[Phogge]

How do I generate generational money after being a degenerate in my early life?

Just your early life?  Don't sell yourself short.

Cheers,
Pete F.

Threw you a hanging curveball. Credit for a Texas League single off the hands.

Our court jesters Cowboy Indian and Slide would have hit it out of the park.

[Phogge]

How do I generate generational money after being a degenerate in my early life?

Just your early life?  Don't sell yourself short.

Cheers,
Pete F.

Threw you a hanging curveball. Credit for a Texas League single off the hands.

Our court jesters Cowboy Indian and Slide would have hit it out of the park.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm done with Haase.

This year I was willing to give him one more chance to prove he could get his team to perform to the level of its recruited talent. Then it's not competitive at all against the best teams, bungle their way through mediocre mid-level teams, and lose to a team like Santa Clara. This has basically transformed me from a passionate fan to a casual fan of Stanford MBB, like the Football program has. The product is just unwatchable with how disjointed and inconsistent Haase teams play.

What is most discouraging is Mark Fox can't recruit his way out of a paper bag, but he is a much, much better basketball coach who gets way , way more out of his team than Haase does. 

So congrats on another 5 star hoops recruit, but I have no belief he will get Stanford MBB into anything approaching relevance. I now question if Haase ever landed two top 25 players in the same class, if he'd even get his team to the NCAA tournament.  I don't know what made his teams perform at UAB, but whatever it was isn't working at Stanford, and/or Stanford isn't giving him what he needs. In any case, I should be pumped about landing a Top 25 player, but I am not, because I have no faith in the MBB program to make it matter where it counts.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm done with Haase.

This year I was willing to give him one more chance to prove he could get his team to perform to the level of its recruited talent. Then it's not competitive at all against the best teams, bungle their way through mediocre mid-level teams, and lose to a team like Santa Clara. This has basically transformed me from a passionate fan to a casual fan of Stanford MBB, like the Football program has. The product is just unwatchable with how disjointed and inconsistent Haase teams play.

What is most discouraging is Mark Fox can't recruit his way out of a paper bag, but he is a much, much better basketball coach who gets way , way more out of his team than Haase does. 

So congrats on another 5 star hoops recruit, but I have no belief he will get Stanford MBB into anything approaching relevance. I now question if Haase ever landed two top 25 players in the same class, if he'd even get his team to the NCAA tournament.  I don't know what made his teams perform at UAB, but whatever it was isn't working at Stanford, and/or Stanford isn't giving him what he needs. In any case, I should be pumped about landing a Top 25 player, but I am not, because I have no faith in the MBB program to make it matter where it counts.

[JohnR34231]

I'm done with Haase.

This year I was willing to give him one more chance to prove he could get his team to perform to the level of its recruited talent. Then it's not competitive at all against the best teams, bungle their way through mediocre mid-level teams, and lose to a team like Santa Clara. This has basically transformed me from a passionate fan to a casual fan of Stanford MBB, like the Football program has. The product is just unwatchable with how disjointed and inconsistent Haase teams play.

What is most discouraging is Mark Fox can't recruit his way out of a paper bag, but he is a much, much better basketball coach who gets way , way more out of his team than Haase does. 

So congrats on another 5 star hoops recruit, but I have no belief he will get Stanford MBB into anything approaching relevance. I now question if Haase ever landed two top 25 players in the same class, if he'd even get his team to the NCAA tournament.  I don't know what made his teams perform at UAB, but whatever it was isn't working at Stanford, and/or Stanford isn't giving him what he needs. In any case, I should be pumped about landing a Top 25 player, but I am not, because I have no faith in the MBB program to make it matter where it counts.

Yeah, I think we all have become Missouri residents when it comes to Stanford men's basketball. Hasse seems to be an excellent recruiter, has a lot of EUTM, but just can't seem to turn out anything better than a mediocre product. Given how long this has been going on, it is hard to predict improvement.

