WSJ on Manning Hire and [Redacted]

[PaddyWF]

Nothing new to anyone here, but don't know if I've seen outside coaches/writers talk about how "toxic" the job is post-[Redacted]. Ouch. Thanks, Ron.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

What's with the line that [Redacted] "could win a game down the stretch?" Did I miss something? Maybe it was a literal statement, that he was able to win only one game down the stretch.

"though he struggled to keep his team in position to win games late" is a really generous way to say "Wake was blown out in pretty much every game"

Lipstick on a pig.

 

[deacvision7]

I'm not ready to give up on Manning yet, but I do think some staff changes are needed after the season. First and foremost, we need an assistant with some legitimate head coaching experience.

You mean an inexperienced head coach with an inexperienced staff wasn't a smart thing to do when a complete rebuild was needed?!?!?


This entire experiment has been an utter farce. Yet Wellman remains untouchable because those in power don't really give a fuck about being good or not. Shambles.

 

[Rafi]

The writer couldn't be any more wrong about the end of last night's game. The only thing wrong with the last 32 seconds was a bad shot Brandon took and Brandon had played very well down the stretch.

In fact if you go back to the 4:52 mark, when Bryant committed his fourth foul, the only possible coaching mistake was not getting Bryant back into the game sooner. However, he was sitting at the scorer's table from about 3 minutes to go and there wasn't a stoppage for him to enter. And we were playing well.

I disagree. There was a time out with 1:27 left in the game. Wake was down 3, 84-81 and had only 6 fouls. It was the perfect position to extend the game and make UNC hit one-and-ones. UNC came out with two 60% foul shooters (Meeks and Britt) and we should have fouled them immediately. Instead, UNC ran 27 seconds off the clock and hit a three pointer, and the game was essentially over. Not fouling in that situation was a coaching mistake.

 

[RJKarl]

I disagree. There was a time out with 1:27 left in the game. Wake was down 3, 84-81 and had only 6 fouls. It was the perfect position to extend the game and make UNC hit one-and-ones. UNC came out with two 60% foul shooters (Meeks and Britt) and we should have fouled them immediately. Instead, UNC ran 27 seconds off the clock and hit a three pointer, and the game was essentially over. Not fouling in that situation was a coaching mistake.

First of all, in college, you can't foul someone who doesn't have ball. Secondly, at 1:27 and down three, you don't need to foul. If you play one D and get the ball back, you can tie the game. It's too early to foul.

 

[RJKarl]

You mean an inexperienced head coach with an inexperienced staff wasn't a smart thing to do when a complete rebuild was needed?!?!?


This entire experiment has been an utter farce. Yet Wellman remains untouchable because those in power don't really give a fuck about being good or not. Shambles.

You are correct, Wellman and Hatch are the problems. They both need to go.

 

[Ralph Medlin]

"Wake Forest trailed by 15 points at the half against UNC, and that could almost be spun into a positive. Because the Deacons led at the half in their previous five losses only to crumble in the second half."


LOL

 

[smallbigtall]

The author mentions that the average tenure of ACC coaches is 23 years when you take out K's 41 and Manning's 5. Not sure why he did that when the average tenure of K and DM is... wait for it... 23 years.

I had the same initial reaction, but I do think removing the obvious outliers here does make a little sense in strengthening his argument that the ACC coaches Manning competes against (read: not Manning) have a buttload of experience, and even after removing K as an outlier.

Of course, he could have kept K in there and brought the number even higher than 23. It almost seems like it was a sentence on which he spent too much time tweaking the wording and ultimately ended up with awkward math.

 

[Rafi]

First of all, in college, you can't foul someone who doesn't have ball. Secondly, at 1:27 and down three, you don't need to foul. If you play one D and get the ball back, you can tie the game. It's too early to foul.

Sure you can, just not intentionally. You saw Collins 1st and 3rd "fouls" last night, right? I disagree that 1:27 is too soon - extending the game when the other team is still in the bonus works well in college.

 

[deaconhoops]

"It trailed by only three points with 32 seconds remaining before a combination of clock management, made free throws and defense helped UNC methodically pull away."

