[MustardtheBallCarrier]

As the Cardinal was making its NCAA run in 2014, Dawkins was honest enough to admit that "when I first came to Stanford, I had an idea in my mind of how I wanted to play" but those "preconceived notions" had to be tossed out. He discovered that the guys on his roster and those he could recruit to Stanford didn't suit the offensive system and pressure defense that Dawkins initially wanted to implement.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_296...t-stanford

This Purdy article is amusing.  Dawkins couldn't succeed because he wasn't familiar with the West Coast and "how the university does business" (meaning admissions, academics, fan apathy)?  Give me a break.  Dawkins recruited well and the teams, for the most part, had talent (this year not nearly as much as in prior years).  The problem was not his Duke background or the fact that he is not a West Coast guy.  The problem was his almost singular ability to get the least out of his talent.  He had rosters with multiple NBA draft picks that consistently underachieved, which to my eye was a function of his inability to find a scheme to play to the team's strengths and very poor player development.  In other words, his failures were on the court.  Fan support and other issues were derivative of the team's lack of success.

I think we need to find a good coach, period.  If he has ties to Stanford, great.  If he otherwise comes from a school with strong academics, great.  If he happens to have absorbed by osmosis the magic vapor that leads to coaching success on the West Coast that can only come from proximity to the Pacific Ocean, fantastic.  But none of those things matter if he is not a good coach first and foremost.  I think scouring the mid-majors for a bright, young, energetic coach is the move.  Let's find the next Brad Stevens (if only it were that easy), and I don't care if he has never been to the Pacific time zone.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

As the Cardinal was making its NCAA run in 2014, Dawkins was honest enough to admit that "when I first came to Stanford, I had an idea in my mind of how I wanted to play" but those "preconceived notions" had to be tossed out. He discovered that the guys on his roster and those he could recruit to Stanford didn't suit the offensive system and pressure defense that Dawkins initially wanted to implement.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_296...t-stanford

This Purdy article is amusing.  Dawkins couldn't succeed because he wasn't familiar with the West Coast and "how the university does business" (meaning admissions, academics, fan apathy)?  Give me a break.  Dawkins recruited well and the teams, for the most part, had talent (this year not nearly as much as in prior years).  The problem was not his Duke background or the fact that he is not a West Coast guy.  The problem was his almost singular ability to get the least out of his talent.  He had rosters with multiple NBA draft picks that consistently underachieved, which to my eye was a function of his inability to find a scheme to play to the team's strengths and very poor player development.  In other words, his failures were on the court.  Fan support and other issues were derivative of the team's lack of success.

I think we need to find a good coach, period.  If he has ties to Stanford, great.  If he otherwise comes from a school with strong academics, great.  If he happens to have absorbed by osmosis the magic vapor that leads to coaching success on the West Coast that can only come from proximity to the Pacific Ocean, fantastic.  But none of those things matter if he is not a good coach first and foremost.  I think scouring the mid-majors for a bright, young, energetic coach is the move.  Let's find the next Brad Stevens (if only it were that easy), and I don't care if he has never been to the Pacific time zone.