[JohnR34231]

I'm done with Haase.

This year I was willing to give him one more chance to prove he could get his team to perform to the level of its recruited talent. Then it's not competitive at all against the best teams, bungle their way through mediocre mid-level teams, and lose to a team like Santa Clara. This has basically transformed me from a passionate fan to a casual fan of Stanford MBB, like the Football program has. The product is just unwatchable with how disjointed and inconsistent Haase teams play.

What is most discouraging is Mark Fox can't recruit his way out of a paper bag, but he is a much, much better basketball coach who gets way , way more out of his team than Haase does. 

So congrats on another 5 star hoops recruit, but I have no belief he will get Stanford MBB into anything approaching relevance. I now question if Haase ever landed two top 25 players in the same class, if he'd even get his team to the NCAA tournament.  I don't know what made his teams perform at UAB, but whatever it was isn't working at Stanford, and/or Stanford isn't giving him what he needs. In any case, I should be pumped about landing a Top 25 player, but I am not, because I have no faith in the MBB program to make it matter where it counts.

Yeah, I think we all have become Missouri residents when it comes to Stanford men's basketball. Hasse seems to be an excellent recruiter, has a lot of EUTM, but just can't seem to turn out anything better than a mediocre product. Given how long this has been going on, it is hard to predict improvement.

[TriangleTree]

I'm done with Haase.

This year I was willing to give him one more chance to prove he could get his team to perform to the level of its recruited talent. Then it's not competitive at all against the best teams, bungle their way through mediocre mid-level teams, and lose to a team like Santa Clara. This has basically transformed me from a passionate fan to a casual fan of Stanford MBB, like the Football program has. The product is just unwatchable with how disjointed and inconsistent Haase teams play.

What is most discouraging is Mark Fox can't recruit his way out of a paper bag, but he is a much, much better basketball coach who gets way , way more out of his team than Haase does. 

So congrats on another 5 star hoops recruit, but I have no belief he will get Stanford MBB into anything approaching relevance. I now question if Haase ever landed two top 25 players in the same class, if he'd even get his team to the NCAA tournament.  I don't know what made his teams perform at UAB, but whatever it was isn't working at Stanford, and/or Stanford isn't giving him what he needs. In any case, I should be pumped about landing a Top 25 player, but I am not, because I have no faith in the MBB program to make it matter where it counts.

Yeah, I think we all have become Missouri residents when it comes to Stanford men's basketball. Hasse seems to be an excellent recruiter, has a lot of EUTM, but just can't seem to turn out anything better than a mediocre product. Given how long this has been going on, it is hard to predict improvement.

Haase Stanford teams have been particularly poor at finishing the season strong, with notable and disappointing declines towards the end of the last few seasons.
This team is off to a mediocre start but they are capable of improving and are showing signs. Angel and Taitz are becoming strong reliable contributors, Ingram is as mature a freshman as any I've seen and gives us a reliable go-to-guy at crunch time. Spencer's is becoming a complete player, defender and slasher whose shooting touch may be coming back. Delaire keeps improving and O'Connell continues to show he can be a top point guard.  I'd love to see more from Reynaud whom I think is underutilized but hopefully that will come.

All to say that unlike others I once again have hope. 

What I'm looking for this year is continued improvement, a strong finish and team unity. Now if we could just get a game in.

[TriangleTree]

I'm done with Haase.

This year I was willing to give him one more chance to prove he could get his team to perform to the level of its recruited talent. Then it's not competitive at all against the best teams, bungle their way through mediocre mid-level teams, and lose to a team like Santa Clara. This has basically transformed me from a passionate fan to a casual fan of Stanford MBB, like the Football program has. The product is just unwatchable with how disjointed and inconsistent Haase teams play.

What is most discouraging is Mark Fox can't recruit his way out of a paper bag, but he is a much, much better basketball coach who gets way , way more out of his team than Haase does. 

