Ya know gary, guess I find comedy in the strangest of places. LOL Ironic isn't it, as many times as I reply to posts from folks complaining about our getting only a couple 3 star ranked big me in this class they don't ever seem to be able to come up with list of 4 star players they prefer? It is allways all we got was 2 3-stars? Hey, me, if I do not like the 2 3-star bigs we got, I am gonna give a list of the 4 star guys I preferred. Heck, I told you in a past a while back, was not a big fan of Brooks and I gave you 2 or 3 names I preferred that actually were 4 star guys. And as everyone was so down on Huffman, the first 3 star big man to commit to us this class, I stood up and said something nutzs, that I liked him as much as any 4 star big man I had seen. Not sure if I added Manley to that later on but if I didn't let me say it now, I like Manley as well as much as any 4 star I have seen from this class. In my view in Huffman and Manley we got 2 very strong 4 star big men, not 3 star guys or barely 4 star.
Sterling Manley
- Thread starter Steat
- Start date
Ya know gary, guess I find comedy in the strangest of places. LOL Ironic isn't it, as many times as I reply to posts from folks complaining about our getting only a couple 3 star ranked big me in this class they don't ever seem to be able to come up with list of 4 star players they prefer? It is allways all we got was 2 3-stars? Hey, me, if I do not like the 2 3-star bigs we got, I am gonna give a list of the 4 star guys I preferred. Heck, I told you in a past a while back, was not a big fan of Brooks and I gave you 2 or 3 names I preferred that actually were 4 star guys. And as everyone was so down on Huffman, the first 3 star big man to commit to us this class, I stood up and said something nutzs, that I liked him as much as any 4 star big man I had seen. Not sure if I added Manley to that later on but if I didn't let me say it now, I like Manley as well as much as any 4 star I have seen from this class. In my view in Huffman and Manley we got 2 very strong 4 star big men, not 3 star guys or barely 4 star.
The people complaining about us going after 3-star guys are assuming that the 3-star guys are actually 3-star guys. If you weren't pretty sure that Huff and Sterling were really 4-star guys or better, you would probably be lamenting that we let nearly all the 4-star guys in the 2017 class go without an offer.
As you know, I was one of the guys who liked Huff from the clips. Glad to get him. He may take a while to develop. Then again, he may not. He still has a year of HS, after all. I still haven't seen Sterling play, so I just don't know about him.
The problem I think some of our fans have is that Roy does not have a reputation for spotting diamonds in the rough. Because, let's face it, he hasn't needed to get those guys. When you are signing Hansbrough and Lawson and Zeller and Barnes and the rest, you don't need to dig deep into the pool. But circumstances have changed.
Roy used to be criticized as someone who couldn't win without top talent. To which we responded "he always gets top talent, so what's your point." Then he stopped getting the talent so easily and proved that he actually could win without a bunch of top players out of HS.
Similar thing now. We will now get to see if Roy can successfully develop those diamonds in the rough. That seems to be happening with Kenny. But Kenny needs an asterisk by his name because he was really Shaka Smart's find. Nor is he a 3-star guy. But that's the closest we have to go on so far, and that's going well.
Here's something else ironically funny, Dave. I remember last year some on here were scoffing about Tony when he was "just" a 4*. I was like "Seriously?" Oh, but then he got named a Burger Boy and suddenly he was acceptable (rolling my eyes as I type).
" If you weren't pretty sure that Huff and Sterling were really 4-star guys or better, you would probably be lamenting that we let nearly all the 4-star guys in the 2017 class go without an offer."
^ Thank you for saying that because that goes to a point I have preached forever! It ain't about the stars, it is about the player. It was because I considered the player and not where he was ranked, I considered how that player fit our area of need as compared to the higher ranked kids. I wanted us to offer Ikey (just committed to FSU, how the heck does Hamilton get all those 7ft guys) and the 7ft kid out of cali (even thou I hate cali recruits that get home sick). BUT, IMO Huffman is right there with those 2 and I think Manley is real close if not there just yet.
No offense to the ranking sites or the rankers, they are fine for what they are but what they are to me is a decent place to start but not nearly the whole story.
Give some people a job tasting pies in a pie factory making $100K a year and they'd complain about gaining weight.
Bottom line is, we all want Manley and Huff to be very good big men for us. Some of us are sure they will(myself included), and others aren't. They're ours now and only time will tell. But they both certainly have the requisite physical skills and size to become excellent players for us. I'd bet we get much more from our two big freshmen over time than dook does from Giles and Bolden. And that's what excites me, the fact that those two will play significant roles in many more victories than their "I've got to do my obligatory 9 month sentence or I wouldn't even be in college" counterparts down 15-501.
