Dawkins - 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: Dawkins (/thread-8965.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: Dawkins (/thread-8965.html)
Dawkins - TrumpCard - 03-13-2015
I was in the wait and see camp for a long time. I don't need to wait any longer. He's not the right man for the job. I don't care if he recruited the Dalai Lama to play for Stanford, the team doesn't perform.Â
Can anyone make a case for Muir NOT to fire him? I'm a lawyer, so I'm used to playing devil's advocate, but I can't make the case anymore.Â
Re: Dawkins - FarmBoy - 03-13-2015
Quote:Can anyone make a case for Muir NOT to fire him?
Well, it all started when Trent Johnson "left the cupboard bare"...no, I have nothing. There has to be a better solution out there.
Re: Dawkins - Farm93 - 03-13-2015
Here is the thing...
The next coach COULD be worse.
And even if that happens I would be OK with the attempt to mix it up. If Dawkins left and immediately got another program to the Elite Eight or Final Four I suspect most in the Stanford community would conclude that Dawkins was just not going to get that type of success at Stanford. Would anyone really think, "Oh, we let him go right when it was all starting to click!" I doubt it. Good guy, good coach, wrong job. It happens.
Seems like a no lose situation for Muir. And oddly, I think a very strong case could be made that firing Dawkins would be better for Dawkins' career too. I actually am a bit concerned that if Muir can't see this as a good time to change things up, then honestly Muir should be let go because an AD should be ready to make far tougher calls than this one. Should have made it 24 months ago. Really need to make it now.Â
Re: Dawkins - winflop - 03-13-2015
(03-13-2015, 04:02 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Here is the thing...
The next coach COULD be worse.
So does that mean Stanford should continue to accept mediocrity and not take the risk? Good lord what would Silicon Valley be today if Stanford didn't take some risk?
We know that Dawkins is not going to take this program ANYWHERE. I'd much rather Stanford try someone new and fail than continue down the same path of inconsistency, subpar recruiting and player development, and mediocrity.
Re: Dawkins - Langdude - 03-13-2015
(03-13-2015, 03:15 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:I don't care if he recruited the Dalai Lama to play for Stanford, the team doesn't perform.
Though if he recruited the Dalai Lama to play for the golf team, it'd be a different story. Big hitter, the Lama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X48G7Y0VWW4
Re: Dawkins - CrazedZooChimp - 03-13-2015
(03-13-2015, 04:24 PM)ferrari link Wrote:I may get hate mail for this, but I don't see us competing at the highest level given the current culture and state of HS and college Bball regardless of the coach. Oh, we may have some runs with phenomenal twins, but how often can that happen, realistically? One and done doesn't work for us. Neither does two and done.
Ahh, I remember when people said the state of high school and college football meant we would never be able to compete in that either.
Our recruiting classes recently are showing that getting talent to Stanford is not the issue. Humphreys, Travis, and Cartwright were all four star players in the rivals top 100. Sharma, Walker, and Sheffield are also all Rivals 4 stars with only Sheffield outside the top 100 (at 103). We've also been putting guys into the NBA recently, another good sign that there is enough talent.
Maybe it's not reasonable to expect Stanford to be #1 in the country anymore, but I think it's reasonable to expect them to be in the top four of the conference with some consistency...
Re: Dawkins - washingtonismoney - 03-13-2015
That's a very strange argument given the long run of success in the Montgomery years as well. Whenever Stanford sports do poorly people argue something about that sport just doesn't work given Stanford's admissions model. But then after replacing the coach we find, oops, Stanford can do very well given the right coach. We'll probably never be Alabama in football or Kentucky in basketball, but that's no reason to settle for Idiotfacian ineptitude or even Dawkinsian mediocrity.
