[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=9476.msg82869#msg82869 date=1391058532]
For most of the second half I thought I was back at the Rose Bowl...watching Gaffney go up the middle and getting stuffed, over...and over...and over...and over...and

Time and again we passed up tough, but makeable, outside opportunities from the outside to take it in, get stuffed, not get the call, and head back down to the other end with 0.

I get the desire by some to compare Shaw's boring offense with Dawkins' boring offense, but the meaningful difference is stated in your recollection statement.

"I thought I was back at the Rose Bowl".

Shaw's boring style has enabled Stanford to win the Pac-12 in back-to-back seasons enabling you to have that Rose Bowl recollection.  Dawkins' boring offense has enable Stanford to earn back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back seasons without a trip to the NCAA dance.  If Dawkins' Stanford team played that way in the NCAA Final Four then I would find a way to see that as a glass half full scenario, and I would be delighted to defend him against those that yearned for a late 80s Loyola Marymount style offense.

Comparing a Shaw experience with a Dawkins in any way gives Dawkins way too much credit.
[/quote]

FWIW, I agree with you 100%.  In other words, my comment was in no way intended as a criticism of Shaw.  It just seemed like I'd seen this movie recently...and I wasn't too thrilled by the ending...either time.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=9476.msg82869#msg82869 date=1391058532]
For most of the second half I thought I was back at the Rose Bowl...watching Gaffney go up the middle and getting stuffed, over...and over...and over...and over...and

Time and again we passed up tough, but makeable, outside opportunities from the outside to take it in, get stuffed, not get the call, and head back down to the other end with 0.

I get the desire by some to compare Shaw's boring offense with Dawkins' boring offense, but the meaningful difference is stated in your recollection statement.

"I thought I was back at the Rose Bowl".

Shaw's boring style has enabled Stanford to win the Pac-12 in back-to-back seasons enabling you to have that Rose Bowl recollection.  Dawkins' boring offense has enable Stanford to earn back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back seasons without a trip to the NCAA dance.  If Dawkins' Stanford team played that way in the NCAA Final Four then I would find a way to see that as a glass half full scenario, and I would be delighted to defend him against those that yearned for a late 80s Loyola Marymount style offense.

Comparing a Shaw experience with a Dawkins in any way gives Dawkins way too much credit.
[/quote]

FWIW, I agree with you 100%.  In other words, my comment was in no way intended as a criticism of Shaw.  It just seemed like I'd seen this movie recently...and I wasn't too thrilled by the ending...either time.

[Bruce Wang]

Clearly this is not working.  We should bring in a new coach and do something offbeat like VCU and Creighton.  Recruit a team full of Ryan Mendezes and Dion Crosses. Hoist up 3s and full court press entire games.

[Bruce Wang]

Clearly this is not working.  We should bring in a new coach and do something offbeat like VCU and Creighton.  Recruit a team full of Ryan Mendezes and Dion Crosses. Hoist up 3s and full court press entire games.

[81alum]

This was the first men's game I have watched in quite some time.  Since I have not been closely following the men's game, I don't feel qualified (even as a fan!) to pronounce judgment on Dawkins.  I do feel qualified to pronounce judgment on my emotions.

Which were nil.  For some reason, when we led, I was not at all optimistic, nor did I care passionately that we hang on to win.  The last ten minutes of the game were not filled with the drama that a close game should have been filled with.  Our offensive ineptitude was so bad that I almost turned off a tied game due to boredom. 

I know I should not do this--but my inner psyche simply could not help it--during those last ten minutes I was thinking about the woman's game I just watched against U.SC, and comparing the constant passing, player motion, assists, and unselfish play to a stale, uninteresting, ineffective, losing performance.  I realized that I enjoyed watching Tara's 20 and 30 point blowouts against inferior opposition much more than I was enjoying watching Dawkin's team play a tied game against the #1 team in the country. 

I suppose that simply reflects a profound personal bias.  But it was how I felt.  I don't think I will be tuning in to any more men's games soon.  By the way, I was a Todd Lichti/Monty fan long before I cheered for our women.

[81alum]

This was the first men's game I have watched in quite some time.  Since I have not been closely following the men's game, I don't feel qualified (even as a fan!) to pronounce judgment on Dawkins.  I do feel qualified to pronounce judgment on my emotions.

