• 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

PhDeac said:
Yes. Crawford had 22 points midway through the 2nd half.
Click to expand...

Lol. You don't get to pick and choose in hindsight. You wanted Childress on the bench. He was +4. You wanted more minutes for Woods. He was atrocious. You wanted more minutes for Arians, he didn't score in the 2nd half.

Crawford scored his season high last night. He was in at the 7 minute mark, the 5 minute mark the 1 minute mark... He didn't get benched for the entire final 10 minutes. He even came in for a bit with 2 fouls in the first half. Maybe that's what his production is like with a little more rest.

Looking at a box score and in hindsight saying the players with great numbers should have played more minutes than the players with shitty numbers is pointless.
 
Let's review the terms of this deal.

Either RC107 is right, he gets $100. If he's wrong, he is forbidden from facing criticism from us.
 
DCDeac said:
Lol. You don't get to pick and choose in hindsight. You wanted Childress on the bench. He was +4. You wanted more minutes for Woods. He was atrocious. You wanted more minutes for Arians, he didn't score in the 2nd half.

Crawford scored his season high last night. He was in at the 7 minute mark, the 5 minute mark the 1 minute mark... He didn't get benched for the entire final 10 minutes. He even came in for a bit with 2 fouls in the first half. Maybe that's what his production is like with a little more rest.

Looking at a box score and in hindsight saying the players with great numbers should have played more minutes than the players with shitty numbers is pointless.
Click to expand...

Hindsight?

This is one of the sunshine brigade's best tricks. Take an argument somebody has consistently made and call it hindsight.

DC, I've been saying Crawford needed to play more minutes all season. I posted during the game that Crawford needed to play more instead of sitting for fouls. Calling it hindsight is ridiculous. It would be inconsistent if I didn't say Crawford should have played more minutes.

I'm happy Childress had a good game, but let's be real. That's his first good half of ACC ball. I hope it's a coming out party, but I don't think it's something we will be able to count on this year.
 
PhDeac said:
Let's review the terms of this deal.

Either RC107 is right, he gets $100. If he's wrong, he is forbidden from facing criticism from us.
Click to expand...

Haha if BKF consents I'll stick around until the end of the ACC tournament and face all the criticism you've got.

Still haven't seen you answer whether you think we would have beaten Clemson, NW, or Xavier if Manning had played the appropriate lineups.
 
PhDeac said:
Let's review the terms of this deal.

Either RC107 is right, he gets $100. If he's wrong, he is forbidden from facing criticism from us.
Click to expand...

He'd be back just in time for this thread to capture everyone's attention again.

To be honest, I don't know if he could function without being able to post here. Proving us wrong has become an addiction - an obsession?!

In all seriousness, I have acknowledged many good things about DM. Just don't think it adds up to enough. I do wish his ardent defenders would at least see the reasonable nature of the opposing position, just based on the fact that this 2,500-post thread about his viability/credibility exists. We aren't all crazy.
 
RChildress107 said:
Haha if BKF consents I'll stick around until the end of the ACC tournament and face all the criticism you've got.

Still haven't seen you answer whether you think we would have beaten Clemson, NW, or Xavier if Manning had played the appropriate lineups.
Click to expand...

I've decided to sweeten this deal for you, Childress. If WF goes 7-11 or better in the ACC this year I will contribute $150 to the charity of your choice. If they don't you don't have to do anything. No payment. No ban. Nothing.
 
RChildress107 said:
Haha if BKF consents I'll stick around until the end of the ACC tournament and face all the criticism you've got.

Still haven't seen you answer whether you think we would have beaten Clemson, NW, or Xavier if Manning had played the appropriate lineups.
Click to expand...

Of course. If I post that "Manning should have done ____ to win the game" of course I think we would have won if Manning had done it.
 
DeacDaddy said:
He'd be back just in time for this thread to capture everyone's attention again.

To be honest, I don't know if he could function without being able to post here. Proving us wrong has become an addiction - an obsession?!

In all seriousness, I have acknowledged many good things about DM. Just don't think it adds up to enough. I do wish his ardent defenders would at least see the reasonable nature of the opposing position, just based on the fact that this 2,500-post thread about his viability/credibility exists. We aren't all crazy.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think Manning is much of a coach.....but that is not WF's biggest problem right now.
 