Re: Dawkins - 76lsjumb - 03-13-2015
While Im confident my give him a chance credentials match up against anyones [quit laughing, garvin], Ive come to the conclusion that, while it might not be the fair thing to end the relationship, it is the right thing at this point. This team is in a funk, and the only prescription is more cowbell. No, sorry, thats something else Â
The only prescription is to start over with a new program head, before that funk becomes too ingrained in the freshmen/sophomores, who look like they are sufficiently talented that, with a focused, determined, and positive effort, they could regularly compete at the upper level of the Conference, rather than the mid- to lower-level. What made this season so frustrating for me was to see the occasional flashes 5 to 10 minute stretches here and there in many, if not all, of the games where the team played with energy, enthusiasm, focus, purpose, confidence, etc., but then have to endure generally longer stretches, at more consequential times, in most of the games, where the very same players threw sloppy passes, got caught clearly out-of-position on defense, made really boneheaded plays on offense, seemed very unsure about what they were trying accomplish in an offensive set, etc. Otherwise put, for too long in too many games, the players looked like they simply werent having much fun out there, didn't want to make the hustle play, and, more importantly, just kind of knew that, in crunch time, bad things would happen and they would ultimately lose. Unfortunately, as the season progressed, more often than not, they did and they did.Â
I think, in no small part, this was due to the temperaments of the seniors I cant recall three starting seniors who routinely appear as stoic as Randle, Nastic, and Brown. When youre winning, that attitude comes across as quiet confidence [e.g., Andrew Luck]; when youre losing, though, it comes across as resignation, lack of energy, and even disinterest indeed, it struck me during the Pac-12 tourney broadcasts as I heard it mentioned for the umpteenth time how often our team was described throughout the season as showing a palpable lack of energy -- and that moniker attached long before the its been a long season and everyone had played lots of minutes excuse/explanation was really valid. And, it wasnt just the seniors. There really did not appear to be any high-spirited, intense, vocal leader such as Mark Madsen, for example who ignited the team on a regular basis. [Indeed, Elliot Bullock, whose 3-pointer from the top of the arc last night will be the only thing from that game I choose to remember, was the only guy who looked like he was having fun every minute of every game.] Im encouraged by flashes of that attitude that appeared from a number of the freshmen and sophomores, but, given the obvious leadership by the 3 seniors, its understandable that none of the underclassmen sought [or, if they did, actually succeeded] to take that role. This year, at least.Â
Which brings me back to Dawkins. And next year. Im afraid that his temperament always has been and will remain very much in the same mold as this years seniors and that it casts a pall [for lack of a better phrase] over the whole team. After 7 seasons, I have no reason to believe it would suddenly vanish, especially given the way this season ended. Please note that I dislike sideline coaches who prance all over the place and make the game all about themselves as they scream and wave their arms, openly swear at the refs [yes, you, Sean Miller] and get so far out of the coaches box that they couldnt get back to it if they ran full-speed for 20 seconds. Still, there have been countless times over the past few seasons and, especially, this season when the cool, detached, almost passionless demeanor of Dawkins on the sideline, as small leads turned into big deficits, was so difficult to watch. There is a middle ground out there of coaches who inspire their players to play at their peak for the whole time they are on the floor. Right now, Dawkins doesnt look to me like hes in that group [nor has he been]. And, having Ray Lewis sit on the bench and give motivational speeches during the media timeouts probably isnt all that feasible
In the end, it isnt most of the things that others criticize Dawkins for that have caused me to conclude he should be let go [although I do think, if he stays, his contract should be amended to make it an immediate firing offense for him to call a timeout and set up an offensive play within 30 seconds of the end of either half]. And, from what I hear [and see, for that matter], he is intelligent, a person of high character and integrity, and a very good representative of the school. E.g., hes no Wlat. Its simply that the program looks like one in which the players themselves are not having fun, are not committed to improving every single day, and arent going to be able to shake that uh oh, were going to lose mentality, if we just come back with the same group of coaches and go at it again next year.
As for timing, it seems to me that now is perhaps the most propitious time to bring in a new coach, since the cupboard does not really appear to be too bare, even losing Randle, Nastic, and Brown. A good coach , I think, would see some real potential in being able to get this years freshmen and sophomores at this stage of their careers and develop them as they progress. To make that happen, then, all we would need is a good coach.
Theres got to be one out there somewhere.
Re: Dawkins - 76lsjumb - 03-13-2015
(03-13-2015, 05:15 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=11871.msg114717#msg114717 date=1426287743]
Here is the thing...
