[StanFan88]

Pointing to Brown's injury is just a lame excuse. Quality programs should be good enough to make the tourney, even if one good player gets injured. And Brown was not that much of a difference maker.

Pointing to any one thing is a lame excuse.  There is a six-year pattern here, and it will only go up or down as the talent level goes up or down.  I see a lot of potential on this roster, but very little quality game experience, which tells me we shouldn't expect better than about 7-11 in conference this season and an overall record around .500

[StanFan88]

Pointing to Brown's injury is just a lame excuse. Quality programs should be good enough to make the tourney, even if one good player gets injured. And Brown was not that much of a difference maker.

Pointing to any one thing is a lame excuse.  There is a six-year pattern here, and it will only go up or down as the talent level goes up or down.  I see a lot of potential on this roster, but very little quality game experience, which tells me we shouldn't expect better than about 7-11 in conference this season and an overall record around .500

[Bruce Wang]

We should connect Muir's success as an AD closely to MBB.  It is his area of expertise and it's the program that needed the most improvement when he came to Stanford.

[Bruce Wang]

We should connect Muir's success as an AD closely to MBB.  It is his area of expertise and it's the program that needed the most improvement when he came to Stanford.

[76lsjumb]

Or, maybe Muir turn out to be great.  Maybe.  Bowlsby arriving and firing Wlat was like a superhero in a cartoon, the ground shaking when he landed with both feet.  Rare occurrence.  It doesn't have to be dramatic like that to be beneficial to Stanford, but it sure gives us a reference point for how leaders can make a difference-- quickly-- that everyone can feel.  With Muir, the needle on the seismograph barely twitches.

So, what you're saying is, if only Muir were like Bowlsby, he'd fire Dawkins and go hire...

Dawkins?  :)    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9066193

Actually, I largely agree with your assessment, but it seems to me that it was a whole lot easier for Bowslby to fire a coach after a 1-11 season than it would have been for Muir to fire a coach after a Sweet 16 season.

As for the whole National Team coach vs. recruiting trail argument, I note that, within the past week or two, there was a bit of a dust-up as to whether coaching the National Team actually gives Coach K an unfair advantage in recruiting.  Coach K [sort of] denied it, but I don't think it's a manifestly ridiculous assertion.  Moreover, given where Dawkins came from and when he did it, I think it's largely speculation to claim that we lost recruits because of it.  If there's any direct evidence to support the claim, I'm not aware of it.  Moreover, of all the criticisms leveled at JD, the one thing that seems to get him some praise [albeit through largely clenched teeth] is his recruiting ability. 

Finally, I'm not sure it's quite fair for the "anti-Dawkins" crowd to appropriate the the "pro-Stanford" mantle at the expense of those of us who, perhaps, possess a little more patience than others, especially when at least some of us in the latter group will actually be going to games this season to cheer on Chasson and the crew to beat those Huskies, B.ears, etc., while, apparently, some in the former group "won't be going to Maples for a few years."

Look, if you didn't have to sit there and watch DiBiaso, you don't really know how bad it can get...  Now, get off my lawn...  ;)

[76lsjumb]

Or, maybe Muir turn out to be great.  Maybe.  Bowlsby arriving and firing Wlat was like a superhero in a cartoon, the ground shaking when he landed with both feet.  Rare occurrence.  It doesn't have to be dramatic like that to be beneficial to Stanford, but it sure gives us a reference point for how leaders can make a difference-- quickly-- that everyone can feel.  With Muir, the needle on the seismograph barely twitches.

So, what you're saying is, if only Muir were like Bowlsby, he'd fire Dawkins and go hire...

Dawkins?  :)    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9066193

Actually, I largely agree with your assessment, but it seems to me that it was a whole lot easier for Bowslby to fire a coach after a 1-11 season than it would have been for Muir to fire a coach after a Sweet 16 season.