So congrats on another 5 star hoops recruit, but I have no belief he will get Stanford MBB into anything approaching relevance. I now question if Haase ever landed two top 25 players in the same class, if he'd even get his team to the NCAA tournament.  I don't know what made his teams perform at UAB, but whatever it was isn't working at Stanford, and/or Stanford isn't giving him what he needs. In any case, I should be pumped about landing a Top 25 player, but I am not, because I have no faith in the MBB program to make it matter where it counts.

Yeah, I think we all have become Missouri residents when it comes to Stanford men's basketball. Hasse seems to be an excellent recruiter, has a lot of EUTM, but just can't seem to turn out anything better than a mediocre product. Given how long this has been going on, it is hard to predict improvement.

Haase Stanford teams have been particularly poor at finishing the season strong, with notable and disappointing declines towards the end of the last few seasons.
This team is off to a mediocre start but they are capable of improving and are showing signs. Angel and Taitz are becoming strong reliable contributors, Ingram is as mature a freshman as any I've seen and gives us a reliable go-to-guy at crunch time. Spencer's is becoming a complete player, defender and slasher whose shooting touch may be coming back. Delaire keeps improving and O'Connell continues to show he can be a top point guard.  I'd love to see more from Reynaud whom I think is underutilized but hopefully that will come.

All to say that unlike others I once again have hope. 

What I'm looking for this year is continued improvement, a strong finish and team unity. Now if we could just get a game in.

[slide]

I’d say he’s a better recruiter than Monty, given that he can’t sell “you’ll be on one of the top teams in the country and make the tournament every year” the way MM could.

The chasm between recruiting results and on the field results is surprisingly large both ways.

BC

usually Monty had a good PG (or two) on the roster, and they ran the show.  Haase really has not had a good PG during much of his time at Stanford.  Terry for a year and the surprise from O'Connell last year (and this year).  good PG play is a big factor in college hoops.  hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

[slide]

I’d say he’s a better recruiter than Monty, given that he can’t sell “you’ll be on one of the top teams in the country and make the tournament every year” the way MM could.

The chasm between recruiting results and on the field results is surprisingly large both ways.

BC

usually Monty had a good PG (or two) on the roster, and they ran the show.  Haase really has not had a good PG during much of his time at Stanford.  Terry for a year and the surprise from O'Connell last year (and this year).  good PG play is a big factor in college hoops.  hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

[TrumpCard]

I’d say he’s a better recruiter than Monty, given that he can’t sell “you’ll be on one of the top teams in the country and make the tournament every year” the way MM could.

The chasm between recruiting results and on the field results is surprisingly large both ways.

BC

usually Monty had a good PG (or two) on the roster, and they ran the show.  Haase really has not had a good PG during much of his time at Stanford.  Terry for a year and the surprise from O'Connell last year (and this year).  good PG play is a big factor in college hoops.  hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Haase recruited Wills and Davis in addition to Terry.  He's had athletes, even at point guard.  Do we really think Mike MacDonald or Art Lee, not to mention Tony Giovacchini, were that much better players than the guys Haase recruited?  We'll have another data point with Silva this year.  At some point, we'll have to look at the coaching.  IMHO, Monty's PGs benefitted from playing in a system that simplified their role.  The inside-outside game with strong post play, physical screens, and good outside shooting reduced the need for PGs who had to create plays off the drive.  It was nice to have Brevin while he was around, obviously, but Monty didn't depend on individual athletes to beat their defenders in isolation on too many possessions.

[TrumpCard]

I’d say he’s a better recruiter than Monty, given that he can’t sell “you’ll be on one of the top teams in the country and make the tournament every year” the way MM could.

The chasm between recruiting results and on the field results is surprisingly large both ways.

