[washingtonismoney]

Great effort on the defensive end--Marques Johnson called it "swarming," which seems fair enough--paired with odd and inexcusable Cal wastefulness led to poor 59er shooting and worse turnover issues. I believe California had 14 TOs in the half, which should lead to blowout numbers...were it not for our offensive effort, which is back to "turgid." Andrew Zimmerman is in many ways a lovable player but took far too many shots; Dawkins clearly needs a specially-delegated someone to ask him, "Coach, are you sure that's enough offense on the floor?" whenever he puts a lineup out there...because he puts out too many duds.

Still, you can't accuse the Cardinal concerned of not trying and the chance to knock the 59ers out of the Madness seems like too tantalizing a prospect to ignore.

[washingtonismoney]

Great effort on the defensive end--Marques Johnson called it "swarming," which seems fair enough--paired with odd and inexcusable Cal wastefulness led to poor 59er shooting and worse turnover issues. I believe California had 14 TOs in the half, which should lead to blowout numbers...were it not for our offensive effort, which is back to "turgid." Andrew Zimmerman is in many ways a lovable player but took far too many shots; Dawkins clearly needs a specially-delegated someone to ask him, "Coach, are you sure that's enough offense on the floor?" whenever he puts a lineup out there...because he puts out too many duds.

Still, you can't accuse the Cardinal concerned of not trying and the chance to knock the 59ers out of the Madness seems like too tantalizing a prospect to ignore.

[fullmetal]

kal came out of the half guns blazing and now have a 40-38 lead.

[fullmetal]

kal came out of the half guns blazing and now have a 40-38 lead.

[Viking_Guy]

Watching Jarrett Mann single-handedly allow Kal to play four guys in the lane (at one point Jorge Gutierrez was underneath the dashed circle while Mann was beyond the 3 pt line) is frustrating.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Watching Jarrett Mann single-handedly allow Kal to play four guys in the lane (at one point Jorge Gutierrez was underneath the dashed circle while Mann was beyond the 3 pt line) is frustrating.

VG

[washingtonismoney]

Watching Jarrett Mann single-handedly allow Kal to play four guys in the lane (at one point Jorge Gutierrez was underneath the dashed circle while Mann was beyond the 3 pt line) is frustrating.

kal came out of the half guns blazing and now have a 40-38 lead. Johnny Dawkins has little to no idea how to coach and gave up the lead.

The man has played substantial minutes with Zimmerman, Trotter and Huestis (or Mann) on the floor together. These are all players who can contribute, in their own ways. But if you put them on the floor together, you won't score! The team was getting beaten by simple pushes in transition down the floor--does Dawkins stanch the bleeding by calling a timeout? No. They don't run plays and when they do they screw them up. It's a miracle this game is close at all because Dawkins appears to have no functional idea of what his team is good at and what it needs to do at any given situation. To wit, you actually need to score to win.

(The sideline reporter gave us the information that Dawkins requires his players to be clean-cut, which reveals he is George Steinbrenner or Montgomery Burns, only without the winning or commitment to quality. I'd fire Dawkins right now in the middle of the game if I could hire someone on such short notice. This should be a blowout--in Stanford's favor.)

[washingtonismoney]

Watching Jarrett Mann single-handedly allow Kal to play four guys in the lane (at one point Jorge Gutierrez was underneath the dashed circle while Mann was beyond the 3 pt line) is frustrating.

kal came out of the half guns blazing and now have a 40-38 lead. Johnny Dawkins has little to no idea how to coach and gave up the lead.

The man has played substantial minutes with Zimmerman, Trotter and Huestis (or Mann) on the floor together. These are all players who can contribute, in their own ways. But if you put them on the floor together, you won't score! The team was getting beaten by simple pushes in transition down the floor--does Dawkins stanch the bleeding by calling a timeout? No. They don't run plays and when they do they screw them up. It's a miracle this game is close at all because Dawkins appears to have no functional idea of what his team is good at and what it needs to do at any given situation. To wit, you actually need to score to win.