Which were nil.  For some reason, when we led, I was not at all optimistic, nor did I care passionately that we hang on to win.  The last ten minutes of the game were not filled with the drama that a close game should have been filled with.  Our offensive ineptitude was so bad that I almost turned off a tied game due to boredom. 

I know I should not do this--but my inner psyche simply could not help it--during those last ten minutes I was thinking about the woman's game I just watched against U.SC, and comparing the constant passing, player motion, assists, and unselfish play to a stale, uninteresting, ineffective, losing performance.  I realized that I enjoyed watching Tara's 20 and 30 point blowouts against inferior opposition much more than I was enjoying watching Dawkin's team play a tied game against the #1 team in the country. 

I suppose that simply reflects a profound personal bias.  But it was how I felt.  I don't think I will be tuning in to any more men's games soon.  By the way, I was a Todd Lichti/Monty fan long before I cheered for our women.

[CapitolHillCard]

Wow, tough crowd. 

I watched the game and, while it is disappointing that we did not pull off the brobdingnagian upset, the team came to play and generally played well.  I also don't think coaching is the main reason we lost this one (more on that below).

To give the team praise where it is due, we held a team that was averaging nearly 50 percent shooting and a +10 rebound margin to 36 percent and beat them on the boards by 2. Arizona was averaging 13 offensive rebounds a game, and we held them to less than half that -- although the one they got at the end cost us the game. 

Arizona is ranked #1 for a reason -- they are a tough, tough defensive team, that is undefeated and beaten a lot of really good teams already including Duke, San Diego State, Michigan, UCLA etc. They have top recruits at every position - far better rated than our players. Other than Michigan no one has came closer to them than we have. 

The main reason, I think, we lost is depth. Yes, Arizona clamped down, but we ran plays and we got many makeable shots (including in the last minute).  We just did not get those shots to fall because, I think, the team started to run out of gas.  Randle played all 40 minutes, Huestis and Brown played 39 minutes each.  And, I am not sure that we can really blame Dawkins for that -- when the reserves were in, Arizona went on a run.  Not having Rosco Allen, Bright, Brown, and Sanders hurts in games like this.

While I can't write that I am rooting for Dawkins to lose his job, I am not particularly invested in him either. He is a mediocre coach for a program like ours, albeit slowly improving, and a good recruiter.  But the team has gotten better and we played well and hard this evening. Nastic's improvement is remarkable. I don't think all that should get lost in our feelings about Dawkins.

[CapitolHillCard]

Wow, tough crowd. 

I watched the game and, while it is disappointing that we did not pull off the brobdingnagian upset, the team came to play and generally played well.  I also don't think coaching is the main reason we lost this one (more on that below).

To give the team praise where it is due, we held a team that was averaging nearly 50 percent shooting and a +10 rebound margin to 36 percent and beat them on the boards by 2. Arizona was averaging 13 offensive rebounds a game, and we held them to less than half that -- although the one they got at the end cost us the game. 

Arizona is ranked #1 for a reason -- they are a tough, tough defensive team, that is undefeated and beaten a lot of really good teams already including Duke, San Diego State, Michigan, UCLA etc. They have top recruits at every position - far better rated than our players. Other than Michigan no one has came closer to them than we have. 

The main reason, I think, we lost is depth. Yes, Arizona clamped down, but we ran plays and we got many makeable shots (including in the last minute).  We just did not get those shots to fall because, I think, the team started to run out of gas.  Randle played all 40 minutes, Huestis and Brown played 39 minutes each.  And, I am not sure that we can really blame Dawkins for that -- when the reserves were in, Arizona went on a run.  Not having Rosco Allen, Bright, Brown, and Sanders hurts in games like this.

While I can't write that I am rooting for Dawkins to lose his job, I am not particularly invested in him either. He is a mediocre coach for a program like ours, albeit slowly improving, and a good recruiter.  But the team has gotten better and we played well and hard this evening. Nastic's improvement is remarkable. I don't think all that should get lost in our feelings about Dawkins.

[Bruce Wang]

The injuries and endurance problems make me think the MBB program needs a Turley.

[Bruce Wang]

The injuries and endurance problems make me think the MBB program needs a Turley.

[washingtonismoney]

I also don't think coaching is the main reason we lost this one (more on that below).