As for the whole National Team coach vs. recruiting trail argument, I note that, within the past week or two, there was a bit of a dust-up as to whether coaching the National Team actually gives Coach K an unfair advantage in recruiting.  Coach K [sort of] denied it, but I don't think it's a manifestly ridiculous assertion.  Moreover, given where Dawkins came from and when he did it, I think it's largely speculation to claim that we lost recruits because of it.  If there's any direct evidence to support the claim, I'm not aware of it.  Moreover, of all the criticisms leveled at JD, the one thing that seems to get him some praise [albeit through largely clenched teeth] is his recruiting ability. 

Finally, I'm not sure it's quite fair for the "anti-Dawkins" crowd to appropriate the the "pro-Stanford" mantle at the expense of those of us who, perhaps, possess a little more patience than others, especially when at least some of us in the latter group will actually be going to games this season to cheer on Chasson and the crew to beat those Huskies, B.ears, etc., while, apparently, some in the former group "won't be going to Maples for a few years."

Look, if you didn't have to sit there and watch DiBiaso, you don't really know how bad it can get...  Now, get off my lawn...  ;)

[washingtonismoney]

Aside from football, are we really sure Bowlsby's all that great (or has vision or courage or what-have-you)? A lot of sports were basically set up for him when he came in, but in terms of high-profile hires he gave us Harbaugh, Shaw and Dawkins. Two out of three ain't bad. But, then again, it seems to me that while the national championship streak continues, it's becoming a closer- and closer-run thing each year. That, it seems to me, is mostly on Bowlsby. Though, then again, I can't say I follow each and every non-revenue sport so closely that I can really say for sure (or tease apart the reasons why).

[washingtonismoney]

Aside from football, are we really sure Bowlsby's all that great (or has vision or courage or what-have-you)? A lot of sports were basically set up for him when he came in, but in terms of high-profile hires he gave us Harbaugh, Shaw and Dawkins. Two out of three ain't bad. But, then again, it seems to me that while the national championship streak continues, it's becoming a closer- and closer-run thing each year. That, it seems to me, is mostly on Bowlsby. Though, then again, I can't say I follow each and every non-revenue sport so closely that I can really say for sure (or tease apart the reasons why).

[CTcard]

... When the situation doesn't absolutely demand courage and vision, we're not going to get it.  He has the numbers to defend not making a change,  so why go out on a limb?  And he won't. 

... Bowlsby arriving and firing Wlat was like a superhero in a cartoon, the ground shaking when he landed with both feet.

I have to say I don't believe that it's an accurate use of language to label firing Dawkins and Wlat as the courageous choice and extending them as safe.

Mostly those terms just seem to be off-point, but to the extent you can use them I would say courage would have to be defined as opting for the choice that will bring you the most grief from supporters and safe as opting for the most approval - possibly modified by the wallet size of those on either side.

By Christmas 2006 I really think that Wlat had NO support in the Stanford community, and if Bowlsby had ended up keeping him he would have received a $%#$ storm of criticism, complaints, and donors withholding money. It would seem that at that time, the courageous (and stupid) course of action would have been to keep Wlat.

That is not at all so clear right now with Dawkins, primarily because Dawkins' record (on all counts) is much more mixed than Wlat's. Just in this thread his ability is being debated.  Wlat on the other hand was just complained about, not debated, by the end of 2006. My rough feeling is that the grief for Muir would be roughly equal in either firing or keeping Dawkins [though maybe others here know more about what larger donors to Stanford feel about Dawkins?]. That would seem to take courage out of the equation, leaving the much more murky situation of actually trying to figure out what would lead to a better Stanford program X years in the future - and how big X should be.

[CTcard]

... When the situation doesn't absolutely demand courage and vision, we're not going to get it.  He has the numbers to defend not making a change,  so why go out on a limb?  And he won't. 

... Bowlsby arriving and firing Wlat was like a superhero in a cartoon, the ground shaking when he landed with both feet.

I have to say I don't believe that it's an accurate use of language to label firing Dawkins and Wlat as the courageous choice and extending them as safe.

Mostly those terms just seem to be off-point, but to the extent you can use them I would say courage would have to be defined as opting for the choice that will bring you the most grief from supporters and safe as opting for the most approval - possibly modified by the wallet size of those on either side.