(The sideline reporter gave us the information that Dawkins requires his players to be clean-cut, which reveals he is George Steinbrenner or Montgomery Burns, only without the winning or commitment to quality. I'd fire Dawkins right now in the middle of the game if I could hire someone on such short notice. This should be a blowout--in Stanford's favor.)

[fullmetal]

kal now has an 8 pt lead with less than 3 min to go.  Stanford's committing frustration fouls :(

Randle's shooting 4-14 on the game thus far, and Zimmerman's got 22 pts leading the team in both offense and defense.

[fullmetal]

kal now has an 8 pt lead with less than 3 min to go.  Stanford's committing frustration fouls :(

Randle's shooting 4-14 on the game thus far, and Zimmerman's got 22 pts leading the team in both offense and defense.

[washingtonismoney]

Another Dawkins collapse. Don't want to bang on about it, but the only upside to this game is that it should be obvious that the biggest problem with the team starts with the coach. Wouldn't make things perfect, but there's enough to work with.

[washingtonismoney]

Another Dawkins collapse. Don't want to bang on about it, but the only upside to this game is that it should be obvious that the biggest problem with the team starts with the coach. Wouldn't make things perfect, but there's enough to work with.

[fullmetal]

Stanford shot ~36% in the second half--just cold shooting, or something Dawkins did with the rotation?

[fullmetal]

Stanford shot ~36% in the second half--just cold shooting, or something Dawkins did with the rotation?

[washingtonismoney]

Stanford shot ~36% in the second half--just cold shooting, or something Dawkins did with the rotation?

Partially cold shooting, but mostly more insisting on poor-shooting players playing together than anything else. It seems like we went with several minutes where only Aaron Bright and Chasson Randle had a prayer of scoring. Shockingly, there was very little of it being done.

To put the problem in even more perspective: consider how bad those numbers would've been if Zimmerman didn't have the best half of his life.

[washingtonismoney]

Stanford shot ~36% in the second half--just cold shooting, or something Dawkins did with the rotation?

Partially cold shooting, but mostly more insisting on poor-shooting players playing together than anything else. It seems like we went with several minutes where only Aaron Bright and Chasson Randle had a prayer of scoring. Shockingly, there was very little of it being done.

To put the problem in even more perspective: consider how bad those numbers would've been if Zimmerman didn't have the best half of his life.

[KartyFan]

I disagree. I think Cal just played a great 2nd half. They rarely missed a shot. While I don't know if Dawkins is the man for the job, I think this board is now looking for any reason to blame Dawkins.

[KartyFan]

I disagree. I think Cal just played a great 2nd half. They rarely missed a shot. While I don't know if Dawkins is the man for the job, I think this board is now looking for any reason to blame Dawkins.

[CompSci87]

Yeesh. From these reports, I'm glad I stayed at the Galen Center to see how the Cal and USC women would do. I DVR'ed the game to watch later when I get back home to Palo Alto... but I think I'll erase it instead.

[CompSci87]

Yeesh. From these reports, I'm glad I stayed at the Galen Center to see how the Cal and USC women would do. I DVR'ed the game to watch later when I get back home to Palo Alto... but I think I'll erase it instead.

[Renaissance Man]

Whatever the reason (and I think there are several), this team is terrible in crunch time. If we could close out the last five minutes of games that we have led most of the way, we would have some marquee wins, almost no losses, and would be ranked in the top 15.

[Renaissance Man]

Whatever the reason (and I think there are several), this team is terrible in crunch time. If we could close out the last five minutes of games that we have led most of the way, we would have some marquee wins, almost no losses, and would be ranked in the top 15.

[washingtonismoney]

Just finished my TiVo of the game. The simple fact is that we don't have a reliable offense. (You can't just bank on playing an ASU team that stubbornly stays in a zone when Chasson Randle and Aaron Bright are lighting it up from the arc.)