The next coach COULD be worse.
So does that mean Stanford should continue to accept mediocrity and not take the risk? Good lord what would Silicon Valley be today if Stanford didn't take some risk?
We know that Dawkins is not going to take this program ANYWHERE. I'd much rather Stanford try someone new and fail than continue down the same path of inconsistency, subpar recruiting and player development, and mediocrity.
[/quote]
Like I said, my view of Dawkins isn't based on many of the criticisms leveled by others. Subpar recruiting and player development? Really? Given the obstacles to recruiting of men's basketball players for Stanford, he's done a pretty good -- and arguably extremely good -- job. In fact, adjusting for the admissibility of the talent pool over the past few years -- I think a reasonable argument can be made that he has outrecruited our Hall of Fame Coach on the women's side.
As for player development -- and, here, I confess that I don't know necessarily which coach [if any] may be ultimately responsible for any given player's development -- I think it's pretty clear that Landry Fields, Dwight Powell, and, as Exhibit A, Stefan Nastic, to name 3 -- all developed pretty well under Dawkins and his staff. Indeed, [former US.C coach] Kevin O'Neill said numerous times during Pac-12 broadcasts that, when Nastic started, he told his players that they would get benched if they guarded Nastic because he WANTED Nastic to get the ball on offense as often as possible. For the past season and a half, Nastic has been a major force, and one of the best big men in the Conference. Other than perhaps [his doppelganger] Taj Finger, I can't recall anyone at Stanford who has gone from looking so not like a basketball player to so effective over the course of his career. In fact, the development of Nastic -- and the lack of same for someone on the women's team, Tess Picknell, who was probably more talented coming in -- is another instance where Dawkins was arguably more successful than his counterpart.
As for inconsistency...well, no argument there. :)
Re: Dawkins - winflop - 03-13-2015
(03-13-2015, 05:41 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:As for player development -- and, here, I confess that I don't know necessarily which coach [if any] may be ultimately responsible for any given player's development -- I think it's pretty clear that Landry Fields, Dwight Powell, and, as Exhibit A, Stefan Nastic, to name 3 -- all developed pretty well under Dawkins and his staff. Indeed, [former US.C coach] Kevin O'Neill said numerous times during Pac-12 broadcasts that, when Nastic started, he told his players that they would get benched if they guarded Nastic because he WANTED Nastic to get the ball on offense as often as possible. For the past season and a half, Nastic has been a major force, and one of the best big men in the Conference. Other than perhaps [his doppelganger] Taj Finger, I can't recall anyone at Stanford who has gone from looking so not like a basketball player to so effective over the course of his career.Â
If you can only name three players have truly developed in the last seven years you have proven my point.
Re: Dawkins - BostonCard - 03-13-2015
(03-13-2015, 07:45 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=11871.msg114728#msg114728 date=1426293661]
As for player development -- and, here, I confess that I don't know necessarily which coach [if any] may be ultimately responsible for any given player's development -- I think it's pretty clear that Landry Fields, Dwight Powell, and, as Exhibit A, Stefan Nastic, to name 3 -- all developed pretty well under Dawkins and his staff. Indeed, [former US.C coach] Kevin O'Neill said numerous times during Pac-12 broadcasts that, when Nastic started, he told his players that they would get benched if they guarded Nastic because he WANTED Nastic to get the ball on offense as often as possible. For the past season and a half, Nastic has been a major force, and one of the best big men in the Conference. Other than perhaps [his doppelganger] Taj Finger, I can't recall anyone at Stanford who has gone from looking so not like a basketball player to so effective over the course of his career.Â
If you can only name three players have truly developed in the last seven years you have proven my point.
[/quote]
Add to that the fact that it is hard to point to Powell as someone who developed pretty well under Dawkins. He came into and left the program as a tremendous athlete with lots of potential. I'd point to Huestis as someone who might have developed under Dawkins, but really the only two who stand out are Fields and Nastic.