Bottom line is, we all want Manley and Huff to be very good big men for us. Some of us are sure they will(myself included), and others aren't. They're ours now and only time will tell. But they both certainly have the requisite physical skills and size to become excellent players for us. I'd bet we get much more from our two big freshmen over time than dook does from Giles and Bolden. And that's what excites me, the fact that those two will play significant roles in many more victories than their "I've got to do my obligatory 9 month sentence or I wouldn't even be in college" counterparts down 15-501.
Eh that's pretty unrealistic.. he's about 250th right now. For him to jump over 225 kids in a few months- that just doesn't happen. I'm hoping moves up to a four star I think that would be much more reasonable to expect if he's as good as you are saying he is.
The only reason we're discussing these guys is cause we missed on recruits who were ranked higher than them. So while the star rankings arent the end-all they're certainly more accurate than not in evaluating recruiting classes. Having said that its interesting to note that our current team has several players who werent our first or second choices as recruits as well and we're doing pretty good.
And the other thing we all need to keep in mind are that most of us are just guessing. Even if we are watching the clips - which I like to do - those clips are not edited to make the kids look bad and the opposition isn't college quality, so you have to digest those data with care.
Which is why most of us rely on ranking sites, and usually look at several. It's more data. Sometimes it's crap data, but it's more. Which is almost always better than less. But I absolutely agree with you that they are just part of the picture, not the end all and be all. It's just that when that's all or most of what you have to go on, that's what you tend to go on.
Now, when some of our better posters, such as yourself, say "I've seen this kid and he may be ranked 220 but he really ought to be closer to 100" I take notice. If you said he ought to be top 10 I might want some of what you are smoking. But if you say "4 star, not 3 star," I give that credence.
Then again, I disagree with you about Brooks. Regardless of how he does at his next school, I think he would have been a good addition for us. Not much strength, but more college-ready moves than Huff. I could see Brooks giving us some good minutes as a frosh. Not a lot of minutes, but some. I think Huff is more likely to take a year to get control of his game. But then he could be better than Brooks. Different style players, and we could have used both, imo.
Probably correct. Kids typically don't make big regular season jumps since the analysts put so much (often too much) stock in AAU and don't get to see individual kids play often, unless they're at a high-profile basketball factory.
It was not that I was so down on Brooks, it was just more that I really liked some other guys more, we got 2 of the guys I liked more, I also liked Stokes a lot. I would have been fine with us snagging Brooks AFTER we already had Huffman and Manley in the bag, I just didn't want us to miss on those 2 college ready bodies for Brooks.
Now someone mentioned Manley staying healthy, I felt the link about Manley was really informative. Said the second break was caused by his growth plates to being to seperated (meaning he was still growing and did grow 2-3" while out with that injury, so it adds cred to the statement) and his putting to much stress on the leg to compensate for the leg that had been broken the season before. That walks me away from concern that this is an on going problem and more a weird set of circumstances that just came together.
I like how Roy Williams will find guys like this guy and then try to develop them. Instead of the Kentucky and Duke method of "they are only good if they are a 5 star", method. I've always liked UNCs program better.
Sterling Manley's season opener. Kid looks good! They have a good team and #30 is impressive. They may roll to a title. Note the quick moves by Manley at the 1:09,1:54 and 2:29 marks. You can tell that this kid has potential. I look forward to him polishing those low post moves as the season progresses. If the kid stays healthy, he will be a good player for UNC
Last edited:
Number 30 looks more advanced than Manley in that vid.
Obviously totally different positions but he stood out to me.
Obviously totally different positions but he stood out to me.
Last edited:
That's the most impressive video of Manley that I've seen to date. Let's see:
Good hands? Check.
Good size? Check.
Good vertical? Check.
Good mobility? Check.
Good court awareness? Check.
Fights for position for every rebound? Check.
Loves to dunk everything around the tin? Check.
I'm sorry, but his physical skills compared to Kennedy's are much better. And I think we can all agree that Kennedy is a good college player. What's not to like about this young man's game?
And yes, #30 is a player. His name is Jeremiah Francis, a 6-2, 195 lb SO PG. But he's only a 3*, alas and alack. Currently, Ohio University and WV are his only offers, according to 24/7. Wouldn't mind seeing Roy get involved, even if he is a lowly 3*.
Good hands? Check.
Good size? Check.
Good vertical? Check.
Good mobility? Check.
Good court awareness? Check.
Fights for position for every rebound? Check.
Loves to dunk everything around the tin? Check.
I'm sorry, but his physical skills compared to Kennedy's are much better. And I think we can all agree that Kennedy is a good college player. What's not to like about this young man's game?
