[2006alum]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your oft-stated contention that Trent Johnson is a steaming pile of rat feces. Yet he made the NCAA tournament in three out of his four seasons. I'm pretty sure that if Dawkins' team was about to finish out of the money for only the second time in eight years, hardly anybody would be demanding his head. (Certainly I wouldn't be.) So, it's not that anybody is demanding that Dawkins be as good as a hall of fame coach, only that he should be as good as the vermin excreta he replaced.

Agree with everything else you and winflop have said, but I just want to chime in here: Trent Johnson's success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent. I distinctly remember our excitement at their commitments my sophomore year (03-04) while Monty was still coach. And even then, with two NBA starters on our team, the best we did was one Sweet 16.

Dawkins also started with a much more bare cupboard than Trent did because Trent was a horrible recruiter. Landry Fields was the only good player he recruited and even Fields blossomed MUCH more after Trent left. So for me, it's about a wash between the two of them. The difference is that Bowlsby recognized Trent's flaws and acted by refusing to extend his contract. Muir has had more than enough time to assess Dawkins, and Dawkins has had more than enough time to fix our problems. Yet we've largely floundered year after year after year. Our utter mediocrity, coupled with the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, has just been too galling for me for too long. The last straw was blocking Rule of Tree on twitter. That's not only immature, but bound to backfire.

[2006alum]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your oft-stated contention that Trent Johnson is a steaming pile of rat feces. Yet he made the NCAA tournament in three out of his four seasons. I'm pretty sure that if Dawkins' team was about to finish out of the money for only the second time in eight years, hardly anybody would be demanding his head. (Certainly I wouldn't be.) So, it's not that anybody is demanding that Dawkins be as good as a hall of fame coach, only that he should be as good as the vermin excreta he replaced.

Agree with everything else you and winflop have said, but I just want to chime in here: Trent Johnson's success at Stanford can be attributed almost solely to the Lopez twins. And they were recruited by Monte, not Trent. I distinctly remember our excitement at their commitments my sophomore year (03-04) while Monty was still coach. And even then, with two NBA starters on our team, the best we did was one Sweet 16.

Dawkins also started with a much more bare cupboard than Trent did because Trent was a horrible recruiter. Landry Fields was the only good player he recruited and even Fields blossomed MUCH more after Trent left. So for me, it's about a wash between the two of them. The difference is that Bowlsby recognized Trent's flaws and acted by refusing to extend his contract. Muir has had more than enough time to assess Dawkins, and Dawkins has had more than enough time to fix our problems. Yet we've largely floundered year after year after year. Our utter mediocrity, coupled with the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, has just been too galling for me for too long. The last straw was blocking Rule of Tree on twitter. That's not only immature, but bound to backfire.