BC
Re: Dawkins - Farm93 - 03-14-2015
I intentionally mentioned that the next coach COULD be worse because that is the risk. I think it is very important to note that a change might actually drive Stanford to the realm of 10-12th in the Pac. Too many posts only noted the more desirable outcomes. There are downside possibilities too.
I understand the risk of the change and I still hope Muir tries to find a new path. Won't be too harsh if attempt #1 falls short, a W. Harris type thing. And won't regret the choice if Dawkins takes a different program to the final four in 2017, for example.
Great guy. Great coach. Wrong Program.
And if Muir can't see that for Dawkins, then maybe it is true for Muir too. Great guy. Great administrator. Wrong Program.
FWIW - The idea that Utah couldn't even beat unranked Oregon says a lot about how far JD's Stanford program is from consistently finishing in the top 25.
Re: Dawkins - FarmBoy - 03-14-2015
Why do people keepisode saying he's a "great coach" when all evidence is to the contrary? He has no track record of success, which is why I thought him unqualified to begin. Sitting next to coach K when he leads at a championship caliber does not make Dawkins qualified, especially when the challenges at Stanford are very different from Duke.
Re: Dawkins - winflop - 03-14-2015
Great assistant coach. Great, great man. But a very mediocre head coach.
I really do think he could be great if he focused on developing guards under someone else. I would think he has so much experience at the position to impart to young players. It's the rest of the head coach job where I think he's just not very good.
Re: Dawkins - BostonCard - 03-14-2015
(03-14-2015, 07:39 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:I intentionally mentioned that the next coach COULD be worse because that is the risk. I think it is very important to note that a change might actually drive Stanford to the realm of 10-12th in the Pac. Too many posts only noted the more desirable outcomes. There are downside possibilities too.
I understand the risk of the change and I still hope Muir tries to find a new path. Won't be too harsh if attempt #1 falls short, a W. Harris type thing. And won't regret the choice if Dawkins takes a different program to the final four in 2017, for example.
Great guy. Great coach. Wrong Program.
And if Muir can't see that for Dawkins, then maybe it is true for Muir too. Great guy. Great administrator. Wrong Program.
FWIW - The idea that Utah couldn't even beat unranked Oregon says a lot about how far JD's Stanford program is from consistently finishing in the top 25.
True, we fired Buddy Teavens and wound up with Walt Harris. Thankfully, the next hire was good.
BC
Re: Dawkins - winflop - 03-14-2015
But at least we had an AD who was willing to pull the trigger after just two years. Let's hope Muir doesn't take six or seven years to figure out if the next one is any good.
Re: Dawkins - Farm93 - 03-14-2015
(03-14-2015, 08:36 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Why do people keepisode saying he's a "great coach" when all evidence is to the contrary? He has no track record of success, which is why I thought him unqualified to begin. Sitting next to coach K when he leads at a championship caliber does not make Dawkins qualified, especially when the challenges at Stanford are very different from Duke.Identifying him as a great coach enhances the credibility of the argument, I think. If one believes he is average, mediocre, or bad, then Muir might conclude those voices don't really know the game. Don't understand how lucky we are to have a great basketball mind, etc. etc.
Those that concede Dawkins' might be amazing in a different program are trying to show Muir the path. Firing Dawkins does not imply coach Dawkins is bad, in fact he likely is quite amazing. It just has become clear that we are not right for Dawkins.
"It is not you. You are great. The problem is me." type deal.
Re: Dawkins - winflop - 03-15-2015
I have no doubt Dawkins has a great basketball mind. I have no doubt he is a great person. But he is absolutely NOT a great head coach. At this level (D1, major conference) his results are average. At this level, he is an average head coach.
I hope he finds a better fit somewhere else, either as an assistant coach or a head coach. I personally think he's better suited to be an assistant coach.
Re: Dawkins - terry - 03-15-2015
If you folks want Muir to do something, shouldn't you go directly to Muir?
athleticdirector@stanford.edu
Re: Dawkins - washingtonismoney - 03-15-2015
I dunno, I have plenty of doubt in Dawkins's basketball mind -- at least, when coaching. His defensive scheme seems designed to cause maximum discomfort for Nastic.