• 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

My displeasure with some of Danny’s decisions and techniques is noted, but he is still nowhere close to being as bad as [name redacted]. This is a unifying principle on which we should all agree this Thanksgiving.
 
There was nothing that BZ was good at except perhaps being highly payed while being demonstrably awful at his job.

Manning has good qualities but I have zero faith in his ability to coach at this level. I will be happy to eat my words but at this point I can't think of any way to justify what I have seen.

On the bright side, Manning is bringing in some talent. Hopefully we can find a way to get them coached.
 
It’s the bad defense. I just can’t get past that. It’s been a manning constant since he arrived. There is just so little effort on defense. I understand the limited ability of Wilbiken and Chill but for god sakes show some real effort. From what I’ve seen of the sophs, they may be a lost cause on offense, but they seem moderately athletic and should be able to defend. It’s like Manning goes out of his way to remove any defensive ability players have when they arrive on campus.
 
DeacDaddy said:
RChildress107, did you foresee this thread living at the top of the boards this early in the season? Surely you thought it was dead.

Can you at least see why it's still kicking?

You're saying last year confirmed that some of us were wrong, while I'm saying that this year is already confirming that some of us might be right.

You have always made it seem like those of us who are questioning his credibility are unreasonable. Maybe we're wrong, maybe we aren't; but our opinion is not crazy. This is definitely a debatable topic. I've come to my conclusion about him sooner than you have - that he's good, in some ways quite good, but not ultimately what will lead us to ACC Championships and Sweet Sixteens. At this point this is a reasonable position.

(BTW I'm not talking about presently firing him; I do think that is unreasonable.)

These losses must have particularly irked you. Not only because you're a passionate Deacon fan, but because you knew you would once again have to take up residence on this thread and (partially) defend whatever it is we're all witnessing out there. And those three losses are indefensible.
Click to expand...

1. I knew this thread would reappear unless we went 12-0 in non conference play because Wake fans are prone to misery.

2. I have no problem with people questioning whether Manning is the right guy to lead us where we want to go as long as that questioning is based on data and not overly sensitive to single pieces of data. This is still an open question for me; I’m not sure if Manning is the guy. I am sure that there is nowhere close to enough evidence to indicate he isn’t the guy and at this point in the rebuild that is enough.

3. Your conclusion may be right, but reaching it at this juncture is not reasonable; it’s little more than a hunch. We simply don’t have enough data to indicate that he can’t coach a team with ACC championship caliber talent to an ACC championship or Sweet Sixteen. If Crawford and Chaundee stay, next year will be his first opportunity. What does your rock solid conclusion about Manning predict as a result for next season?

4. I have not and will not defend Manning or the team for the last 5 games. The results have been unacceptable. On the other hand they hold little predictive value in telling me how a Manning coached team chock full of talent will perform against other talented teams.
 
Oh boy, here comes another DeacDaddy lecture on everyone's opinions having value. All thoughts are beautiful snowflakes, etc.
 
Obviously, no one is happy with the effort of this group thus far. The meltdown was virtually inevitable if the light didn't come on for multiple bigs. What does concern me is a poster like sportsnut starting to edge into such a hyper-position with his comments Danny's ability to coach/teach rebounding and boxing out. If a normally reasonable poster can say things like this, the rabbit hole is growing at an even more alarming rate.

Even though this team's rebounding is horrific, Danny has proven to be an excellent coach in this area. In the past three years, one of the Deacs' major strengths has been our rebounding. Not only have we been in the top tier of ACC teams in rebounding for each of those years, but Danny has implemented a scheme that turns rebounds into fast breaks seamlessly.

This year's failures on the boards is almost all on the players' efforts and lack of size. Unless you think that after about thirty years at the top levels of being coached and coaching that Danny has contracted Alzheimer's regarding rebounding.

I'm not saying Danny is going make people forget about Pop or Izzo or Jay Wright as a tactician. But teaching and coaching rebounding is a strength of his.

Barring something bizarre happening, this is going to be a long season. But let's not lose it about things that aren't so.
 
We are 1-4 with losses to Ga Southern Liberty and Drake. Long season is pretty much a guarantee.

What's concerning is that we have shown signs of being poorly coached every year, even last year. Two years ago, the season ended in a dumpster fire, and this year is trending that way.

Last year, we made the tournament, but we couldn't guard a bedpost and got bounced in both postseason games in convincing fashion.

With the recruiting class that DM, has he will be here through at least next year. It would be nice to see us play more disciplined and be better defensively. We will need that to win in the post-season.
 
RJKarl said:
Obviously, no one is happy with the effort of this group thus far. The meltdown was virtually inevitable if the light didn't come on for multiple bigs. What does concern me is a poster like sportsnut starting to edge into such a hyper-position with his comments Danny's ability to coach/teach rebounding and boxing out. If a normally reasonable poster can say things like this, the rabbit hole is growing at an even more alarming rate.

Even though this team's rebounding is horrific, Danny has proven to be an excellent coach in this area. In the past three years, one of the Deacs' major strengths has been our rebounding. Not only have we been in the top tier of ACC teams in rebounding for each of those years, but Danny has implemented a scheme that turns rebounds into fast breaks seamlessly.