By Christmas 2006 I really think that Wlat had NO support in the Stanford community, and if Bowlsby had ended up keeping him he would have received a $%#$ storm of criticism, complaints, and donors withholding money. It would seem that at that time, the courageous (and stupid) course of action would have been to keep Wlat.

That is not at all so clear right now with Dawkins, primarily because Dawkins' record (on all counts) is much more mixed than Wlat's. Just in this thread his ability is being debated.  Wlat on the other hand was just complained about, not debated, by the end of 2006. My rough feeling is that the grief for Muir would be roughly equal in either firing or keeping Dawkins [though maybe others here know more about what larger donors to Stanford feel about Dawkins?]. That would seem to take courage out of the equation, leaving the much more murky situation of actually trying to figure out what would lead to a better Stanford program X years in the future - and how big X should be.

[StanFan88]

Actually, I largely agree with your assessment, but it seems to me that it was a whole lot easier for Bowslby to fire a coach after a 1-11 season than it would have been for Muir to fire a coach after a Sweet 16 season.

I don't think the discussion was about whether to fire Dawkins after the 2013-14 season.  My criticism of Muir was that he didn't fire him after the 2012-13 season.

The Sweet 16 allowed Dawkins to keep his job, and maybe even beyond this season.  But it should not have allowed him to get a contract extension.

As for how big X is, well I'd say it's 3 plus however many more years Dawkins stays.  And Muir can't be happy about not selling out a single game last season, including Cal & UCLA where the upper deck end zones were at least half-empty and that was only due to opposing fans not buying enough tickets.

Dawkins is costing Stanford at least a million a year in lost ticket sales & concessions.

[StanFan88]

Actually, I largely agree with your assessment, but it seems to me that it was a whole lot easier for Bowslby to fire a coach after a 1-11 season than it would have been for Muir to fire a coach after a Sweet 16 season.

I don't think the discussion was about whether to fire Dawkins after the 2013-14 season.  My criticism of Muir was that he didn't fire him after the 2012-13 season.

The Sweet 16 allowed Dawkins to keep his job, and maybe even beyond this season.  But it should not have allowed him to get a contract extension.

As for how big X is, well I'd say it's 3 plus however many more years Dawkins stays.  And Muir can't be happy about not selling out a single game last season, including Cal & UCLA where the upper deck end zones were at least half-empty and that was only due to opposing fans not buying enough tickets.

Dawkins is costing Stanford at least a million a year in lost ticket sales & concessions.

[donkey687]

If the team performs terribly, Dawkins will be on the hot seat no matter how many years he has left on his contract.  How often is a coach fired in the last year of his contract? Almost never. Contracts always get renewed to have a few years on it so opposing coaches don't negative recruit against a coach with a short contract. For all we know, there could be a buyout provision in this contract that gives Dawkins no more security than his old contract. 

[donkey687]

If the team performs terribly, Dawkins will be on the hot seat no matter how many years he has left on his contract.  How often is a coach fired in the last year of his contract? Almost never. Contracts always get renewed to have a few years on it so opposing coaches don't negative recruit against a coach with a short contract. For all we know, there could be a buyout provision in this contract that gives Dawkins no more security than his old contract. 

[Rally]

I'm not sure it's quite fair for the "anti-Dawkins" crowd to appropriate the the "pro-Stanford" mantle at the expense of those of us who, perhaps, possess a little more patience than others

"A little more patience." Please, 76lsjumb, give yourself credit where credit is due. You have a lot more patience. I would say your supply of patience is infinite. For six years now, you've been blaming Trent Johnson for the state of the team. And I'm confident that you'll still be doing so in another six. And explaining how any day now the massive recruiting windfall from Dawkins' work with the Olympic team will drop into our waiting arms.

76lsjumb is wrong.  It is not Trent Johnson's fault.  It is George Bush's fault.

[Rally]

I'm not sure it's quite fair for the "anti-Dawkins" crowd to appropriate the the "pro-Stanford" mantle at the expense of those of us who, perhaps, possess a little more patience than others

"A little more patience." Please, 76lsjumb, give yourself credit where credit is due. You have a lot more patience. I would say your supply of patience is infinite. For six years now, you've been blaming Trent Johnson for the state of the team. And I'm confident that you'll still be doing so in another six. And explaining how any day now the massive recruiting windfall from Dawkins' work with the Olympic team will drop into our waiting arms.

