03-31-2012, 12:51 PM
76lsjumb -- Interesting comparison with Monty.
Looking a little deeper, Montgomery actually inherited a very solid nucleus from Tom Davis. Todd Lichti (entering his sophomore season), Howard Wright (entering sophomore season), Terry Taylor (entering sophomore season) and Greg Butler (entering junior season) is not bad. Monty didn't recruit any of those guys.
By contrast, Dawkins inherited a starting five of Mitch Johnson (entering his senior season), Law Hill (entering senior season), Anthony Goods (entering senior season), Landry Fields (entering junior season) and Josh Owens (entering sophomore season). Not as much to build on there.
Of course, it's apples and oranges in the sense that when Monty took over, Stanford had no winning tradition in memory. So Monty had more to overcome in terms of perception of the program. Dawkins had a big leg up there.
But the larger point is that sometimes it takes a coach more than four years to establish a pattern of consistent success. The key is that the program needs to remain on an upward trajectory. If the team regresses next season -- by which I mean, if the team doesn't make the NCAA tournament or at least come close -- then it may make sense to fire Dawkins. Especially if the players have lost confidence in him. But let's keep in mind: the fact that coaches do have a longer leash at Stanford can be an asset. There are some schools where Dawkins would be gone by now, but often those schools would be better off in the long run if they weren't so trigger-happy in firing coaches.
Looking a little deeper, Montgomery actually inherited a very solid nucleus from Tom Davis. Todd Lichti (entering his sophomore season), Howard Wright (entering sophomore season), Terry Taylor (entering sophomore season) and Greg Butler (entering junior season) is not bad. Monty didn't recruit any of those guys.
By contrast, Dawkins inherited a starting five of Mitch Johnson (entering his senior season), Law Hill (entering senior season), Anthony Goods (entering senior season), Landry Fields (entering junior season) and Josh Owens (entering sophomore season). Not as much to build on there.
Of course, it's apples and oranges in the sense that when Monty took over, Stanford had no winning tradition in memory. So Monty had more to overcome in terms of perception of the program. Dawkins had a big leg up there.
But the larger point is that sometimes it takes a coach more than four years to establish a pattern of consistent success. The key is that the program needs to remain on an upward trajectory. If the team regresses next season -- by which I mean, if the team doesn't make the NCAA tournament or at least come close -- then it may make sense to fire Dawkins. Especially if the players have lost confidence in him. But let's keep in mind: the fact that coaches do have a longer leash at Stanford can be an asset. There are some schools where Dawkins would be gone by now, but often those schools would be better off in the long run if they weren't so trigger-happy in firing coaches.