BC

usually Monty had a good PG (or two) on the roster, and they ran the show.  Haase really has not had a good PG during much of his time at Stanford.  Terry for a year and the surprise from O'Connell last year (and this year).  good PG play is a big factor in college hoops.  hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Haase recruited Wills and Davis in addition to Terry.  He's had athletes, even at point guard.  Do we really think Mike MacDonald or Art Lee, not to mention Tony Giovacchini, were that much better players than the guys Haase recruited?  We'll have another data point with Silva this year.  At some point, we'll have to look at the coaching.  IMHO, Monty's PGs benefitted from playing in a system that simplified their role.  The inside-outside game with strong post play, physical screens, and good outside shooting reduced the need for PGs who had to create plays off the drive.  It was nice to have Brevin while he was around, obviously, but Monty didn't depend on individual athletes to beat their defenders in isolation on too many possessions.

[BobK]

McDonald and Lee were much better players at the Point that who ever Hasse has recruited . Knight soooo much better

[BobK]

McDonald and Lee were much better players at the Point that who ever Hasse has recruited . Knight soooo much better

[Phogge]

Arthur Lee much better than McDonald. Hernandez too.

[Phogge]

Arthur Lee much better than McDonald. Hernandez too.

[Spiny_Norman]

McDonald and Lee were much better players at the Point that who ever Hasse has recruited .  Knight soooo much better

As much as anything, they could shoot. In McDonald's senior year, he shot 51% (!) from 3 point range. Also averaged 4.9 assists/game. Lee shot 40% from 3 in his career and made 87% of his FTs.

Chris Hernandez could shoot too. His senior year he made 47% from 3 and 90% from the line.

Except for Terry, no one in the Haase era comes close. We should acknowledge however that Knight, McDonald, Lee and Hernandez played with a 3 point line that was closer than it is today. Moved back a foot in 2007 and another 15 inches in 2019.

[Spiny_Norman]

McDonald and Lee were much better players at the Point that who ever Hasse has recruited .  Knight soooo much better

As much as anything, they could shoot. In McDonald's senior year, he shot 51% (!) from 3 point range. Also averaged 4.9 assists/game. Lee shot 40% from 3 in his career and made 87% of his FTs.

Chris Hernandez could shoot too. His senior year he made 47% from 3 and 90% from the line.

Except for Terry, no one in the Haase era comes close. We should acknowledge however that Knight, McDonald, Lee and Hernandez played with a 3 point line that was closer than it is today. Moved back a foot in 2007 and another 15 inches in 2019.

[SamuelMcF]

I’d say he’s a better recruiter than Monty, given that he can’t sell “you’ll be on one of the top teams in the country and make the tournament every year” the way MM could.

The chasm between recruiting results and on the field results is surprisingly large both ways.

BC

usually Monty had a good PG (or two) on the roster, and they ran the show.  Haase really has not had a good PG during much of his time at Stanford.  Terry for a year and the surprise from O'Connell last year (and this year).  good PG play is a big factor in college hoops.  hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Haase recruited Wills and Davis in addition to Terry.  He's had athletes, even at point guard.  Do we really think Mike MacDonald or Art Lee, not to mention Tony Giovacchini, were that much better players than the guys Haase recruited?  We'll have another data point with Silva this year.  At some point, we'll have to look at the coaching.

Neither Wills nor Davis were PGs (Davis started out as one only by necessity, and was certainly not a facilitator). And Wills couldn't shoot.

[SamuelMcF]

I’d say he’s a better recruiter than Monty, given that he can’t sell “you’ll be on one of the top teams in the country and make the tournament every year” the way MM could.

The chasm between recruiting results and on the field results is surprisingly large both ways.

BC

usually Monty had a good PG (or two) on the roster, and they ran the show.  Haase really has not had a good PG during much of his time at Stanford.  Terry for a year and the surprise from O'Connell last year (and this year).  good PG play is a big factor in college hoops.  hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Haase recruited Wills and Davis in addition to Terry.  He's had athletes, even at point guard.  Do we really think Mike MacDonald or Art Lee, not to mention Tony Giovacchini, were that much better players than the guys Haase recruited?  We'll have another data point with Silva this year.  At some point, we'll have to look at the coaching.