76lsjumb is wrong.  It is not Trent Johnson's fault.  It is George Bush's fault.

[BobK]

Let's see Muir has a new Softball coach and a new Men's Tennis Coach.  And one here at least thinks he is tip toeing.    ???  And eariler new Men's Swimming and T&F/XC. 

[BobK]

Let's see Muir has a new Softball coach and a new Men's Tennis Coach.  And one here at least thinks he is tip toeing.    ???  And eariler new Men's Swimming and T&F/XC. 

[triangle2]

Let's see Muir has a new Softball coach and a new Men's Tennis Coach.  And one here at least thinks he is tip toeing.    ???  And eariler new Men's Swimming and T&F/XC.

If we're measuring Muir on that criteria, then the elephant in the room is what happens when Tara retires.

[triangle2]

Let's see Muir has a new Softball coach and a new Men's Tennis Coach.  And one here at least thinks he is tip toeing.    ???  And eariler new Men's Swimming and T&F/XC.

If we're measuring Muir on that criteria, then the elephant in the room is what happens when Tara retires.

[BobK]

Don't you think we all know Tara's replacement?  OK most here don't know or care. 

[BobK]

Don't you think we all know Tara's replacement?  OK most here don't know or care. 

[OutsiderFan]

Let's not forget that though Monty had a lot of success, his teams tended to underperform in the post-season.  One final four, two regional finals, and too many early exits, IMO.  Even at least one of those regional finals was too early of an exit relative to the talent and expectations.

Granted it is a small sample size, but if Dawkins can get his teams to perform in the post-season on par to last season, the extension investment may turn out to be smart.  One thing Dawkins can't have happen again is to have another Dwight Powell level talent fail to develop consistency and improvement to his game as he goes through college.  Chasson Randle didn't really develop much either as a similarly talented recruit.

[OutsiderFan]

Let's not forget that though Monty had a lot of success, his teams tended to underperform in the post-season.  One final four, two regional finals, and too many early exits, IMO.  Even at least one of those regional finals was too early of an exit relative to the talent and expectations.

Granted it is a small sample size, but if Dawkins can get his teams to perform in the post-season on par to last season, the extension investment may turn out to be smart.  One thing Dawkins can't have happen again is to have another Dwight Powell level talent fail to develop consistency and improvement to his game as he goes through college.  Chasson Randle didn't really develop much either as a similarly talented recruit.

[StanFan88]

Let's not forget that though Monty had a lot of success, his teams tended to underperform in the post-season.  One final four, two regional finals, and too many early exits, IMO.  Even at least one of those regional finals was too early of an exit relative to the talent and expectations.

I would love to be able to compare Dawkins' teams performance in the tournament to Monty's but after six seasons all we have is One.Great.Week followed by a horrendous performance against Dayton.

if Dawkins can get his teams to perform in the post-season on par to last season, the extension investment may turn out to be smart

And if my sister had...

If Dawkins can get this team into the tournament I would consider the season a success.  My money's on 15-17 wins and 7-11 in conference.

[StanFan88]

Let's not forget that though Monty had a lot of success, his teams tended to underperform in the post-season.  One final four, two regional finals, and too many early exits, IMO.  Even at least one of those regional finals was too early of an exit relative to the talent and expectations.

I would love to be able to compare Dawkins' teams performance in the tournament to Monty's but after six seasons all we have is One.Great.Week followed by a horrendous performance against Dayton.

if Dawkins can get his teams to perform in the post-season on par to last season, the extension investment may turn out to be smart

And if my sister had...

If Dawkins can get this team into the tournament I would consider the season a success.  My money's on 15-17 wins and 7-11 in conference.

[StanfordMatt]

I hate turning this into a Dawkins vs. Monty debate because Dawkins' performance should be judged on its own merit. That being said, since a number of people seem intent on doing just that, it's worth pointing out that Monty's teams made it past the Sweet 16 a grand total of TWO times. Sure, you can minimize Dawkins' success last year by saying he had one great week just as you can say Michael Phelps only had one great week in 2008. Winning in March is what college basketball is all about.

