The CardBoard
Stanford 79, Washington 67 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford 79, Washington 67 (/thread-6624.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - Papa John - 01-22-2014

BC, are you 100% certain that Chasson Randle is returning next year?

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - StanFan88 - 01-23-2014

(01-22-2014, 06:54 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I get the concern, but considering that he has had five years to get it right, and the last big class he signed would go oh-for-four in getting to the NCAA tournament, I think there would be no reason to believe that the class Dawkins is signing now would do any better.  2013-2014 is the last year in the window; next year we will have Randall, some OK guys with injury issues and little experience, and a bunch of freshmen.  Though anything is possible, especially in basketball, you get the feeling that this year really is do or die.

Just because Muir didn't fire Dawkins last year doesn't mean he will tolerate another failure to reach the tournament, no matter how close we get.  I could be wrong, but my guess is we are NCAA tourney or bust.

Lastly, if I did go through a coaching transition, wouldn't you want to do it with a brand new, highly touted freshman class coming in?  That would diminish the pressure on the incoming coach.

BC

Other than his big class & Randle, Dawkins has had near zero quality recruits before this year's incoming class.

And for Muir I think what will determine whether Dawkins stays in the event they are close is what season ticket holders say.  The team loses a LOT of talent after this season, and if season ticket holders are going to not renew to an even greater extent than last offseason, he will have no choice.

I think keeping Dawkins cost the AD more than firing him.

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - FarmBoy - 01-23-2014

Quote:BC, are you 100% certain that Chasson Randle is returning next year?

Where does he sit on NBA draft boards? I don't see anything pegging him as a player likely to be drafted, let alone going in the 1st round.

This site has him as the #52 Junior: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chasson-Randle-6265/

He's a good player, but I don't know if he has an NBA future in front of him.

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - FarmBoy - 01-23-2014

Considering that the best players are freshmen, and these lists don't even include international players who seem to take more and more of the draft spots each year, if Chasson isn't cracking the top 10 amongst juniors, I'd say entering the draft is pretty risky, unless he's okay with going to Europe/LA/Asia and making a couple hundred grand rather than finish his degree and try to polish his game. Of course, with all the talent we lose this year, this might be his best chance to shine. Next year, without Powell and Huestis, other team's are going to double team him at every opportunity.

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - CapitolHillCard - 01-23-2014

I don't see Chasson leaving after this season for the reasons that others have said.  Replacing Powell and Huestis won't be easy, but I don't think the cupboard will be that bare next year. 

We will return 3 of 5 starters -- Randle, Brown (who is also having a good year), and Nastic.  Rosco Allen, a top 75 recruit,  should be back from injury and is a likely starter -- he was a significant contributor last year as a freshman and looked improved this summer. We have a top 15 recruiting class, in which our best two prospects are big men and fit areas of need -- Reid Travis and Michael Humphrey.  Malcolm Allen and Grant Verhoeven, who are in the rotation this year, will be back.




Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - BostonCard - 01-23-2014

(01-23-2014, 09:57 AM)garvin link Wrote:The question is how much of that class we'll retain if Dawkins gets fired, Boston Card. I know some people think it's harder for basketball recruits to jump because coach-firing season comes so late in the academic year, but when the recruits in question are top-ranked, a lot of coaches will find a way to make room. I wouldn't be suprised if some of them have already done contingency planning -- and the pace of that planning will accelerate if Stanford stumbles.
'

We did lose a player in our last coaching transition, but it was a bit of a special circumstance; Plumlee had always wanted to go to Duke but wasn't offered during the regular signing period.  A spot opened up for him and he and Krzyzewski took advantage of the coaching transition to get him to move.  Technically players have signed a LOI and would need to transfer unless released from their letter.  Is there a chance that one of our recruits will leave?  Of course, but I would imagine most will stay.  Recruirts tend to commit to the school more than the coach.  Plumlee had always wanted to go to Duke, so the coaching transition was more an excuse than a reason.

As for Chasson leaving... that's a possibility no matter who is the coach, but as others have pointed out, he doesn't project to be a high draft pick, so he is better off coming back to earn his degree and showcase his talent as the featured player on next year's team.

BC

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - StanFan88 - 01-23-2014

Randle's value in the NBA is limited to being a backup/role player.

He's not big enough to play SG, and he's not a good nor quick enough dribbler/penetrator/passer to be a PG.

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - 76lsjumb - 01-23-2014

(01-23-2014, 12:58 PM)garvin link Wrote:Stanford released Plumlee, though it didn't have to. It's very hard for to imagine Stanford forcing guys to stay (or forcing them to sit out a year somewhere else) against their will in the wake of a coaching change.

I find it very hard to believe that any of the recruits who signed letters of intent to come to Stanford next year did so without knowledge that there was a very real possibility that they would be playing for a different head coach next season.  These are Stanford admits, so they are smart kids [res ipsa], and, unless they were told something in private that clearly contradicted what pretty much everyone was saying publicly at the time they signed, they had to be aware of the uncertain situation [which is a lot different from what happened the last time around, when Johnson left].

I concur that it is hard to imagine that Stanford would "force" anyone to stay, but it is equally hard for me to imagine -- coaching change or not -- that this particular group of recruits, who signed under these particular circumstances, will have to be forced.

As to the observation by StanFan88 regarding season ticket holders, it's pretty hard for them [for 30+ years prior to this season, I would have said "us"] to speak louder [with their feet, that is] than has happened so far this season.  The empty seats in the lower bowl are ubiquitous.  Maybe a few more wins will turn that around, and, of course, the next home game is Arizona, so that should provide a crowd, but the jury's still out [or, if not out, at least not coming to the games...] 

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - BostonCard - 01-23-2014

Not only are they smart enough to read the tea leaves, I am sure every coach recruiting against Stanford took every opportunity to let them know that Dawkins is on thin ice.  Of course, it is possible that one of them for whatever reason doesn't like the guy who is brought in should Dawkins be replaced and ask to be released.  But my guess is they committed to Stanford and not Dawkins.

BC

Re: Stanford 79, Washington 67 - StanFan88 - 01-23-2014

(01-23-2014, 05:07 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:But my guess is they committed to Stanford and not Dawkins.

BC

That is my thinking as well - wishful perhaps