Many different reasons why we lost, but sitting Powell for however many minutes in the first half was a big blunder by Dawkins.

[washingtonismoney]

I also don't think coaching is the main reason we lost this one (more on that below).

Many different reasons why we lost, but sitting Powell for however many minutes in the first half was a big blunder by Dawkins.

[washingtonismoney]

Not sure about that, really. If Powell doesn't sit in the first half, it's quite likely that he gets seriously deep in foul trouble and has to sit, voluntarily or not, in much of the second half. He's not good at avoiding fouls in situations where that's a paramount concern.

We were actually ahead by one at the half, and built the lead to seven when Powell returned to the court. What killed us was the offensive collapse at the end of the game, not our performance in the first half.

Sure. My thinking is that as an underdog, you need to embrace risk -- which means not (effectively) fouling out your own guy by benching him. And while the team may have played reasonably well in his absence, it was difficult to foresee that in advance -- and it's possible that instead of a seven point lead, it's a ten or twelve point lead. Points count the same, no matter when they're scored.

[washingtonismoney]

Not sure about that, really. If Powell doesn't sit in the first half, it's quite likely that he gets seriously deep in foul trouble and has to sit, voluntarily or not, in much of the second half. He's not good at avoiding fouls in situations where that's a paramount concern.

We were actually ahead by one at the half, and built the lead to seven when Powell returned to the court. What killed us was the offensive collapse at the end of the game, not our performance in the first half.

Sure. My thinking is that as an underdog, you need to embrace risk -- which means not (effectively) fouling out your own guy by benching him. And while the team may have played reasonably well in his absence, it was difficult to foresee that in advance -- and it's possible that instead of a seven point lead, it's a ten or twelve point lead. Points count the same, no matter when they're scored.

[Leftcoast]

Nicely put, CapitolHillCard. 

There are good athletes on this team that took the NCAAs #1 team to the final seconds.  The team played well last night and deserves credit for their effort regardless of my ambivalence toward the coaching. 

[Leftcoast]

Nicely put, CapitolHillCard. 

There are good athletes on this team that took the NCAAs #1 team to the final seconds.  The team played well last night and deserves credit for their effort regardless of my ambivalence toward the coaching. 

[2 for 2028]

Nicely put, CapitolHillCard. 

Agreed.  I thoroughly enjoyed watching that game last night.  We were outmatched, but came to play. 

[2 for 2028]

Nicely put, CapitolHillCard. 

Agreed.  I thoroughly enjoyed watching that game last night.  We were outmatched, but came to play. 

[WAcard]

Not a lot of ball movement in the final ten minutes.  Looked like our top players just took turns going one on one.  Comparing the crisp ball movement in that Nick Robinson clip with tonight's stretch run is cringe inducing.

Agreed, what had us winning was ball movement, it disappeared and even though Arizona was having difficulty scoring, we couldn't capitalize on it!

[WAcard]

Not a lot of ball movement in the final ten minutes.  Looked like our top players just took turns going one on one.  Comparing the crisp ball movement in that Nick Robinson clip with tonight's stretch run is cringe inducing.

Agreed, what had us winning was ball movement, it disappeared and even though Arizona was having difficulty scoring, we couldn't capitalize on it!

[Treebound]

CapHillCard has it right.  Our lack of depth, particularly with the bigs, is what doomed us.  Nastic had arguably, his best game last night.  I was close to our basket in the second half and he had run out of gas in the last ten minutes.  Powell, as a senior, needs to stop getting into foul trouble so early on.  Granted, some of the fouls on both teams in the first half were very ticky tack.  Chasson just couldn't finish or shoot his foul shots.

Dawkins is Dawkins - mediocre at best and 0 for 5 in getting us a ticket to the Dance.    It was good to see Maples packed, even though there were many UofA fans in the upper sections.  I told my youngest son that this was how it used to be and we've been to 6-7 games this season. 

In the end, Az did what they needed to on D and clamped down.  Hats off to them!  I hope they win it all, while we make another run on the nit.  The question for me is who is on Bernard's short list?  He has been to every game that we've attended this year so he knows this is his biggest decision of his short tenure.