And yes, #30 is a player. His name is Jeremiah Francis, a 6-2, 195 lb SO PG. But he's only a 3*, alas and alack. Currently, Ohio University and WV are his only offers, according to 24/7. Wouldn't mind seeing Roy get involved, even if he is a lowly 3*.
Last edited:
Looks good for a kid that has been on the shelf for so long, not sure I can check off all those boxes. He is 6'10-11" and can dunk, at that height ya supposed to be able to do that, I didn't see great elevation or explosive quick elevation, I saw what I would expect from a kid with his length. Considering he has seen successive seasons on the shelf with broken legs, understandable. Looks as if he had a very strong length advantage in that game, while good to see him turn face and find the open guy it does not show me if he can do that vs a guy that matches his length. Not down playing the kid, just speaking to what I see in that vid.
He has to keep the ball high on the catch and not bring it down waist level before going back up. Runs the court pretty well, I think that will be even better once he gets in to our conditioning program. Saw him get boxed out couple times by much smaller guys, got to swim around those and fight for better position. I can't comment on his hands just yet, didn't see him catch anything real hard to catch, other than bringing the ball down on a couple catches he didn't seem to fumble it like we used to see from Joel James or Desmond but they didn't fumble it as much in high school either.
What I liked most is he has good size, not a 6'11" string bean and seems to have pretty good reach as well. I felt like I saw a kid with a lot of potential but as well a good it of rust. I believe he finished that game with 22pts and 10 rebounds, darn solid for a kid that has a lot of rust to knock off on a team that has a lot of shooters that do not look constantly for him. As I have said, I see him as a poor man's Tony Bradley right now but I think he can close that poor man's gap considerably, not the upside I see in Tony but I do think Tony may have been better coached prior to college than Manley, of course the rust has a lot to do with that as well.
It has to be understood, kids now days play pretty much year round but for the last 2 years Manley has not been able to do that due to broken legs. That makes a huge difference, it is going to take him a few games to get back into real game mode.
Last edited:
Lol we shouldn't recruit number 30, he's a 3* guard we are already pretty set in the backcourt. Just making an observation that he was the one who stood out in that clip, not Manley.
I think you are being generous in your assessment.
He'll need to be a lot quicker to survive in Roy's system. The good news is that once he has the ball, he shifts into a faster gear. But he needs to do that when running the court and moving without the ball, too.
I wouldn't put him in Kennedy's league. Better length and no overweight problem, so that's good. But I would grade Kennedy higher at this same stage on everything else but dunks. I was reminded more of Desmond Hubert.
Still, I understand that he's just back from a serious injury, so he could be in a position to improve rapidly. I hope so. And I see the possibilities there.
Yeah that assessment was beyond generous. He looks ok to me, yes coming back from injury so We have to take that into account.
I wouldn't be ignorant enough to make a total judgement on a player from a 3 minute clip but taken this with his ranking I would lean towards there needing to be a ton of work done to get him to be an acc level contributor.
Desmond Hubert is who came to my mind as well, good call.
Desmond Hubert was one of the worst free throw shooters in the history of the NCAA. He shot under 30% for his career. Manley was 11-11 in the pre-season game a few weeks ago.. Hubert's entire game was an occasional dunk. This kid is much better than Hubert at the same stage and it is not even close. Manley has gained weight since Roy saw him at the open gym. He looks to be in the 250 lbs range and his best playing weight is probably around 225 lbs. If the kid stays healthy he will be solid player at UNC. I can see him adding a short jump hook among other moves around the basket. I really like this kid.
I agree with everything you said, with the exception of the highlighted part. Was that a typo or do you really believe his best weight is 225? I like him better at 250, he's plenty mobile at that weight.
Manley is a true big. he needs to stay at the 240 range to be a 4 and can go as high as the 260s if he is a 5. His skill set does not seem to me at this point to indicate he will be too far from the basket so he needs to stay big, mobile and strong!
I didn't see him being very quick up and down the court. And while Kennedy is no streak, he looks faster than Sterling. Then again, Sterling hasn't had Roy pushing him to move faster yet. Might be all it takes.
As I said, the best thing I saw about Sterling (other than his length) is that he shifts into a faster gear when he gets the ball. That suggests good upside with maturity and the right coaching.
He's no Antawn or Brice, but has extra quickness with the ball in his hands.
You guys are talking about Meeks running the floor as compared to Manley, that is the senior at UNC Meeks to a kid still in his high school senior season? I will not argue that one one way or the other but the notion does flash me back to Meeks as a senior in high school. Back then Meeks didn't run the court, he walked it, every now and then at a brisk pace! LOL
I speculated that the reason Meeks became such a solid outlet passer off a rebound was so that his team could finish before he had to run past half court, I was wrong, at the time he really didn't want to run past the top of the key from the end he rebouded the ball from! LOL
Another reason he should play high post. Much easier to sprint from FT line to FT line than baseline to baseline.
