. There is no discernible 'offense'. I see no ball reversal, no high pick and roll consistently, no pass and screen away, no weave. I just don't see it. Watching us play on offense is more organized chaos than anything else. Defense is even worse.
 
CharlotteDeac1 said:
No, your last one was the only one that made any sense, and that’s with your opinion of main contributor being different than mine. The first two statements did not.
Click to expand...

We have the same definition of main contributor if it includes a 3rd leading scorer.

The last statement is the same as the other two statements. I just dumbed it down for people who couldn’t get it.
 
BBall Recruiting Thread 2k19 - '18 PF Christian Lorng commits! Jamie Lewis sighting

PhDeac said:
We have the same definition of main contributor if it includes a 3rd leading scorer.

The last statement is the same as the other two statements. I just dumbed it down for people who couldn’t get it.
Click to expand...

Lol. The third leading scorer on a team is probably a main contributor. You said that team was decent, but that he’d be a main contributor on a good team (meaning the team would need to improve, further meaning another player that doesn’t beat out merely the fourth best player on your team - since you’re having trouble grasping simple concepts). On a good team, that would mean we’d need one more player that is better than Keyshawn Woods, pushing Keyshawn to at best the fourth best player on the team. The fourth best player on your team is not a “main contributor”. Was that slow enough for you?

Your sixth man that only produces some points and zero defense is a good asset on the type of team I want at wake forest. Not a main contributor. Glad I could help you out.
 
Last edited:
“Woods was the 3rd leading scorer for a First Four team. I think he could be a main contributor on a good team if healthy.”

“I said he did it on a First Four team so it’s not a stretch that he could contribute on a good team.”

“A player who is capable of being a main contributor on a decent team is probably capable of being a main contributor on a good team.”

How on earth did the third statement make sense to you and the other two didn’t?

As to your latest post, none of the things last year’s team needed to do to be a good team would have involved a different player scoring more than Woods. I don’t know why you’re working so hard on such weird logic.
 
It’s weird logic to think you’d need an actual main contributor better than a guy who should be a role player to surpass your title of “decent” to become “good”? So weird. Keyshawn Woods is a glorified role player because he can score. He is not a main contributor on a good team. Furthermore, he’s listed as a role player on that “decent” team anyway. Really not weird logic if you use facts vs using phacts. But again, you’re entitled to your opinion, however you decide to come to that conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top