Another issue I have with this debate is that a comparison of records is overly simplistic. Was Trent Johnson a great coach because we went 28-8 in 2007-08? No. The reason Trent did so well that year was because a pair of 7 foot lottery picks were destined for Stanford since the moment of their birth 20 years earlier. Trent's performance the past six years backs this up.

Johnny Dawkins' teams didn't measure up to expectations his first few years on the Farm. Was that entirely his fault? Yes and no. You could point to any number of explanations: bare cupboard left by Trent, first time head coach, and injuries in the case of 2012-13. Still, he also must bear responsibility. But his performance has improved over time. And yes, as someone who spent many nights as a student camped outside Maples from '02-'04, I am aware of what the standards should be for this program. But it's irrational to say that since Dawkins hasn't measured up to Monty so far, he needs to be fired based on the assumption that the next Mike Montgomery is out there somewhere just waiting for a phone call from Muir.

The bottom line is that Dawkins needs to maintain an upward trajectory. Last year's results were a start and his success on the recruiting trail suggests he's on the right path. Until that changes, I will continue supporting him and have no problem with the extension.

[StanfordMatt]

I hate turning this into a Dawkins vs. Monty debate because Dawkins' performance should be judged on its own merit. That being said, since a number of people seem intent on doing just that, it's worth pointing out that Monty's teams made it past the Sweet 16 a grand total of TWO times. Sure, you can minimize Dawkins' success last year by saying he had one great week just as you can say Michael Phelps only had one great week in 2008. Winning in March is what college basketball is all about.

Another issue I have with this debate is that a comparison of records is overly simplistic. Was Trent Johnson a great coach because we went 28-8 in 2007-08? No. The reason Trent did so well that year was because a pair of 7 foot lottery picks were destined for Stanford since the moment of their birth 20 years earlier. Trent's performance the past six years backs this up.

Johnny Dawkins' teams didn't measure up to expectations his first few years on the Farm. Was that entirely his fault? Yes and no. You could point to any number of explanations: bare cupboard left by Trent, first time head coach, and injuries in the case of 2012-13. Still, he also must bear responsibility. But his performance has improved over time. And yes, as someone who spent many nights as a student camped outside Maples from '02-'04, I am aware of what the standards should be for this program. But it's irrational to say that since Dawkins hasn't measured up to Monty so far, he needs to be fired based on the assumption that the next Mike Montgomery is out there somewhere just waiting for a phone call from Muir.

The bottom line is that Dawkins needs to maintain an upward trajectory. Last year's results were a start and his success on the recruiting trail suggests he's on the right path. Until that changes, I will continue supporting him and have no problem with the extension.

[Papa John]

I think the standard for Johnny Dawkins should be in comparison with the other varsity sports at Stanford during his tenure. Stanford is different in that we are not so much a football school or a basketball school, but, rather, a Director's Cup school. We shouldn't accept mediocrity in any varsity sport.

[Papa John]

I think the standard for Johnny Dawkins should be in comparison with the other varsity sports at Stanford during his tenure. Stanford is different in that we are not so much a football school or a basketball school, but, rather, a Director's Cup school. We shouldn't accept mediocrity in any varsity sport.

[Redrum]

or maybe Just make things muddier.  My comments on Muir were more about general administrative/leadership types, or "styles".  Granted,  not everyone can or should be like "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap*.  By far the more common are people who come into leadership positions and , if the enterprise is functioning fairly well,  tend to leave things alone.  I've run into this archetype (or stereotype) over and over when covering public entities as a reporter and in business.  Saw that tendency in the businesses in which I worked and in our customer base.

In Muir, I see this cautious trait as a "type" I've seen before.  The evidence will accumulate on whether my hunch is correct.  We've seen the Dawkins result.  Maybe other defining tests will happen soon:  maybe the conference scheduling issues:  the Pac12 practice of 9 conference games vs. the SEC model;  possible changes in P12 conference interdivision scheduling and dealing with the "California  schools"  agreement that leverages those issues.  Big stuff.  Is he an activist voice or a go-along-to-get-along voice in Pac12 matters?  I have no idea how that will play out, but my hunch has been stated.  Only the outcome for Stanford over the long run matters.  Cautious might turn out to be the smart play. 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_J._Dunlap. 