This year's failures on the boards is almost all on the players' efforts and lack of size. Unless you think that after about thirty years at the top levels of being coached and coaching that Danny has contracted Alzheimer's regarding rebounding.

I'm not saying Danny is going make people forget about Pop or Izzo or Jay Wright as a tactician. But teaching and coaching rebounding is a strength of his.

Barring something bizarre happening, this is going to be a long season. But let's not lose it about things that aren't so.
Click to expand...
It was virtually inevitable we were gonna lose to GA Southern, Liberty, and Drake if the light didn't come on for multiple bigs?

Lol, never change.

And the bold is just not true.
 
Last edited:
Our strengths have been a rebounder. Thomas and Collins. Moore should be a strength this year.

Team rebounding is problematic.
 
Ayo said:
It was virtually inevitable we were gonna lose to GA Southern, Liberty, and Drake if the light didn't come on for one of our bigs?

Lol, never change.

And the bold is just not true.
Click to expand...

What will never change is your BS about what I said. I NEVER said anything like the bold part.

As to rebounding not being one of the Deacs' strengths over the past three years, maybe you can explain how THREE undermanned Deac teams came in fifth, fourth and fourth in the ACC in rebounding during those years? The only teams to achieve rankings that high over those years with the Deacs were UNC and L'ville.

In what world isn't being one of the three most consistently successful rebounding teams out of FIFTEEN squads not a strength?

My bad, the answer is when you have your typical Pavlovian response to anything RJ posts.
 
RJKarl said:
What will never change is your BS about what I said. I NEVER said anything like the bold part.

As to rebounding not being one of the Deacs' strengths over the past three years, maybe you can explain how THREE undermanned Deac teams came in fifth, fourth and fourth in the ACC in rebounding during those years? The only teams to achieve rankings that high over those years with the Deacs were UNC and L'ville.

In what world isn't being one of the three most consistently successful rebounding teams out of FIFTEEN squads not a strength?

My bad, the answer is when you have your typical Pavlovian response to anything RJ posts.
Click to expand...
Which stat are you using, RJ?
 
Thanks so much for proving my Pavlovian so much better than I ever could. Without having ANY knowledge, you immediately attack and assume I am wrong. What an honest, informed guy you are! :bowrofl::rofl:

I used the official ACC site. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...id/2/stat/rebounds/sort/avgRebounds/year/2017

Of course, you'll come up with some other excuse to not acknowledge historical facts rather than admitting you were wrong and didn't have a clue what you were posting about.
 
Wake's ACC rank in rebounding rate:

2014-15: 6th
2015-16: 10th
2016-17: 6th
 
RJKarl said:
Thanks so much for proving my Pavlovian so much better than I ever could. Without having ANY knowledge, you immediately attack and assume I am wrong. What an honest, informed guy you are! :bowrofl::rofl:

I used the official ACC site. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...id/2/stat/rebounds/sort/avgRebounds/year/2017

Of course, you'll come up with some other excuse to not acknowledge historical facts rather than admitting you were wrong and didn't have a clue what you were posting about.
Click to expand...
Yeah, why are you using a simple counting stat like rebounds per game?
 
ChrisL68 said:
We are 1-4 with losses to Ga Southern Liberty and Drake. Long season is pretty much a guarantee.

What's concerning is that we have shown signs of being poorly coached every year, even last year. Two years ago, the season ended in a dumpster fire, and this year is trending that way.

Last year, we made the tournament, but we couldn't guard a bedpost and got bounced in both postseason games in convincing fashion.

With the recruiting class that DM, has he will be here through at least next year. It would be nice to see us play more disciplined and be better defensively. We will need that to win in the post-season.
Click to expand...

We were within 5 points under the two minute mark in both our postseason losses, that’s hardly “convincing fashion.” Anyone bitching about Manning’s coaching last year clearly doesn’t understand everything that term entails (a common theme on this thread).
 
Of course, you have to change the subject. We got more rebounds than other ACC teams. This isn't in dispute.

Let's even use your numbers. From three years ago forward we came in 11th, 14th and 10th in the standings. In each of those years, rebounding outperformed our standings. That also makes it a strength.

Whether you look at it in raw numbers or your numbers, the Deacs outperformed their talent/position in each of those years.

What's your next failed excuse?
 
PhDeac said:
Our strengths have been a rebounder. Thomas and Collins. Moore should be a strength this year.

Team rebounding is problematic.
Click to expand...

Ahh so now the center’s rebounds don’t count. At least this is a more creative version of the “without the player he recruited, developed, and coached, Manning sucks as a coach” argument.
 
RJKarl said:
Of course, you have to change the subject. We got more rebounds than other ACC teams. This isn't in dispute.

Let's even use your numbers. From three years ago forward we came in 11th, 14th and 10th in the standings. In each of those years, rebounding outperformed our standings. That also makes it a strength.

Whether you look at it in raw numbers or your numbers, the Deacs outperformed their talent/position in each of those years.

What's your next failed excuse?
Click to expand...
We play at a faster pace than a lot of ACC teams. Of course it's silly to look at raw rebounding numbers.

"What's your next failed excuse?" Oh, the irony is thick.

Bottom line is in the last 3 classes (2016, 17, 18) Manning has either struck out on top bigs or hasn't really valued bigs as much as he should. Still early on Sarr, so we will see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top