[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=12000.msg116463#msg116463 date=1428634421]
[quote author=Publius link=topic=12000.msg116456#msg116456 date=1428627802]
Dawkins is a good recruiter and appears to be better at individual development than team development

What planet does this come from?  IMnsHO Dawkins has been below average on individual development and has absolutely sucked on team development.
[/quote]

Well, from Planet Nastic, Planet Powell, Planet Huestis, and, for that matter, Planet Randle and even Planet Fields, and, although it's still a little far out and hard to see, perhaps even Planet Humphreys.

It's always a little dicey to attribute individual development, since there are a number of factors that may have made things click.  Could be personal work [the article about Nastic makes it sound like that was big for him]; could be an assistant coach; could be the head coach; or could be something else.  Nevertheless, anyone who actually attended games over the past several years would have to concede [if not simply committed to a storyline regardless of evidence] that each of those players ended up being a lot better than when they started [and, in Fields case, when he played prior to Dawkins taking over], at least in terms of their individual skills and ability to contribute.  Powell as a freshman could hardly stay on the court he fouled so quickly, so much, and so...inartfully -- and he missed more dunks than anyone I can think of.  Nastic is nothing short of a miracle.  Randle, of course, became the all-time leading scorer despite frequently not being [talent-wise] the best guard on the court.  Even Humphreys [prior to being injured] went from almost wholly ineffective to a "double-double" machine [okay, perhaps a little hyperbolic  ;D ] this season.

Team development, though, not so much.  What impressed me about the NCAA tourney teams was that they moved the ball around with much greater confidence and precision.  Frankly, it didn't seem to me that many of the offenses really looked that different from Stanford's, but the decisions were faster, the screens were more forceful, and the passes were more precise.  That is what the team seems to be missing. 

That, and fans who actually attend the games...
[/quote]

So on average one player out of every recruiting class is a competent starter.  That's not good enough.  It's a part of why the benches have been so shallow and injuries that every team faces have had a bigger impact on Stanford.  Finally, I give you Planets Harris, Bright, Gage, Mann, Verhoeven, Sanders, and Rimmer - all scholarship players who to one extent or another could be called busts.  Not to mention there isn't a single non-scholarship in this era who has ever contributed in a material way.

Don't get me started on getting what talent is there to play as a cohesive unit...

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=12000.msg116463#msg116463 date=1428634421]
[quote author=Publius link=topic=12000.msg116456#msg116456 date=1428627802]
Dawkins is a good recruiter and appears to be better at individual development than team development

What planet does this come from?  IMnsHO Dawkins has been below average on individual development and has absolutely sucked on team development.
[/quote]

Well, from Planet Nastic, Planet Powell, Planet Huestis, and, for that matter, Planet Randle and even Planet Fields, and, although it's still a little far out and hard to see, perhaps even Planet Humphreys.

It's always a little dicey to attribute individual development, since there are a number of factors that may have made things click.  Could be personal work [the article about Nastic makes it sound like that was big for him]; could be an assistant coach; could be the head coach; or could be something else.  Nevertheless, anyone who actually attended games over the past several years would have to concede [if not simply committed to a storyline regardless of evidence] that each of those players ended up being a lot better than when they started [and, in Fields case, when he played prior to Dawkins taking over], at least in terms of their individual skills and ability to contribute.  Powell as a freshman could hardly stay on the court he fouled so quickly, so much, and so...inartfully -- and he missed more dunks than anyone I can think of.  Nastic is nothing short of a miracle.  Randle, of course, became the all-time leading scorer despite frequently not being [talent-wise] the best guard on the court.  Even Humphreys [prior to being injured] went from almost wholly ineffective to a "double-double" machine [okay, perhaps a little hyperbolic  ;D ] this season.

Team development, though, not so much.  What impressed me about the NCAA tourney teams was that they moved the ball around with much greater confidence and precision.  Frankly, it didn't seem to me that many of the offenses really looked that different from Stanford's, but the decisions were faster, the screens were more forceful, and the passes were more precise.  That is what the team seems to be missing. 

That, and fans who actually attend the games...
[/quote]

So on average one player out of every recruiting class is a competent starter.  That's not good enough.  It's a part of why the benches have been so shallow and injuries that every team faces have had a bigger impact on Stanford.  Finally, I give you Planets Harris, Bright, Gage, Mann, Verhoeven, Sanders, and Rimmer - all scholarship players who to one extent or another could be called busts.  Not to mention there isn't a single non-scholarship in this era who has ever contributed in a material way.

Don't get me started on getting what talent is there to play as a cohesive unit...