Exactly. It would be one thing if this offense--"whatever Aaron Bright and Chasson Randle do"--were a one year deal. But last year our offense was, "Whatever Jeremy Green wants to do." And the year before that it was "Whatever Landry Fields wants to do." Beyond just giving it to your best player, there's little evidence that there's a Johnny Dawkins philosophy being applied on the offensive end of the floor. He came in promising to play an uptempo style, and he tried it his first year. He abandoned it and appears to have no other ideas of how to play.

[washingtonismoney]

Just finished my TiVo of the game. The simple fact is that we don't have a reliable offense. (You can't just bank on playing an ASU team that stubbornly stays in a zone when Chasson Randle and Aaron Bright are lighting it up from the arc.)

Exactly. It would be one thing if this offense--"whatever Aaron Bright and Chasson Randle do"--were a one year deal. But last year our offense was, "Whatever Jeremy Green wants to do." And the year before that it was "Whatever Landry Fields wants to do." Beyond just giving it to your best player, there's little evidence that there's a Johnny Dawkins philosophy being applied on the offensive end of the floor. He came in promising to play an uptempo style, and he tried it his first year. He abandoned it and appears to have no other ideas of how to play.

[OutsiderFan]

Owens and Powell are the weakest links, IMO.  They just don't provide the consistency needed around the bucket.  Powell is too much of a perimeter player and he doesn't produce enough there to make it worthwhile.  Stanford needs a legit post presence that can command a double team.  The Guards/Wings seem to good enough that having that will make Stanford a much better team.

The good news is Veerhoeven is that kind of player and Allen is much more skilled than Powell, and on a pure talent basis Stanford should be better next season than this one.  The bad news is it seems most of the conference will be better next year too - Arizona, UCLA, Colorado, USC, ASU to name a few.

I'd still replace Dawkins, but it's tough to fire a guy who goes 21-11 and has the young talent Stanford has and will have next season.

[OutsiderFan]

Owens and Powell are the weakest links, IMO.  They just don't provide the consistency needed around the bucket.  Powell is too much of a perimeter player and he doesn't produce enough there to make it worthwhile.  Stanford needs a legit post presence that can command a double team.  The Guards/Wings seem to good enough that having that will make Stanford a much better team.

The good news is Veerhoeven is that kind of player and Allen is much more skilled than Powell, and on a pure talent basis Stanford should be better next season than this one.  The bad news is it seems most of the conference will be better next year too - Arizona, UCLA, Colorado, USC, ASU to name a few.

I'd still replace Dawkins, but it's tough to fire a guy who goes 21-11 and has the young talent Stanford has and will have next season.

[FarmBoy]

we would have some marquee wins, almost no losses, and would be ranked in the top 15.

This amounts to "if we were the quality of a top-15 team, we'd be a top-15 team."

I was in flight during most of the game. When I landed and powered on my phone, the score was 66-66 and I knew it would be downhill from there, based on the team's performance through the season in tight end of game situations. More than the overall record and lack of player development, this is the real reason I think Dawkins needs to go. You can't win in a major NCAA conference if you can't pull out close games in crunch time.

[FarmBoy]

we would have some marquee wins, almost no losses, and would be ranked in the top 15.

This amounts to "if we were the quality of a top-15 team, we'd be a top-15 team."

I was in flight during most of the game. When I landed and powered on my phone, the score was 66-66 and I knew it would be downhill from there, based on the team's performance through the season in tight end of game situations. More than the overall record and lack of player development, this is the real reason I think Dawkins needs to go. You can't win in a major NCAA conference if you can't pull out close games in crunch time.

[Leftcoast]

In marathon running or bicycle racing there's a belief that to have a chance to win you must stay "in contact" with the lead group.  Once you lose contact a runner/bicyclist is likely to fall off pace and recede back into the pack.  When you lose contact you've given up and accepted you won't win this race.

