Washington 91, Stanford 68 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Washington 91, Stanford 68 (/thread-11694.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Washington 91, Stanford 68 (/thread-11694.html)
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 09:36 PM)BobK link Wrote:Just for the record under Monty there were 8 1st round picks.
Some of whom were not 5-star recruits...Monty got the best out of his players and his best teams were far greater than the sum of their parts. We have had the exact opposite for the last 8 years and enough is enough.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 09:36 PM)BobK link Wrote:Just for the record under Monty there were 8 1st round picks.
Some of whom were not 5-star recruits...Monty got the best out of his players and his best teams were far greater than the sum of their parts. We have had the exact opposite for the last 8 years and enough is enough.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BostonCard - 03-09-2016
Eight 1st round picks in 20 or so years versus four first-round picks in 8 years.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BostonCard - 03-09-2016
Eight 1st round picks in 20 or so years versus four first-round picks in 8 years.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 09:58 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Eight 1st round picks in 20 or so years versus four first-round picks in 8 years.I meant the part about getting the best out of his players. Dawkins seems to do the exact opposite. Every single team - including the Sweet 16 team - has not played up to the individual talents on the court.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 09:58 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Eight 1st round picks in 20 or so years versus four first-round picks in 8 years.I meant the part about getting the best out of his players. Dawkins seems to do the exact opposite. Every single team - including the Sweet 16 team - has not played up to the individual talents on the court.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BostonCard - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:26 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14714.msg158260#msg158260 date=1457585889]I meant the part about getting the best out of his players. Dawkins seems to do the exact opposite. Every single team - including the Sweet 16 team - has not played up to the individual talents on the court.
Eight 1st round picks in 20 or so years versus four first-round picks in 8 years.
BC
[/quote]
We are in agreement.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BostonCard - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:26 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14714.msg158260#msg158260 date=1457585889]I meant the part about getting the best out of his players. Dawkins seems to do the exact opposite. Every single team - including the Sweet 16 team - has not played up to the individual talents on the court.
Eight 1st round picks in 20 or so years versus four first-round picks in 8 years.
BC
[/quote]
We are in agreement.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - CornFed - 03-09-2016
I was just pointing out that Montgomery was an aberration of several magnitudes and now we have fallen back to almost pre-Montgomery performance levels. When he arrived, MBB at Stanford had been nearly moribund for the previous four decades. All I remember that he inherited from Dr.Tom (what a pretentious twit) was Todd Lichti, admittedly a valuable seed for future growth.
Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving. When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so. When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point. Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively. What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power.
I take heart from the fact that Dawkins has been able to recruit strong players. It convinces me that if we can find a better coach we will be able to return to very respectable levels. But to think someone like Montgomery or Harbaugh can be identified just by being thorough in the search is delusional. A lot of luck is involved and I will not be surprised if we have to kiss a few more frogs before we find someone like that. That is why it is so frustrating that we let Dawkins hang around much longer than needed in order to know that it was not going to work out. We have some frog-kissing to do. Let's get on with it.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - CornFed - 03-09-2016
I was just pointing out that Montgomery was an aberration of several magnitudes and now we have fallen back to almost pre-Montgomery performance levels. When he arrived, MBB at Stanford had been nearly moribund for the previous four decades. All I remember that he inherited from Dr.Tom (what a pretentious twit) was Todd Lichti, admittedly a valuable seed for future growth.
Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving. When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so. When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point. Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively. What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power.
I take heart from the fact that Dawkins has been able to recruit strong players. It convinces me that if we can find a better coach we will be able to return to very respectable levels. But to think someone like Montgomery or Harbaugh can be identified just by being thorough in the search is delusional. A lot of luck is involved and I will not be surprised if we have to kiss a few more frogs before we find someone like that. That is why it is so frustrating that we let Dawkins hang around much longer than needed in order to know that it was not going to work out. We have some frog-kissing to do. Let's get on with it.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:35 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I was just pointing out that Montgomery was an aberration of several magnitudes and now we have fallen back to almost pre-Montgomery performance levels. When he arrived, MBB at Stanford had been nearly moribund for the previous four decades. All I remember that he inherited from Dr.Tom (what a pretentious twit) was Todd Lichti, admittedly a valuable seed for future growth.
Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving. When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so. When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point. Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively. What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power.
I take heart from the fact that Dawkins has been able to recruit strong players. It convinces me that if we can find a better coach we will be able to return to very respectable levels. But to think someone like Montgomery or Harbaugh can be identified just by being thorough in the search is delusional. A lot of luck is involved and I will not be surprised if we have to kiss a few more frogs before we find someone like that. That is why it is so frustrating that we let Dawkins hang around much longer than needed in order to know that it was not going to work out. We have some frog-kissing to do. Let's get on with it.
