01-31-2020, 07:08 PM
(01-31-2020, 11:20 AM)burger Wrote:(01-30-2020, 11:20 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Average coach got some almost ready for prime time freshman that took advantage of weak teams, unprepared teams, and a lot of home cooking. Now the conference coaches have enough footage to prepare for the players and are able to make superior game day adjustments to Haase.
The freshmen look tired. The physical grind of a season against more mature college players, the travel, and the academic load probably are in the mix, but their body language lacks that swag they had in November and December.
Haase just doesn't seem to have the answers and over his tenure his teams have consistently faded late in games and seasons. That's generally not the consistent with above average coaching.
You're making two contradictory arguments here: 1) they're tired because of lack of depth and 2) Haase is just not a good coach. I strongly agree with #1--the entire team looks tired, not just the freshman. In between plays, they seem sort of listless. They are not playing with the energy they had early in the season on offense or defense. You can make the argument that that's a coaching issue, but I see it more as a product of 5 guys playing over 28 minutes a game--Davis and Terry are over 30.
As for #2, the argument that Haase is being exposed now against better competition is silly--Oregon State and Cal are mediocre to bad teams, and USC is not great. We played some bad teams in the preseason, but we also beat Oklahoma and came within a couple of ridiculous shots by that one kid from beating Butler. It's not like we're just having problems in one area--the team seems to be doing everything worse lately. Is Haase suddenly a bad coach? Has he changed the system in some way that is suddenly making us lose? No. I think they're just tired. Next year, we hopefully add 3 new rotation players (plus maybe Fitzmorris). That will be a of immense proportions difference.
IMHO he is not "suddenly" an average-to-bad coach. That should clear things up. It only seems contradictory if you believed or believe he is a good coach.
IMO The key to almost winning and winning early in the season was that the freshmen were unknowns to the opponents. The freshmen, thanks in large part to their experience before Stanford, were doing great things. They were using their go to AAU and HS moves that were not included in the Stanford scouting packages, and therefore the season was full of promise.
As the season progresses those existing skills and moves are just not sufficient. The conference opponents are generally more aware of each team's schemes and plays. They also will be quick to chart the new player tendencies. Essentially as the season progresses coaching becomes more critical as opponents develop methods to deny favorite plays and moves. Same is true, to a lesser degree, during games. Better coaches should do better with their talent in the late stages of a game or in the late parts of each season.
If great coaching produces stronger results late in games and late in the season, then I would submit that less talented coaches will struggle late in games and late in the season.
Exhibit A - Coach Haase.
In the end, I am not convinced Stanford in 2020 could acquire a better coach than Haase.
* Stanford is a tough place to coach in the one and done style era
* The Pac-12 is not exactly the best conference for a coach to showcase a coach's skills to a national audience
* Maples is far from an inspiring home court.
So I understand the need to accept average coaching to get some stability. Maybe Haase can become stronger over time by becoming more familiar coaching tactics he has seen in prior years. I understand Stanford is unlikely to get someone better than Haase, but that does not mean I think Haase is going to become Pac-12 coach of the year or win 3 Pac-12 regular season titles in his first 9 seasons.
Things can always get better here in 2020 as the team is super close to securing a 9 or 10 seed, but I really fear the team will finish no better than 19-13. NIT bound.