Uhm...they won by 6. Must be a Lenox protege.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

That's a tough article. At the end it says he has a show on WSJS from 3-6 on weekdays. I guess he discusses sports? That's a nice change for WSJS.

 

[BacktoBack]

I disagree. There was a time out with 1:27 left in the game. Wake was down 3, 84-81 and had only 6 fouls. It was the perfect position to extend the game and make UNC hit one-and-ones. UNC came out with two 60% foul shooters (Meeks and Britt) and we should have fouled them immediately. Instead, UNC ran 27 seconds off the clock and hit a three pointer, and the game was essentially over. Not fouling in that situation was a coaching mistake.

Keep your day job.
A one possession game with 90 seconds to go is hardly the time to start fouling. Just because UNC made a big three doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.

 

[Atlanta Deacon]

I'm really tired of moral victories, but I can't blame Manning for the last two losses. Last night JC shat the bed and we got a great effort by other contributors. We're supposed to win games when our guards contribute and Crawford blows up. Collins has kept us in other games, but he cost us that one. Manning called timeouts, had some good lineup changes, etc. We made a nice adjustment to the zone that gave them trouble and our offense started to click.

 

[RJKarl]

Sure you can, just not intentionally. You saw Collins 1st and 3rd "fouls" last night, right? I disagree that 1:27 is too soon - extending the game when the other team is still in the bonus works well in college.

The reality is Jackson hit an NBA+ three after great D. We played that correctly.

At the the very best, it's a 50/50 call to start fouling when down one possession at 1:27. It's not a "bad" coaching decision. It's a toss-up. Many ( I would guess most) would play that last one D before fouling.

 

[HONDO2]

You mean an inexperienced head coach with an inexperienced staff wasn't a smart thing to do when a complete rebuild was needed?!?!?


This entire experiment has been an utter farce. Yet Wellman remains untouchable because those in power don't really give a fuck about being good or not. Shambles.

My take from Seth saying the job was toxic is that nobody good wanted it and we were left with Manning and gawd knows who else down the pecking order of candidates. I didn't see it that way at the time but now looking back, I take Seth's comments seriously as he's a national insider and I'm not.

 

[RJKarl]

I'm not so sure Seth is all that tied in. This movie quote sums him up.

"Shoeless Joe Jackson: Ty Cobb wanted to play, but none of us could stand the son-of-a-bitch when we were alive, so we told him to stick it!"

 

[Rafi]

At the the very best, it's a 50/50 call to start fouling when down one possession at 1:27. It's not a "bad" coaching decision. It's a toss-up. Many ( I would guess most) would play that last one D before fouling.

Fouling there would have been a very smart move, especially with only 6 fouls and two poor shooters out there. I think the best coaches would foul in that situation, especially coming out of a TO, but I can agree with your characterization that it wasn't "bad coaching."

 

[MichDeac25]

Does anyone else find it curious that all media mentions of [Redacted] and Grobe's termination use the word "fired"? It's as if everybody can see through Ronnie's bullshit about accepting resignations or them stepping down to spend more time with family or whatnot.

And I love the quote about comparing resumes "with redacted names." That had to be intentional.

You're an idiot. At a high levels, that's generally the way it's handled. There's no sense in publicly tarnishing someone.

 

[RJKarl]

Fouling there would have been a very smart move, especially with only 6 fouls and two poor shooters out there. I think the best coaches would foul in that situation, especially coming out of a TO, but I can agree with your characterization that it wasn't "bad coaching."

I think most good coaches would have believed in their D and played it out. Plus, they wouldn't have taken the chance that an off the ball foul would result in two shots rather than 1 and 1.

If you play one D, it's a one possession game, even one FT made makes it a two possession game.

 

[Rafi]

Keep your day job.
A one possession game with 90 seconds to go is hardly the time to start fouling. Just because UNC made a big three doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.

It's less the fact that they hit the shot, though that's certainly an issue, the real problem was that it allowed UNC to run 30 seconds off the clock. A lot of points can be scored when fouling to stop the clock. I would guess most here saw Nevada come back from 16 down with 1:20 left against New Mexico the other night. While that's obviously an extreme example, it shows how many points can be scored in the last 90 seconds when fouling, and in that game New Mexico was in the double bonus.