[Treebound]

CapHillCard has it right.  Our lack of depth, particularly with the bigs, is what doomed us.  Nastic had arguably, his best game last night.  I was close to our basket in the second half and he had run out of gas in the last ten minutes.  Powell, as a senior, needs to stop getting into foul trouble so early on.  Granted, some of the fouls on both teams in the first half were very ticky tack.  Chasson just couldn't finish or shoot his foul shots.

Dawkins is Dawkins - mediocre at best and 0 for 5 in getting us a ticket to the Dance.    It was good to see Maples packed, even though there were many UofA fans in the upper sections.  I told my youngest son that this was how it used to be and we've been to 6-7 games this season. 

In the end, Az did what they needed to on D and clamped down.  Hats off to them!  I hope they win it all, while we make another run on the nit.  The question for me is who is on Bernard's short list?  He has been to every game that we've attended this year so he knows this is his biggest decision of his short tenure.

[76lsjumb]

Stefan Nastic played 30 minutes last night. That seems far from excessive.

Nastic really was heroic last night.  While TV viewers may have gotten to see some of the contact underneath, it's likely that 80% of the beating he was taking was off-camera.  Their big man -- with help from several others -- was absolutely mugging Nastic all night, right in front of the for-the-most-part completely oblivious refs.  Now, I would be the first to admit that Nastic himself is no finesse player and has been known to [and did last night] have the occasional wandering elbow or two, but it was an absolute cage match all night, and got more intense [with fewer calls] as the evening went on.  There was one Nastic shot attempt [somewhere in the middle of the infamous 10 minute dry spell, IIRC] where four players collided and went to the floor... and no whistle ensued.

All of this is by way of saying that Nastic's 30 minutes last night need to be judged on a kind of "dog year" scale.  Otherwise put, think Gaffney at the end of the Oregon game this year...

[76lsjumb]

Stefan Nastic played 30 minutes last night. That seems far from excessive.

Nastic really was heroic last night.  While TV viewers may have gotten to see some of the contact underneath, it's likely that 80% of the beating he was taking was off-camera.  Their big man -- with help from several others -- was absolutely mugging Nastic all night, right in front of the for-the-most-part completely oblivious refs.  Now, I would be the first to admit that Nastic himself is no finesse player and has been known to [and did last night] have the occasional wandering elbow or two, but it was an absolute cage match all night, and got more intense [with fewer calls] as the evening went on.  There was one Nastic shot attempt [somewhere in the middle of the infamous 10 minute dry spell, IIRC] where four players collided and went to the floor... and no whistle ensued.

All of this is by way of saying that Nastic's 30 minutes last night need to be judged on a kind of "dog year" scale.  Otherwise put, think Gaffney at the end of the Oregon game this year...

[Bruce Wang]

Powell, as a senior, needs to stop getting into foul trouble so early on.  Granted, some of the fouls on both teams in the first half were very ticky tack. 

Those ticky tack fouls on Powell made me wonder "Did GlassesRef find a new job?".

[Bruce Wang]

Powell, as a senior, needs to stop getting into foul trouble so early on.  Granted, some of the fouls on both teams in the first half were very ticky tack. 

Those ticky tack fouls on Powell made me wonder "Did GlassesRef find a new job?".

[StanFan88]

Lots of minor reasons for the loss, but one big one: 1-13 in the final 10 mins.  Multiple reasons this happened but it all comes down to this - late game fades have been the hallmark of the entire Johnny Dawkins era.  A record of under .350 in games decided by 5 pts or less over six years is a sign of A BAD COACH.

He just needs to go already.  I pray Muir has the foresight - and the balls - to make it happen in March.

[StanFan88]

Lots of minor reasons for the loss, but one big one: 1-13 in the final 10 mins.  Multiple reasons this happened but it all comes down to this - late game fades have been the hallmark of the entire Johnny Dawkins era.  A record of under .350 in games decided by 5 pts or less over six years is a sign of A BAD COACH.

He just needs to go already.  I pray Muir has the foresight - and the balls - to make it happen in March.

[CompSci87]

Generally, I've observed that refs love to call fouls where they can see an arm reaching out across a gap between two players, but they tend to be oblivious of fouls where the defender "bodies up" (no gap) and proceeds to mug the offensive player. Powell tends to commit the former, while Nastic was mostly the victim of the latter.