[Redrum]

or maybe Just make things muddier.  My comments on Muir were more about general administrative/leadership types, or "styles".  Granted,  not everyone can or should be like "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap*.  By far the more common are people who come into leadership positions and , if the enterprise is functioning fairly well,  tend to leave things alone.  I've run into this archetype (or stereotype) over and over when covering public entities as a reporter and in business.  Saw that tendency in the businesses in which I worked and in our customer base.

In Muir, I see this cautious trait as a "type" I've seen before.  The evidence will accumulate on whether my hunch is correct.  We've seen the Dawkins result.  Maybe other defining tests will happen soon:  maybe the conference scheduling issues:  the Pac12 practice of 9 conference games vs. the SEC model;  possible changes in P12 conference interdivision scheduling and dealing with the "California  schools"  agreement that leverages those issues.  Big stuff.  Is he an activist voice or a go-along-to-get-along voice in Pac12 matters?  I have no idea how that will play out, but my hunch has been stated.  Only the outcome for Stanford over the long run matters.  Cautious might turn out to be the smart play. 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_J._Dunlap. 

[BobK]

Also attendance plays a part.  While piad attendance for the past several years has been 4500-5100 actual attendance is maybe 1500 or so less than paid.  Compare this to the last 6 or more Monty years at 7400 or so for both paid and actual. 

[BobK]

Also attendance plays a part.  While piad attendance for the past several years has been 4500-5100 actual attendance is maybe 1500 or so less than paid.  Compare this to the last 6 or more Monty years at 7400 or so for both paid and actual. 

[TrumpCard]

I think the jury is out on player development.  Randle is developing well in my book.  He went from 13.6 points and 39.9% shooting in 12-13 to 18.8 points and 47.4% shooting in 13-14.  Powell certainly was inconsistent, but calling him a failure is a too harsh.  He won the Pac-12 most improved player in his junior year, was named to two all-conference 1st teams, and was drafted into the NBA.  Also, Dawkins deserves some credit for Huestis' development from 3-star recruit into 1st round NBA selection.  (Edit:  Also, let's not forget Landry Fields.  He was a 3-star recruit who scored 4.1 points on 36.2% shooting in Johnson's last year, then scored 12.6 points on 49.8% shooting and 22.0 points on 49% shooting in his junior and senior years under Dawkins.)  This year will give us a lot more information on player development.  Anthony Brown needs to build on the improvement we saw last year, which was significant compared to his last healthy season in 11-12.  Roscoe and Verhoeven were top-100 recruits and now have enough experience that they should be solid Pac-12 players.  If the team wins only 15 games total and only 7 games in conference play, then we'll have a clear answer on Dawkins.  I don't think that will happen though.

[TrumpCard]

I think the jury is out on player development.  Randle is developing well in my book.  He went from 13.6 points and 39.9% shooting in 12-13 to 18.8 points and 47.4% shooting in 13-14.  Powell certainly was inconsistent, but calling him a failure is a too harsh.  He won the Pac-12 most improved player in his junior year, was named to two all-conference 1st teams, and was drafted into the NBA.  Also, Dawkins deserves some credit for Huestis' development from 3-star recruit into 1st round NBA selection.  (Edit:  Also, let's not forget Landry Fields.  He was a 3-star recruit who scored 4.1 points on 36.2% shooting in Johnson's last year, then scored 12.6 points on 49.8% shooting and 22.0 points on 49% shooting in his junior and senior years under Dawkins.)  This year will give us a lot more information on player development.  Anthony Brown needs to build on the improvement we saw last year, which was significant compared to his last healthy season in 11-12.  Roscoe and Verhoeven were top-100 recruits and now have enough experience that they should be solid Pac-12 players.  If the team wins only 15 games total and only 7 games in conference play, then we'll have a clear answer on Dawkins.  I don't think that will happen though.

[StanFan88]

I think the jury is out on player development.

I think the jury is in and it's not good.

