[76lsjumb]

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.

I think it's cute that you continue to see a nascent excellence in Johnny Dawkins that eludes everybody else, 76lsjumb. But your cherry-picking of statistics to prove he's done just as well as Mike Montgomery is absurdly dishonest. By any statistical measure, Montgomery was infinitely more successfull that Dawkins in their first six seasons and in their first eight seasons. There's a one-year dip in Montgomery's average numbers after seven years, brought on by the catastrophically injury-riddled 1992-1993 season, in which Stanford went 7-23.

Montgomery's winning percentage aside from that 92-93 season is .728. Dawkins has never done anything to place himself in the same universe as Montgomery as a coach. All the doctored numbers in the world are not going to convince anybody otherwise.

I was responding to a specific argument that cited a seven year record.  I used Monty's first seven years [at Stanford, by the way, not even his first seven years as a head coach].  I didn't "cherry-pick" anything.  In fact, I have no problem with you explaining away one season or another of Monty's, but it seems to me that doing so makes your numbers the "cherry-picked" ones, not mine.  And, it isn't as if Dawkins hasn't had to deal with any injury issues that have caused some obvious problems.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Humphreys' abrupt absence at the end of the season coincided with our slide [which we've now managed to overcome by adjusting again].  Roscoe Allen's  various absences probably go a long way to explain his very freshman-like play at the end of last night's game.  Reid Travis is clearly nowhere near as good as he might have been without his lengthy absence.  And that's just this year...

Look, I think Monty was a great coach and, from what I've seen, much better [infinitely seems a little hyperbolic] than Dawkins.  But I'm not sure that assessment was so clear after their respective first seven years at Stanford.  That's all I'm saying...

[76lsjumb]

Well...maybe it's a good thing that wasn't the thinking back in 1986-87 when Monty started.  His 7-year mean conference finish in the [then] Pac-10 was... 5.3 [with one 2d place and one last place] -- all in all pretty similar to Dawkins'.

I think it's cute that you continue to see a nascent excellence in Johnny Dawkins that eludes everybody else, 76lsjumb. But your cherry-picking of statistics to prove he's done just as well as Mike Montgomery is absurdly dishonest. By any statistical measure, Montgomery was infinitely more successfull that Dawkins in their first six seasons and in their first eight seasons. There's a one-year dip in Montgomery's average numbers after seven years, brought on by the catastrophically injury-riddled 1992-1993 season, in which Stanford went 7-23.

Montgomery's winning percentage aside from that 92-93 season is .728. Dawkins has never done anything to place himself in the same universe as Montgomery as a coach. All the doctored numbers in the world are not going to convince anybody otherwise.

I was responding to a specific argument that cited a seven year record.  I used Monty's first seven years [at Stanford, by the way, not even his first seven years as a head coach].  I didn't "cherry-pick" anything.  In fact, I have no problem with you explaining away one season or another of Monty's, but it seems to me that doing so makes your numbers the "cherry-picked" ones, not mine.  And, it isn't as if Dawkins hasn't had to deal with any injury issues that have caused some obvious problems.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Humphreys' abrupt absence at the end of the season coincided with our slide [which we've now managed to overcome by adjusting again].  Roscoe Allen's  various absences probably go a long way to explain his very freshman-like play at the end of last night's game.  Reid Travis is clearly nowhere near as good as he might have been without his lengthy absence.  And that's just this year...

Look, I think Monty was a great coach and, from what I've seen, much better [infinitely seems a little hyperbolic] than Dawkins.  But I'm not sure that assessment was so clear after their respective first seven years at Stanford.  That's all I'm saying...