[76lsjumb]

[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.  :)

[76lsjumb]

[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.  :)