RChildress107 said:
I'm pretty sure after each of those games multiple people on this thread and others blamed the loss on Manning's in game coaching decisions.

It would seem silly to do that if good coaching decisions wouldnt have won us those games.

So presumably, those who blamed those 4 losses on Manning's in game coaching believe we would have won each of those games with good in game coaching.

Is that a reasonable presumption?
Click to expand...

Late to answer your question but I don't think anyone has.

Of course it is not a reasonable presumption. Had he coached well in those games Wake would have had a greater chance to win each of those games. Likelihood is that we win two of those games and maybe lose two of those games. Good coaching does not guarantee victory, but it does increase the likelihood of victory. If the team shoots well it increases the odds of winning but does not guarantee it.

The problem with the poor coaching decisions is that they are likely to continue for a while. The coaching issues are more than likely a lack of head coaching experience.

An ACC head coach should either be really young with a short but spectacular resume or an older coach with a longer resume who has already learned from the mistakes Manning is making right now.
 
PhDeac said:
Of course. If I post that "Manning should have done ____ to win the game" of course I think we would have won if Manning had done it.
Click to expand...

I've seen you post that for the UNC game, that's why I was asking about the other 3.

Is it a fair statement to say that you think if Manning had managed his lineups better we would have beaten UNC, Clemson, Xavier and Northwestern?


If so then it is also a fair statement that you think if Manning was better at managing his lineups we would be 14-3 (3-2). Agreed?
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
I've seen you post that for the UNC game, that's why I was asking about the other 3.

Is it a fair statement to say that you think if Manning had managed his lineups better we would have beaten UNC, Clemson, Xavier and Northwestern?


If so then it is also a fair statement that you think if Manning was better at managing his lineups we would be 14-3 (3-2). Agreed?
Click to expand...

I've been saying the same stuff all season because Manning keeps making the same lineup mistakes.
 
PhDeac said:
I've been saying the same stuff all season because Manning keeps making the same lineup mistakes.
Click to expand...

I know. So if he just fixed the lineup mistakes we would be a 14-3 team against a top 15 schedule in year 3 of the rebuild.

I'm assuming we can all agree that such a record would be a pretty good indicator that Manning is a good coach that has us in the right track. Agreed?
 
So it seems like you are saying that if Manning made better lineup decisions he would be a good coach. Which means you are saying that he is a good coach in everything but lineup decisions. Except that's not what you are saying.
 
Just when I thought this thread was insufferable enough...bkf enters with another one of his miserable asshole board bets.
 
06deacon said:
Just when I thought this thread was insufferable enough...bkf enters with another one of his miserable asshole board bets.
Click to expand...

I simplified it for you, 06. There's no bet left. I'm simply going to donate $150 to Childress' favorite charity if WF wins 7 ACC games this year.
 
PhDeac said:
I've been saying the same stuff all season because Manning keeps making the same lineup mistakes.
Click to expand...

You said you wanted Crawford, Woods, and Arians to get more minutes. Childress reduced to 4 minutes.

It's hindsight because Woods had a terrible game. Arians had a terrible 2nd half. The guys you called for benching with all your +/- talk got us back to 1 point after being down 19. Crawford scored his season high in fewer minutes. Maybe he scores more if he plays more, maybe he doesn't. But either way you can't play the "I told you so" card when only one of your suggestions could have possibly helped, and your other two would have been detrimental to the game.

Justin Jackson was -5 in +/- by the way. Think UNC is going to start benching him?
 
DCDeac said:
You said you wanted Crawford, Woods, and Arians to get more minutes. Childress reduced to 4 minutes.

It's hindsight because Woods had a terrible game. Arians had a terrible 2nd half. The guys you called for benching with all your +/- talk got us back to 1 point after being down 19. Crawford scored his season high in fewer minutes. Maybe he scores more if he plays more, maybe he doesn't. But either way you can't play the "I told you so" card when only one of your suggestions could have possibly helped, and your other two would have been detrimental to the game.

Justin Jackson was -5 in +/- by the way. Think UNC is going to start benching him?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how +/- works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top