Neither Wills nor Davis were PGs (Davis started out as one only by necessity, and was certainly not a facilitator). And Wills couldn't shoot.

[slide]

Neither Wills nor Davis were PGs (Davis started out as one only by necessity, and was certainly not a facilitator). And Wills couldn't shoot.

agreed with the others.  Monty's PGs were far superior to what Haase has had/put out there.  Tony G being the lone exception.  even Terry I think sits for a year or two (at least) behind Brevin, McDonald, Lee and Hernandez (and Barnes).

[slide]

Neither Wills nor Davis were PGs (Davis started out as one only by necessity, and was certainly not a facilitator). And Wills couldn't shoot.

agreed with the others.  Monty's PGs were far superior to what Haase has had/put out there.  Tony G being the lone exception.  even Terry I think sits for a year or two (at least) behind Brevin, McDonald, Lee and Hernandez (and Barnes).

[DC 86]

Neither Wills nor Davis were PGs (Davis started out as one only by necessity, and was certainly not a facilitator). And Wills couldn't shoot.

agreed with the others.  Monty's PGs were far superior to what Haase has had/put out there.  Tony G being the lone exception.  even Terry I think sits for a year or two (at least) behind Brevin, McDonald, Lee and Hernandez (and Barnes).

I'll throw in my opinion that Terry would have found a place on the court due to his tremendous shooting. But Brevin Knight and Arthur Lee are in a different galaxy from any point guards in the Haase era.

[DC 86]

Neither Wills nor Davis were PGs (Davis started out as one only by necessity, and was certainly not a facilitator). And Wills couldn't shoot.

agreed with the others.  Monty's PGs were far superior to what Haase has had/put out there.  Tony G being the lone exception.  even Terry I think sits for a year or two (at least) behind Brevin, McDonald, Lee and Hernandez (and Barnes).

I'll throw in my opinion that Terry would have found a place on the court due to his tremendous shooting. But Brevin Knight and Arthur Lee are in a different galaxy from any point guards in the Haase era.

[Phogge]

Besides the PG’s Haase hasn’t had a guy like Mendez who could just do everything well and didn’t seem to ever have an off night. Plus he doesn’t have guys like Lottich, Moseley, Barnes and Washington who could take over a game for four or five possessions. Hard nosed guys. He can get five star kids, I’ll give him that.

[Phogge]

Besides the PG’s Haase hasn’t had a guy like Mendez who could just do everything well and didn’t seem to ever have an off night. Plus he doesn’t have guys like Lottich, Moseley, Barnes and Washington who could take over a game for four or five possessions. Hard nosed guys. He can get five star kids, I’ll give him that.

[OutsiderFan]

Besides the PG’s Haase hasn’t had a guy like Mendez who could just do everything well and didn’t seem to ever have an off night. Plus he doesn’t have guys like Lottich, Moseley, Barnes and Washington who could take over a game for four or five possessions. Hard nosed guys. He can get five star kids, I’ll give him that.

I disagree. Monty knew how to coach and do what coaches must do - inspire their teams to execute well. Haase teams look disorganized, lack fundamentals, and fold in pressure situations. Monty made the sum of the individual parts greater than the individual pieces.  Haase teams play like a bunch of individual pieces.

[OutsiderFan]

Besides the PG’s Haase hasn’t had a guy like Mendez who could just do everything well and didn’t seem to ever have an off night. Plus he doesn’t have guys like Lottich, Moseley, Barnes and Washington who could take over a game for four or five possessions. Hard nosed guys. He can get five star kids, I’ll give him that.

I disagree. Monty knew how to coach and do what coaches must do - inspire their teams to execute well. Haase teams look disorganized, lack fundamentals, and fold in pressure situations. Monty made the sum of the individual parts greater than the individual pieces.  Haase teams play like a bunch of individual pieces.