Under Mike Montgomery Stanford (along with Arizona and occasionally UCLA) WERE the lead pack.  The team earned #1 rankings, made the cover of SI, saw a long strings of NCAA invites and a glorious Final Four.  Under Johnson we maintained contact and with the Lopez twins were poised on the edge of Pac 10 and National relevance.  Under Dawkins we've seen an entire generation of players graduate without sniffing the first round of the NCAA tournament.  Stanford has lost contact and is now a member of the chase pack - and not many fans under 30 remember when we belonged in the lead group. 

The question NOW is whether Coach Dawkins is the guy who will pull Stanford out of the pack and put the team back in the lead group.  Maybe, but doing so has become a much harder job than when he first arrived. 

We've lost contact.

[Leftcoast]

In marathon running or bicycle racing there's a belief that to have a chance to win you must stay "in contact" with the lead group.  Once you lose contact a runner/bicyclist is likely to fall off pace and recede back into the pack.  When you lose contact you've given up and accepted you won't win this race.

Under Mike Montgomery Stanford (along with Arizona and occasionally UCLA) WERE the lead pack.  The team earned #1 rankings, made the cover of SI, saw a long strings of NCAA invites and a glorious Final Four.  Under Johnson we maintained contact and with the Lopez twins were poised on the edge of Pac 10 and National relevance.  Under Dawkins we've seen an entire generation of players graduate without sniffing the first round of the NCAA tournament.  Stanford has lost contact and is now a member of the chase pack - and not many fans under 30 remember when we belonged in the lead group. 

The question NOW is whether Coach Dawkins is the guy who will pull Stanford out of the pack and put the team back in the lead group.  Maybe, but doing so has become a much harder job than when he first arrived. 

We've lost contact.

[Extra Point]

Left Coast,

It looks like the entire Pac 12 has lost contact now.

[Extra Point]

Left Coast,

It looks like the entire Pac 12 has lost contact now.

[fullmetal]

Tangentially, why is that?  Sure, a lot of talented players have left for the NBA early, but doesn't that happen with other conferences as well?  Is it a subpar level of coaching in the Pac-12?  Or poor recruiting in general for the Pac-12?

[fullmetal]

Tangentially, why is that?  Sure, a lot of talented players have left for the NBA early, but doesn't that happen with other conferences as well?  Is it a subpar level of coaching in the Pac-12?  Or poor recruiting in general for the Pac-12?

[pincemob]

I think Garvin hit the key point.  4 years in the bottom half of the conference.  Montgomery has only done that 3 times in his entire career including Montana.  It's not like Dawkins inherited a program on probation, had rashes of injuries every season, or had a tenure when the rest of the league was peaking.  Guys like Ernie Kent and Ben Braun were toast after 4 appearances in the bottom half of the league, and that was when the league was good.  This should have been our golden era where our national recruiting allowed us a leg up on schools relying on what has been a weak California talent pool.

We know Coach K started slow.  But by his 4th year at Duke he was 3rd in the league and made the second round of the tourney.  What percentage of coaches who have had such a poor start have been excellent?  Maybe the number is higher than I think, but I'd guess 5%. 

I agree basketball has low expectations.  Imagine if we had a football coach who finished 9th, 8th, 7th, and 7th with no bowl appearances.  And also assume the stadium went from 90% full to 60% full.  Would anyone be debating that guy's future? 

I trust Bowlsby to make the call.  He might decide Dawkins is done, but it makes sense to wait a year and keep the recruits.  Or maybe he sees something great which is not obvious to fans.  We'll find out.

[pincemob]

I think Garvin hit the key point.  4 years in the bottom half of the conference.  Montgomery has only done that 3 times in his entire career including Montana.  It's not like Dawkins inherited a program on probation, had rashes of injuries every season, or had a tenure when the rest of the league was peaking.  Guys like Ernie Kent and Ben Braun were toast after 4 appearances in the bottom half of the league, and that was when the league was good.  This should have been our golden era where our national recruiting allowed us a leg up on schools relying on what has been a weak California talent pool.

