Thud - 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: Thud (/thread-6860.html)
+- 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: Thud (/thread-6860.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Thud - Papa John - 03-15-2014
(03-15-2014, 06:37 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Johnny Dawkins is like the "Pat" character from SNL fame.
Say what you want about Johnny Dawkins, but, unlike Pat, I'm pretty sure that he's a dude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTtmddry2cg
Re: Thud - Bruce Wang - 03-16-2014
(03-15-2014, 02:45 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9678.msg85582#msg85582 date=1394917665]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=9678.msg85578#msg85578 date=1394911044]
Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Sure it does! It doesn't make it especially likely, but we're just talking about possibilities.
[/quote]
Can't disagree with that. I mean it's possible that I will win the Florida lottery the next time I play.
[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
Actually.... - JohnR34231 - 03-16-2014
.........I do agree that if we met a top ten team in the Big Dance, had the game of our lives and they had the game from hell, we do have enough talent to get by them.
Possibilities aren't great, but they aren't zero either.
However, if we didn't, it wouldn't mean that JD is a lousy coach (even though he may be).
Re: Thud - StanFan88 - 03-16-2014
JD is NOT a lousy coach. But he's not a good coach either. He's a mediocre coach.
Unfortunately Stanford is a place that has next to zero tolerance for mediocrity. An ever-decreasing number of members of our community have continued to believe that he can still be a good coach and have continued to hold out hope for a better season next year.  I wonder how many fewer will continue to hold this belief if Dawkins stays.
This team will NOT be good next year - the horses are not there. There is nobody on the roster who can fill the shoes of Heustis & Powell. Verhoeven, Allen, Rimmer, and Bullock are not the answer. And please don't mention the incoming frosh. It's been a LONG time since a brand new freshman had a material impact on a Stanford team.
This is a great opportunity for Muir to bring a new coach who can work on developing young talent and installing a new system with low fan expectations but increased optimism for the future. I'd be willing to buy some tickets to see that, but I have ZERO interest in going to see another year of Dawkins.
What kind of coach is JD? - JohnR34231 - 03-16-2014
Well, in the immortal words of that great philosopher (Ricky Bobby). "If you ain't first, you're last."
http://www.headhuntersflyshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ricky-bobby-if-you-aint-first.jpg
Does Stanford have zero tolerance for mediocrity? - JohnR34231 - 03-16-2014
If that's true it must be something new, because we put up with it in football for a long time pre Harbaugh.
Re: Thud - Leftcoast - 03-16-2014
Oh, I don't know. Did you not see the acres of seating covered in tarps in the old stadium? I'd say some fans didn't put up with the unmitigated awfulness. Many other prospective fans left school with no connection to the football team.Â
The fan impact created it's own momentum and it's taken years to overcome the apathy of the early 2000s. I hope Muir has a plan in place before the inertia of years of mediocrity creates decades of awfulness!
Mediocrity = boiling the frog - Redrum - 03-16-2014
And, yes, I know that the whole slowly raising the temp of water the frog is in thingee...has been disproven. But it's a useful meme, sort of like Awfulness Meters always point at Berkeley.
But where true awfulness shocks and arouses emotions, most times repeated mediocrity slowly anesthetizes. Having no clear-cut victories to savor and relive, mediocrity invites forensic statistic dissection, seeking some sort of facts that can somehow make us feel better. And the worst mediocrity provides enough statistical numbness that we'll tolerate it until the next required round of statistical justification.