[CompSci87]

Generally, I've observed that refs love to call fouls where they can see an arm reaching out across a gap between two players, but they tend to be oblivious of fouls where the defender "bodies up" (no gap) and proceeds to mug the offensive player. Powell tends to commit the former, while Nastic was mostly the victim of the latter.

[jacketree]

I listened to the first half on radio and watched the second half. The game was hard to watch.  I was going to say it was because of fantastic defense all around, but it was more offensive masonry than anything else. Stanford's second half output was atrocious; I'm not sure what it means that Arizona only managed to win by three.  Maybe they just had an off night.

Funny feeling last night was Dawkins' Waterloo.  Right there for the taking and.....nothing.  We'll see what happens, but I think this program is beyond "wow they were awful, yet within one score of the #1 team!"  Their one decent win this year (at UCONN) looks less decent by the week.

As to a lack of depth, that is also a program problem and there is but one head of the program. Although, these guys are young; why aren't they in good enough shape to not run out of gas in a close game?  (My senior year, GT lost by 4 against Patrick Ewing's Georgetown in the Regional Finals with 8 guys on the team.  Not 8 starters; 8 guys total.  Beat Syracuse and Illinois to get to Providence and almost took down the Hoyas.)

Since we are all dropping Youtube clips these days and I used Waterloo in this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyh__QQD2js

[jacketree]

I listened to the first half on radio and watched the second half. The game was hard to watch.  I was going to say it was because of fantastic defense all around, but it was more offensive masonry than anything else. Stanford's second half output was atrocious; I'm not sure what it means that Arizona only managed to win by three.  Maybe they just had an off night.

Funny feeling last night was Dawkins' Waterloo.  Right there for the taking and.....nothing.  We'll see what happens, but I think this program is beyond "wow they were awful, yet within one score of the #1 team!"  Their one decent win this year (at UCONN) looks less decent by the week.

As to a lack of depth, that is also a program problem and there is but one head of the program. Although, these guys are young; why aren't they in good enough shape to not run out of gas in a close game?  (My senior year, GT lost by 4 against Patrick Ewing's Georgetown in the Regional Finals with 8 guys on the team.  Not 8 starters; 8 guys total.  Beat Syracuse and Illinois to get to Providence and almost took down the Hoyas.)

Since we are all dropping Youtube clips these days and I used Waterloo in this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyh__QQD2js

[StanFan88]

Funny feeling last night was Dawkins' Waterloo.

I hope you're right.

[StanFan88]

Funny feeling last night was Dawkins' Waterloo.

I hope you're right.

[Bruce Wang]

Waterloo is not a good analogy.  Napoleon had at one point conquered Europe.  Dawkins has conquered nothing.  Unless you count the NIT.

[Bruce Wang]

Waterloo is not a good analogy.  Napoleon had at one point conquered Europe.  Dawkins has conquered nothing.  Unless you count the NIT.

[Treebound]

Garvin, I don't see Dawkins surviving without a ticket to the Dance.  Too many alums have already gone to Muir after he let him stay this year.  The feedback has been echoing in the echo chamber that is now Maples.  There is good reason that Bernard has attended almost every game.    I don't think the injury card will by Dawkins any time.  If he makes it to the NCAAs, I can live with him (for now) given the class he is bringing in.  I'm not a fan, but the line in the sand has been drawn.  If we miss this year and he stays the negative feedback will severely test and likely hamper our new AD.

As for Nastic, as others have pointed out, he was getting hammered and I have never seen him have a more physical presence against some talented and motivated bigs.  He was tired and deservedly so at the end.  I wasn't a fan of his play early on, but he has improved and is now an asset with heart!

[Treebound]

Garvin, I don't see Dawkins surviving without a ticket to the Dance.  Too many alums have already gone to Muir after he let him stay this year.  The feedback has been echoing in the echo chamber that is now Maples.  There is good reason that Bernard has attended almost every game.    I don't think the injury card will by Dawkins any time.  If he makes it to the NCAAs, I can live with him (for now) given the class he is bringing in.  I'm not a fan, but the line in the sand has been drawn.  If we miss this year and he stays the negative feedback will severely test and likely hamper our new AD.

As for Nastic, as others have pointed out, he was getting hammered and I have never seen him have a more physical presence against some talented and motivated bigs.  He was tired and deservedly so at the end.  I wasn't a fan of his play early on, but he has improved and is now an asset with heart!