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

[Ayo]

I don't disagree with much of that... I just don't have a win total in mind. Would rather not paint myself into a corner when there are a lot of variables beyond W/L. If he can put together a good 2019 class, I'd be more lenient on W/L this season... But if we aren't over .500, it'd be hard for me to want to keep him around no matter what. Easy OOC and a range of 7-11 ACC wins should allow the team to have an overall winning record.

I realize that's not a successful season, but I think most around here are expecting another 11-20 type campaign. I just don't see it.

I don't think that's true.

 

[DeacsATS]

I don't think that's true.

No? I guess we'll find out when you post your poll.

I've read a lot of logic about how 11-20 (4-14) and losing Crawford, Moore, & Woods means we can't possibly be better. Could just be the vocal minority, though.

At some point, I plan on digging in a bit and coming up w/ a bull/bear/base-case analysis & minutes/stats projection for the upcoming season... But it isn't time for that yet.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I see more of an 18-13 NIT type season

 

[DeacsATS]

Sorry... Back to 'crootin'

 

[Why the Deac Not]

No? I guess we'll find out when you post your poll.

I've read a lot of logic about how 11-20 (4-14) and losing Crawford, Moore, & Woods means we can't possibly be better. Could just be the vocal minority, though.

I may be wrong, but I feel like I've seen plenty of discussion about our prospects for next year. I know several folks have expressed a similar concern about our likely drop-off in 3-pt shooting % as well as our continued difficulties on the defensive end of the floor (especially without Big Cig to clog up the middle). I know I've personally predicted 16 or 17 wins at best with a 6-12 or mayyyybe a 7-11 record in conference if its as weak as I think it could be. To me 17-14 seems like best case scenario but not sure if my math is right on the number of games...thinking 15 non-conf due to the tourney in MB??

 

[birdman]

I may be wrong, but I feel like I've seen plenty of discussion about our prospects for next year. I know several folks have expressed a similar concern about our likely drop-off in 3-pt shooting % as well as our continued difficulties on the defensive end of the floor (especially without Big Cig to clog up the middle). I know I've personally predicted 16 or 17 wins at best with a 6-12 or mayyyybe a 7-11 record in conference if its as weak as I think it could be. To me 17-14 seems like best case scenario but not sure if my math is right on the number of games...thinking 15 non-conf due to the tourney in MB??

Is this a prediction or an expectation? You'd better clarify before RC107 shows up to demand clarification.

 

[PhDeac]

I see more of an 18-13 NIT type season

I think that’s the ceiling. I’m thinking 15-16 and Hoard leaves.

The catch-22 is if we are good enough to make the tournament, the good players will leave and we have nothing to replace them. That’s why it’s hard to get excited about Hoard or Sarr and Chaundee’s development with respect to the long term health of the program.

 

[Ayo]

I think that’s the ceiling. I’m thinking 15-16 and Hoard leaves.

The catch-22 is if we are good enough to make the tournament, the good players will leave and we have nothing to replace them. That’s why it’s hard to get excited about Hoard or Sarr and Chaundee’s development with respect to the long term health of the program.

I also don't think this is necessarily true.

 

[RChildress107]

I may be wrong, but I feel like I've seen plenty of discussion about our prospects for next year. I know several folks have expressed a similar concern about our likely drop-off in 3-pt shooting % as well as our continued difficulties on the defensive end of the floor (especially without Big Cig to clog up the middle). I know I've personally predicted 16 or 17 wins at best with a 6-12 or mayyyybe a 7-11 record in conference if its as weak as I think it could be. To me 17-14 seems like best case scenario but not sure if my math is right on the number of games...thinking 15 non-conf due to the tourney in MB??

Is this a prediction or an expectation? You'd better clarify before RC107 shows up to demand clarification.

 

[Ayo]

But we aren't making the tournament so it's a moot point.

 

[Why the Deac Not]

Is this a prediction or an expectation? You'd better clarify before RC107 shows up to demand clarification.

Hahaha I know right??!

I thought we already had a poll because I have 16 wins stuck in my head. But if they have 33 games, then I'll go with 17 wins and 16 losses with a loss in the final of the GDMF MB tourney and an early exit (cuz it's Wake Forest!) in the ACC Tourney. I just don't see better than 10-3 and 7-11. So I guess that's not really a prediction but more of an expectation from my assessment of their potential ceiling. But that's how I make my predictions. I told anyone I talked football with last year that I though the Falcons would likely go 10-6 due to the difficulty of their sked, and lo and behold, I was right!! So I shall leave the semantics to NoChill.

Of course, the Falcons have better coaching and they are more likely to play to their potential, so if I'm grading on the Danny Manning scale of doom and gloom (defense? what's that?), then I'll PREDICT 8-4 and 7-11, for a grand total of 15-16 with a loss in the first round of the ACCT. Note: had to check the sked to see we only have 30 games on the slate.

 

[BudatWake]

We make a lot of final lists-- means nothing if they don't pick the WF hat on announcement day

 

[RChildress107]

I may be wrong, but I feel like I've seen plenty of discussion about our prospects for next year. I know several folks have expressed a similar concern about our likely drop-off in 3-pt shooting % as well as our continued difficulties on the defensive end of the floor (especially without Big Cig to clog up the middle). I know I've personally predicted 16 or 17 wins at best with a 6-12 or mayyyybe a 7-11 record in conference if its as weak as I think it could be. To me 17-14 seems like best case scenario but not sure if my math is right on the number of games...thinking 15 non-conf due to the tourney in MB??