[TrumpCard]

I’ll stand my ground here. Arthur Lee did not show up at Stanford as a top tier player and he didn’t have the chops to play in the NBA. He also started out as a combo guard, but adapted to the point (coached well!). He was a hard nosed player (coached well!) who fit perfectly in the system and was efficient in hitting open shots (generated by inside outside game that Monty installed).

[TrumpCard]

I’ll stand my ground here. Arthur Lee did not show up at Stanford as a top tier player and he didn’t have the chops to play in the NBA. He also started out as a combo guard, but adapted to the point (coached well!). He was a hard nosed player (coached well!) who fit perfectly in the system and was efficient in hitting open shots (generated by inside outside game that Monty installed).

[burger]

Monty knew how to coach and do what coaches must do - inspire their teams to execute well. Haase teams look disorganized, lack fundamentals, and fold in pressure situations. Monty made the sum of the individual parts greater than the individual pieces.  Haase teams play like a bunch of individual pieces.

I'm going to get a bunch of downvotes for this, but I don't care: Monty is hugely overrated as a coach.  When you are a top program, the only thing that matters is the Tourney.  And 1998 excepted, his teams almost always failed to play up to their seed.  A pile of Pac-10 championships, gaudy regular-season records, and high poll rankings is worth exactly nothing.

You want to talk about execution in pressure situations?  Look at all those Tourney upsets we took part in.

Honestly, I would rather not make the tournament than have hopes of a Final Four or Championship dashed year after year.  We had championship level talent so many seasons and only came close once.

(Unrelatedly, I agree with all of the criticisms of Haase in this thread.  Unless he miraculously salvages this season, time to move on.)

[burger]

Monty knew how to coach and do what coaches must do - inspire their teams to execute well. Haase teams look disorganized, lack fundamentals, and fold in pressure situations. Monty made the sum of the individual parts greater than the individual pieces.  Haase teams play like a bunch of individual pieces.

I'm going to get a bunch of downvotes for this, but I don't care: Monty is hugely overrated as a coach.  When you are a top program, the only thing that matters is the Tourney.  And 1998 excepted, his teams almost always failed to play up to their seed.  A pile of Pac-10 championships, gaudy regular-season records, and high poll rankings is worth exactly nothing.

You want to talk about execution in pressure situations?  Look at all those Tourney upsets we took part in.

Honestly, I would rather not make the tournament than have hopes of a Final Four or Championship dashed year after year.  We had championship level talent so many seasons and only came close once.

(Unrelatedly, I agree with all of the criticisms of Haase in this thread.  Unless he miraculously salvages this season, time to move on.)

[slide]

I’ll stand my ground here. Arthur Lee did not show up at Stanford as a top tier player and he didn’t have the chops to play in the NBA. He also started out as a combo guard, but adapted to the point (coached well!). He was a hard nosed player (coached well!) who fit perfectly in the system and was efficient in hitting open shots (generated by inside outside game that Monty installed).

Lee averaged 18 points & 4.5 assists per game as a high school SR (along with a 4.0).  he was good enough to be offered as a PG by Arizona, USC among others.  no NBA career true, but 13 years as a pro.  he had chops -- 93.5% from the FT in NCAAs, including 46 FTs in a row is pretty clutch.

[slide]

I’ll stand my ground here. Arthur Lee did not show up at Stanford as a top tier player and he didn’t have the chops to play in the NBA. He also started out as a combo guard, but adapted to the point (coached well!). He was a hard nosed player (coached well!) who fit perfectly in the system and was efficient in hitting open shots (generated by inside outside game that Monty installed).

Lee averaged 18 points & 4.5 assists per game as a high school SR (along with a 4.0).  he was good enough to be offered as a PG by Arizona, USC among others.  no NBA career true, but 13 years as a pro.  he had chops -- 93.5% from the FT in NCAAs, including 46 FTs in a row is pretty clutch.