We know Coach K started slow.  But by his 4th year at Duke he was 3rd in the league and made the second round of the tourney.  What percentage of coaches who have had such a poor start have been excellent?  Maybe the number is higher than I think, but I'd guess 5%. 

I agree basketball has low expectations.  Imagine if we had a football coach who finished 9th, 8th, 7th, and 7th with no bowl appearances.  And also assume the stadium went from 90% full to 60% full.  Would anyone be debating that guy's future? 

I trust Bowlsby to make the call.  He might decide Dawkins is done, but it makes sense to wait a year and keep the recruits.  Or maybe he sees something great which is not obvious to fans.  We'll find out.

[Farm93]

Tangentially, why is that?  Sure, a lot of talented players have left for the NBA early, but doesn't that happen with other conferences as well?  Is it a subpar level of coaching in the Pac-12?  Or poor recruiting in general for the Pac-12?

Poor TV Contract.

Ignore the Stanford games you may have seen.  How many other Pac-12 games did you watch this year?
I have seen more games from the Horizon League on TV than I have seen from the Pac-12.  I definitely have seen more of every major conference.

I am not a 15 year old basketball player, but I would think many of those kids want to play on a team they have seen on TV.

Even if they loyally punch in 1847, or whatever their regional fox channel number happens to be, they still are unlikely to see Pac-12 games.  Rather they will see the Big 12 or ACC games that were not worthy of ESPN.  This will only reinforce the idea that the worst of the Big12 is better than the best of the Pac.

Do that year, after year, after year and the talent and national interest will decline.  The Pac-12 Hoops is essentially where the NHL was 10-15 years ago.  It took cash over a broad audience, and is paying dearly for the choice.

[Farm93]

Tangentially, why is that?  Sure, a lot of talented players have left for the NBA early, but doesn't that happen with other conferences as well?  Is it a subpar level of coaching in the Pac-12?  Or poor recruiting in general for the Pac-12?

Poor TV Contract.

Ignore the Stanford games you may have seen.  How many other Pac-12 games did you watch this year?
I have seen more games from the Horizon League on TV than I have seen from the Pac-12.  I definitely have seen more of every major conference.

I am not a 15 year old basketball player, but I would think many of those kids want to play on a team they have seen on TV.

Even if they loyally punch in 1847, or whatever their regional fox channel number happens to be, they still are unlikely to see Pac-12 games.  Rather they will see the Big 12 or ACC games that were not worthy of ESPN.  This will only reinforce the idea that the worst of the Big12 is better than the best of the Pac.

Do that year, after year, after year and the talent and national interest will decline.  The Pac-12 Hoops is essentially where the NHL was 10-15 years ago.  It took cash over a broad audience, and is paying dearly for the choice.

[needle]

I don't know if Jeremy Green's decision to leave early should be held against Dawkins or viewed as an extenuating circumstance, but I think it's clear his absence hurt this team.

We all hoped Anthony Brown would be able to step up as a strong scorer. In hindsight, i think it's asking too much if he's expected to average 12+ points a game. I suspect someone else will have to step up next year as a legit second scoring threat if Stanford is going to even have a chance at repeating its meager success this year. I don't think Bright is the answer there, either.

Green is in the D-Leage, by the way, and has been getting some minutes lately. Nothing really noteworthy on the stat sheet, however.

http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/je...stats.html

[needle]

I don't know if Jeremy Green's decision to leave early should be held against Dawkins or viewed as an extenuating circumstance, but I think it's clear his absence hurt this team.

We all hoped Anthony Brown would be able to step up as a strong scorer. In hindsight, i think it's asking too much if he's expected to average 12+ points a game. I suspect someone else will have to step up next year as a legit second scoring threat if Stanford is going to even have a chance at repeating its meager success this year. I don't think Bright is the answer there, either.

Green is in the D-Leage, by the way, and has been getting some minutes lately. Nothing really noteworthy on the stat sheet, however.

http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/je...stats.html