Manning should be credited/blamed for the talent he brings in, he should be credited/blamed for how his teams perform, and he should be credited/blamed for how players progress under his tutelage. He shouldn�t be blamed for made up claims about the last of those.
Based on his sophomore year, Crawford�s performance in Israel is in line with what you�d expect for a player that continues to progress. Crawford saw a dip in his junior year but wasn�t nearly as bad as this board made him out to be. I�d imagine his struggles were due to a number of factors: progression isn�t always linear, there were obvious chemistry issues between Crawford/BChill/Woods (which are ultimately on Manning), and Crawford has some attitude issues (which were at least somewhat on Manning).
I know nuance is anathema to this board, but I thought we could avoid plainly untrue statements like �the vast majority of players that leave awake are obviously more effective in basketball after they leave.� Crawford is a pretty weak example of that even if you are only comparing this year to last year, I�m not aware of any others, much less a vast majority.