[magnus]

hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Kanaan isn't a PG either though, right?

[magnus]

hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Kanaan isn't a PG either though, right?

[SamuelMcF]

hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Kanaan isn't a PG either though, right?

He is listed as a PG by Rivals and a CG by 247. I think the consensus is he's a score-first PG who can handle the ball well and still make the pass, a la Damian Lillard.

[SamuelMcF]

hopefully we will see a return to better PG play going forward (with a bridge to Kanaan)

Kanaan isn't a PG either though, right?

He is listed as a PG by Rivals and a CG by 247. I think the consensus is he's a score-first PG who can handle the ball well and still make the pass, a la Damian Lillard.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think it's fair to dump on Monty for his NCAA tournament disappointments.

For all of you who follow Stanford football and basketball, YOU KNOW the Achilles heel for all Stanford teams is inadequate speed and quickness.  I remember back in the Nicole Powell days, Stanford WBB was very good until it faced top tier teams with quickness. I'm no Stanford WBB junkie, but I've seen numerous games, including at South Carolina a few weeks ago, Stanford absolutely melt when pressured by quickness on defense.

Casey Jacobsen and Dan Grunfeld were very good players, but not NBA athletes. I remember Stanford MBB losing to Alabama with Latrell Sprewell and Antonio McDyess.  Reminded me of the Warriors play the Sonics in the playoffs when they were favored, and gettin blitzed by Gary Payton, Nate McMillan, Derrick McKey and Shawn Kemp.  Same thing.

Monty got some top talents, but rarely did he get THE TOP talents. None of the players on those NCAA teams that disappointed had real NBA players - top of rotation guys. Another team Stanford struggled against and barely beat when the higher seed was St. Joseph's with a backcourt of Delonte West and Jameer Nelson, both NBA players. 

My view is Monty's teams overachieved and were exposed in tournament play much like Tara's teams routinely getting dispatched int the Final Four.  Tara in general had better talent relative to Monty's teams, thus her teams going a bit further.  But both programs have struggled to beat quicker, more athletic teams because they simply don't land quicker more athletic players themselves. Instead, they get bigger players who are highly rated and already reach their ceilings, while lesser developed athletes with more athletic skill - usually guards and wings - go to the schools that beat Stanford when they have more experience.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think it's fair to dump on Monty for his NCAA tournament disappointments.

For all of you who follow Stanford football and basketball, YOU KNOW the Achilles heel for all Stanford teams is inadequate speed and quickness.  I remember back in the Nicole Powell days, Stanford WBB was very good until it faced top tier teams with quickness. I'm no Stanford WBB junkie, but I've seen numerous games, including at South Carolina a few weeks ago, Stanford absolutely melt when pressured by quickness on defense.

Casey Jacobsen and Dan Grunfeld were very good players, but not NBA athletes. I remember Stanford MBB losing to Alabama with Latrell Sprewell and Antonio McDyess.  Reminded me of the Warriors play the Sonics in the playoffs when they were favored, and gettin blitzed by Gary Payton, Nate McMillan, Derrick McKey and Shawn Kemp.  Same thing.

Monty got some top talents, but rarely did he get THE TOP talents. None of the players on those NCAA teams that disappointed had real NBA players - top of rotation guys. Another team Stanford struggled against and barely beat when the higher seed was St. Joseph's with a backcourt of Delonte West and Jameer Nelson, both NBA players. 

My view is Monty's teams overachieved and were exposed in tournament play much like Tara's teams routinely getting dispatched int the Final Four.  Tara in general had better talent relative to Monty's teams, thus her teams going a bit further.  But both programs have struggled to beat quicker, more athletic teams because they simply don't land quicker more athletic players themselves. Instead, they get bigger players who are highly rated and already reach their ceilings, while lesser developed athletes with more athletic skill - usually guards and wings - go to the schools that beat Stanford when they have more experience.