As I said, we'll disagree about Manley's speed vs that of Kennedy. I don't think the difference is worth parsing. As for him shifting into a faster gear when he gets the ball, I think that could be said of 90% of the basketball players in the country. Very few players put the same amount of intensity into their defense as they do their offense. Offensive is sexy, defense isn't, unless it's blocking a shot into the 5th row.
I think many UNC fans will have a greater appreciation of Manley's game by the end of the season. But we shall see.
Arch, anyone that can squeeze SEXY into a post should get two likes, and two thumbs up buddy.
With Manley, 1 aspect that has not been discussed, that I have seen in any event, this thing about his ranking, what was it 255 in this class, barely 3 star if even that? I would suggest he has not been ranked, that 255 ranking, toss it out because it is more a place holder than it saying the kid is the 255th best in his class. His ranking could have as well simply said TBD.
Ok, can feel the hackles coming up as I say that, but I am suggesting that he has not been evaluated for a ranking spot, how could he have been? He was a 6'8" soph that broke his leg, came back and broke the other leg at the end of his Jr season. he got a place holder ranking as a soph that didn't change much after his Jr season because those evaluators really want to see you during summer play, they want to see you against better competition, they want to see you playing with better team mates, they are going to look much harder at that than high school play. Problem was for 2 straight summers manley didn't play, he was recovering from broken legs. Last they saw the kid was vs questionable HS talent and he was 6'8" and weighted in around 215 pr so. While on the shelf he sprouts up to 6'11" and adds about 40lbs, they had not seen that kid play, they saw the kid at 6'8" but not the 6'11" 250lbs kid he has become.
I don't care what number they placed on him, it is not accurate, it could not be accurate, how could it possibly be accurate when the kid has added 4" and 40lbs and has not been seen on the summer circuit for the absolutely most critical time where rankings are set?
I offer this because so many seem to have such angst over where he is ranked and yet that ranking number can not possibly be accurate, holding on to that number as reason for concern isn't accurate because there is no way Manley's ranked position can be accurate. To suggest that manley can not leap from 255 to the top 100 or better can not be called crazy or nutzs unless you first begin with the belief that he was evaluated and watched play as the player he is today, not the player he was 2yrs ago that has not been evaluated at all in summer play for the last 2 summers.
Tel ya this much, a 6'11" 255lbs kid that can walk and chew gun at the same time is pretty much always considered a top 100 kid, one that puts up double doubles finds the top 50 pretty much every time, Manley is already putting up the double doubles. IDK what his final ranking will be but you can bet the ranch it will rocket from where it was going in to his season, do you really believe the considered 2nd best player in Ohio is not a top 100 kid...
Ok, can feel the hackles coming up as I say that, but I am suggesting that he has not been evaluated for a ranking spot, how could he have been? He was a 6'8" soph that broke his leg, came back and broke the other leg at the end of his Jr season. he got a place holder ranking as a soph that didn't change much after his Jr season because those evaluators really want to see you during summer play, they want to see you against better competition, they want to see you playing with better team mates, they are going to look much harder at that than high school play. Problem was for 2 straight summers manley didn't play, he was recovering from broken legs. Last they saw the kid was vs questionable HS talent and he was 6'8" and weighted in around 215 pr so. While on the shelf he sprouts up to 6'11" and adds about 40lbs, they had not seen that kid play, they saw the kid at 6'8" but not the 6'11" 250lbs kid he has become.
I don't care what number they placed on him, it is not accurate, it could not be accurate, how could it possibly be accurate when the kid has added 4" and 40lbs and has not been seen on the summer circuit for the absolutely most critical time where rankings are set?
I offer this because so many seem to have such angst over where he is ranked and yet that ranking number can not possibly be accurate, holding on to that number as reason for concern isn't accurate because there is no way Manley's ranked position can be accurate. To suggest that manley can not leap from 255 to the top 100 or better can not be called crazy or nutzs unless you first begin with the belief that he was evaluated and watched play as the player he is today, not the player he was 2yrs ago that has not been evaluated at all in summer play for the last 2 summers.
Tel ya this much, a 6'11" 255lbs kid that can walk and chew gun at the same time is pretty much always considered a top 100 kid, one that puts up double doubles finds the top 50 pretty much every time, Manley is already putting up the double doubles. IDK what his final ranking will be but you can bet the ranch it will rocket from where it was going in to his season, do you really believe the considered 2nd best player in Ohio is not a top 100 kid...
In the NBA after his single season of ZERO development? I agree with you dookie troll.