Is this a prediction or an expectation? You'd better clarify before RC107 shows up to demand clarification.

Hahaha I know right??!

I thought we already had a poll because I have 16 wins stuck in my head. But if they have 33 games, then I'll go with 17 wins and 16 losses with a loss in the final of the GDMF MB tourney and an early exit (cuz it's Wake Forest!) in the ACC Tourney. I just don't see better than 10-3 and 7-11. So I guess that's not really a prediction but more of an expectation from my assessment of their potential ceiling. But that's how I make my predictions. I told anyone I talked football with last year that I though the Falcons would likely go 10-6 due to the difficulty of their sked, and lo and behold, I was right!! So I shall leave the semantics to NoChill.

Of course, the Falcons have better coaching and they are more likely to play to their potential, so if I'm grading on the Danny Manning scale of doom and gloom (defense? what's that?), then I'll PREDICT 8-4 and 7-11, for a grand total of 15-16 with a loss in the first round of the ACCT. Note: had to check the sked to see we only have 30 games on the slate.

So it’s a prediction then. I’m glad birdman helped us settle that.

Wasn’t English a required course at Wake? Without semantics we’d have a difficult time communicating with each other.

Do all of these sentences mean the same thing to you? Do you agree with all of them?

1. I think Wake Forest will win 17 games next year.

2. I think the roster is capable of winning 17 games at most next year.

3. I think Manning is capable of winning 17 games at most with this roster next year.

4. I think Manning must win at least 17 games next year to keep his job.

5. Manning must win 17 games in order for me to be satisfied with his job performance this year.

6. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be satisfied with his job performance overall.

7. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be excited about the direction of the program.

8. Given the situation he took over, Manning should win 17 games in year 5.

9. As a program, Wake Forest Basketball should win at least 17 games every year.

 

[RChildress107]

We make a lot of final lists-- means nothing if they don't pick the WF hat on announcement day

Very true. Though I’d imagine that there is a relatively strong correlation between the quality of players that visit or include us in their final lists and the overall quality of the class you eventually sign.

It’s no guarantee, but making lists and securing visits for high quality players is a positive sign.

 

[Why the Deac Not]

So it’s a prediction then. I’m glad birdman helped us settle that.

Wasn’t English a required course at Wake? Without semantics we’d have a difficult time communicating with each other.

Do all of these sentences mean the same thing to you? Do you agree with all of them?

1. I think Wake Forest will win 17 games next year.

2. I think the roster is capable of winning 17 games at most next year.

3. I think Manning is capable of winning 17 games at most with this roster next year.

4. I think Manning must win at least 17 games next year to keep his job.

5. Manning must win 17 games in order for me to be satisfied with his job performance this year.

6. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be satisfied with his job performance overall.

7. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be excited about the direction of the program.

8. Given the situation he took over, Manning should win 17 games in year 5.

9. As a program, Wake Forest Basketball should win at least 17 games every year.

Semantic this...fuck off you condescending prick.

 

[birdman]

So it’s a prediction then. I’m glad birdman helped us settle that.

Wasn’t English a required course at Wake? Without semantics we’d have a difficult time communicating with each other.

Do all of these sentences mean the same thing to you? Do you agree with all of them?

1. I think Wake Forest will win 17 games next year.

2. I think the roster is capable of winning 17 games at most next year.

3. I think Manning is capable of winning 17 games at most with this roster next year.

4. I think Manning must win at least 17 games next year to keep his job.

5. Manning must win 17 games in order for me to be satisfied with his job performance this year.

6. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be satisfied with his job performance overall.

7. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be excited about the direction of the program.

8. Given the situation he took over, Manning should win 17 games in year 5.

9. As a program, Wake Forest Basketball should win at least 17 games every year.

I could have predicted this post.

 

[thatguy2016]

I could have predicted this post.

certainly met my expectations

 

[RChildress107]

Semantic this...fuck off you condescending prick.

And I’m the one with zero chill. If this riles y’all up so much why do you keep engaging?

 

[Ayo]

So it’s a prediction then. I’m glad birdman helped us settle that.

Wasn’t English a required course at Wake? Without semantics we’d have a difficult time communicating with each other.

Do all of these sentences mean the same thing to you? Do you agree with all of them?

1. I think Wake Forest will win 17 games next year.

2. I think the roster is capable of winning 17 games at most next year.

3. I think Manning is capable of winning 17 games at most with this roster next year.

4. I think Manning must win at least 17 games next year to keep his job.

5. Manning must win 17 games in order for me to be satisfied with his job performance this year.

6. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be satisfied with his job performance overall.

7. Manning must win 17 games this year for me to be excited about the direction of the program.

8. Given the situation he took over, Manning should win 17 games in year 5.

9. As a program, Wake Forest Basketball should win at least 17 games every year.

So sensitive.

 

[RChildress107]

I could have predicted this post.

And I this response.

And round and round we go. I’d prefer if y’all would actually respond to my posts instead of pretending like you didn’t understand what I wrote or claiming you meant something other than the clear implication of what you wrote. But these word games are fun too, so whichever is fine.