Three draft picks in six years is not compelling.  Powell & Heustis developed most when Madsen was around.  Didn't see much more improvement after he left.

Verhoeven is a bust let's just accept that & move on - if he were top 100 talent he wouldn't have been playing only in garbage time and when the three big men were all in foul trouble.  Rosco is still trying to realize his potential.  Randle will end up playing in Europe - he's not fast enough to be an NBA PG and he's not big enough to be an NBA SG.

What about the rest of the current roster?  Other than Anthony Brown is there one ounce of NBA potential other than the recruits that nobody has seen?  None of them could crack a regular rotation of six guys last year.  I'm sure that if any of them was good enough Dawkins would have had a 7 or 8 player rotation.

[StanFan88]

I think the jury is out on player development.

I think the jury is in and it's not good.

Three draft picks in six years is not compelling.  Powell & Heustis developed most when Madsen was around.  Didn't see much more improvement after he left.

Verhoeven is a bust let's just accept that & move on - if he were top 100 talent he wouldn't have been playing only in garbage time and when the three big men were all in foul trouble.  Rosco is still trying to realize his potential.  Randle will end up playing in Europe - he's not fast enough to be an NBA PG and he's not big enough to be an NBA SG.

What about the rest of the current roster?  Other than Anthony Brown is there one ounce of NBA potential other than the recruits that nobody has seen?  None of them could crack a regular rotation of six guys last year.  I'm sure that if any of them was good enough Dawkins would have had a 7 or 8 player rotation.

[Leftcoast]

With a contract extension signed I'm belatedly drafted into the Dawkins camp - but drafted I am.  I will cheer for him to take Stanford to the next level.

Others have discussed program talent.  I don't believe Stanford's success depends upon lightning striking in the form of NBA lottery twins - even though we've proven lightning can indeed strike twice (Collins twins, Lopi).  Asking for a THIRD blue moon event risks pressing  the Basketball god's patience.  They may send us the relative skill equivalent of Greg Oden at Portland rather than Greg Oden at Ohio State. 

My complaint is that in his first years Dawkins tried to win using the run and gun, McDonald's AA route that isn't a match for Stanford.  If Stanford basketball success waits until we have a stable of long, lean McDonalds all-american clones then we will dance once a decade at most.  Stanford needs to develop the Pete Sauer's, the Rob Little's, the Matt Lottich's into top level NCAA players that fit seamlessly into a blue collar TEAM basketball concept that is capable of winning at the NCAA level.  I see flexibility in Dawkins' most recent approach but now I'm worried that while the second model may fit Stanford it may not be a fit for DAWKINS. 

Regardless, we now have another 3-4 years to cheer for Dawkins and wish that the fit - both ways - is a successful one for Stanford. 

Dawkins represents us off the court perfectly - it is time to make the on the court performance match.

[Leftcoast]

With a contract extension signed I'm belatedly drafted into the Dawkins camp - but drafted I am.  I will cheer for him to take Stanford to the next level.

Others have discussed program talent.  I don't believe Stanford's success depends upon lightning striking in the form of NBA lottery twins - even though we've proven lightning can indeed strike twice (Collins twins, Lopi).  Asking for a THIRD blue moon event risks pressing  the Basketball god's patience.  They may send us the relative skill equivalent of Greg Oden at Portland rather than Greg Oden at Ohio State. 

My complaint is that in his first years Dawkins tried to win using the run and gun, McDonald's AA route that isn't a match for Stanford.  If Stanford basketball success waits until we have a stable of long, lean McDonalds all-american clones then we will dance once a decade at most.  Stanford needs to develop the Pete Sauer's, the Rob Little's, the Matt Lottich's into top level NCAA players that fit seamlessly into a blue collar TEAM basketball concept that is capable of winning at the NCAA level.  I see flexibility in Dawkins' most recent approach but now I'm worried that while the second model may fit Stanford it may not be a fit for DAWKINS. 

Regardless, we now have another 3-4 years to cheer for Dawkins and wish that the fit - both ways - is a successful one for Stanford. 

Dawkins represents us off the court perfectly - it is time to make the on the court performance match.