03-31-2012, 09:32 PM
Well, if we're going to call the comparison "ridiculous," let's be completely fair. Monty had been a head coach for 8 years before he came to Stanford; Dawkins had been a head coach for 0 years. That's got to count for something.
Also, you may recall that, after his fourth season at Stanford, it appeared for a while that Monty had one foot out the door on his way to Virginia -- http://articles.dailypress.com/1990-04-03/sports/9004030075_1_geiger-stanford-terry-holland -- and it wasn't a wholly unanimous consensus at the time that his leaving would have been the worse thing that could happen to Stanford. Of course, as it turned out, he didn't leave [thank goodness] and the rest is history.
My point is simply that comparing Dawkins today with Monty circa 1990 [which is to say, Monty before HIS NIT Championship, Conference championships, Final Four appearance, etc., -- and , for that matter, his 7-23 overall (2-16 conference) record in his 7th season at Stanford], rather than with present day Monty, provides a legitimate basis for viewing Dawkins much more positively and with greater optimism than you seem willing to acknowledge is rational [or, at least, not ridiculous]. Sure, Dawkins' coaching provides ample opportunities for head-scratching bewilderment [although there seemed to be a lot less of it over the past five games], but Monty's circa 1990 coaching wasn't flawless, either.
Also -- since I'm sure you will note (quite rightly) the raft of injuries that befell Monty's 7-23 team -- it was well-known around here [if not widely publicized generally] that Dwight Powell and Anthony Brown were injured for much of the season, and that Zimmerman was also injured for several weeks in the middle of the season. Not injured enough for street clothes on the bench (like Gabe Harris), but, given how much better they all played over the last couple of weeks, it seems reasonable to conclude that those injuries did, in fact, adversely impact their respective performances during the middle portion of the season and likely did so to an extent that cost us several games during the Conference season.
If we're all lucky, I'm hoping to take you up on your offer to continue this discussion next year while watching the Card at a First Second Round NCAA sub-regional site TBA. [No play-in games for us!]
One other point -- while I may agree with you that our players were better than k.al's this year, it's not quite accurate to say that "[nobody] thinks the 59ers had the better players." The Pac-12 coaches had two 59ers on the First Team All-Pac-12, one on the Second Team, and one honorable mention [i.e., 80% of their starting five]; we had...one player on the Second Team [i.e., 20% of our starting five]. But, hey, what do the coaches know...? ;)
Also, you may recall that, after his fourth season at Stanford, it appeared for a while that Monty had one foot out the door on his way to Virginia -- http://articles.dailypress.com/1990-04-03/sports/9004030075_1_geiger-stanford-terry-holland -- and it wasn't a wholly unanimous consensus at the time that his leaving would have been the worse thing that could happen to Stanford. Of course, as it turned out, he didn't leave [thank goodness] and the rest is history.
My point is simply that comparing Dawkins today with Monty circa 1990 [which is to say, Monty before HIS NIT Championship, Conference championships, Final Four appearance, etc., -- and , for that matter, his 7-23 overall (2-16 conference) record in his 7th season at Stanford], rather than with present day Monty, provides a legitimate basis for viewing Dawkins much more positively and with greater optimism than you seem willing to acknowledge is rational [or, at least, not ridiculous]. Sure, Dawkins' coaching provides ample opportunities for head-scratching bewilderment [although there seemed to be a lot less of it over the past five games], but Monty's circa 1990 coaching wasn't flawless, either.
Also -- since I'm sure you will note (quite rightly) the raft of injuries that befell Monty's 7-23 team -- it was well-known around here [if not widely publicized generally] that Dwight Powell and Anthony Brown were injured for much of the season, and that Zimmerman was also injured for several weeks in the middle of the season. Not injured enough for street clothes on the bench (like Gabe Harris), but, given how much better they all played over the last couple of weeks, it seems reasonable to conclude that those injuries did, in fact, adversely impact their respective performances during the middle portion of the season and likely did so to an extent that cost us several games during the Conference season.
If we're all lucky, I'm hoping to take you up on your offer to continue this discussion next year while watching the Card at a First Second Round NCAA sub-regional site TBA. [No play-in games for us!]
One other point -- while I may agree with you that our players were better than k.al's this year, it's not quite accurate to say that "[nobody] thinks the 59ers had the better players." The Pac-12 coaches had two 59ers on the First Team All-Pac-12, one on the Second Team, and one honorable mention [i.e., 80% of their starting five]; we had...one player on the Second Team [i.e., 20% of our starting five]. But, hey, what do the coaches know...? ;)