I'm not sure how many frogs really need to be kissed. There seem to be a lot more very talented and successful mid-major coaches that I recall from the past, especially around the time Monty was hired. I'd like to think that Bowlsby - for all his bumbling of the Trent Johnson situation - saw something in Harbaugh that distinguished him from other candidates, and I'd like to think that was also the case when Monty was hired. The bigger question for me is whether Muir really knows what those distinguishing characteristics are that will make a new coach successful at Stanford. I guess we won't know for at least three years - provide that Muir does what needs to be done now and moves forward.
#FreeJohnny
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 10:35 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I was just pointing out that Montgomery was an aberration of several magnitudes and now we have fallen back to almost pre-Montgomery performance levels. When he arrived, MBB at Stanford had been nearly moribund for the previous four decades. All I remember that he inherited from Dr.Tom (what a pretentious twit) was Todd Lichti, admittedly a valuable seed for future growth.
Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving. When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so. When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point. Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively. What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power.
I take heart from the fact that Dawkins has been able to recruit strong players. It convinces me that if we can find a better coach we will be able to return to very respectable levels. But to think someone like Montgomery or Harbaugh can be identified just by being thorough in the search is delusional. A lot of luck is involved and I will not be surprised if we have to kiss a few more frogs before we find someone like that. That is why it is so frustrating that we let Dawkins hang around much longer than needed in order to know that it was not going to work out. We have some frog-kissing to do. Let's get on with it.
I'm not sure how many frogs really need to be kissed. There seem to be a lot more very talented and successful mid-major coaches that I recall from the past, especially around the time Monty was hired. I'd like to think that Bowlsby - for all his bumbling of the Trent Johnson situation - saw something in Harbaugh that distinguished him from other candidates, and I'd like to think that was also the case when Monty was hired. The bigger question for me is whether Muir really knows what those distinguishing characteristics are that will make a new coach successful at Stanford. I guess we won't know for at least three years - provide that Muir does what needs to be done now and moves forward.
#FreeJohnny
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 76lsjumb - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 09:35 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
Is it one-and-dones?
This is one of the most illogical and convoluted arguments I've ever heard, and when Muir tried to make it to me I told him he had to be kidding. Are you going to tell me that Arizona would have been tougher to beat if Sean Elliot, Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Mills, Jason Terry, Andre Iguodola, Richard Jefferson, etc. etc. had only played one or two years? Oregon State better with one year of Gary Payton (Sr)? UCLA with one year of Reggie Miller or Don McLean? Give me a friggin break. Stanford's roster is not be materially impacted by one and dones but many of its competitors' are WEAKENED by it not strengthened. If anything, the era of one & dones should have made it EASIER for Stanford to be successful, not harder.
[/quote]
I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors. But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling. I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school. Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't. Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them. One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool." Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them. Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
Oh, and good luck with Muir... ;D
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 76lsjumb - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 09:35 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
Is it one-and-dones?
This is one of the most illogical and convoluted arguments I've ever heard, and when Muir tried to make it to me I told him he had to be kidding. Are you going to tell me that Arizona would have been tougher to beat if Sean Elliot, Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Mills, Jason Terry, Andre Iguodola, Richard Jefferson, etc. etc. had only played one or two years? Oregon State better with one year of Gary Payton (Sr)? UCLA with one year of Reggie Miller or Don McLean? Give me a friggin break. Stanford's roster is not be materially impacted by one and dones but many of its competitors' are WEAKENED by it not strengthened. If anything, the era of one & dones should have made it EASIER for Stanford to be successful, not harder.
[/quote]
I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors. But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling. I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school. Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't. Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them. One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool." Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them. Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
Oh, and good luck with Muir... ;D
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BostonCard - 03-09-2016
We are really only talking about a dozen players per year. Last year there were 13 freshmen drafted by the NBA, of which exactly two were Pac-12 players (Stanley Johnson from Arizona and Kevin Looney from UCLA). The 2014 draft featured 9 freshmen, again with two from the Pac-12 (again one each from Arizona and UCLA). The 2013 draft had 8 freshmen, again one each from Arizona and UCLA. I'm not going to go back the entire tenure of Dawkins' career, but it looks like one-and-dones constitute about 8 - 12 players a year, of which 2 or 3 are from the Pac-12, so even most teams that can take one-and-dones don't, and specifically about 7/8 of the NCAA field of 66 doesn't have a one and done on it. Thus, it is a bogus argument.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BostonCard - 03-09-2016
We are really only talking about a dozen players per year. Last year there were 13 freshmen drafted by the NBA, of which exactly two were Pac-12 players (Stanley Johnson from Arizona and Kevin Looney from UCLA). The 2014 draft featured 9 freshmen, again with two from the Pac-12 (again one each from Arizona and UCLA). The 2013 draft had 8 freshmen, again one each from Arizona and UCLA. I'm not going to go back the entire tenure of Dawkins' career, but it looks like one-and-dones constitute about 8 - 12 players a year, of which 2 or 3 are from the Pac-12, so even most teams that can take one-and-dones don't, and specifically about 7/8 of the NCAA field of 66 doesn't have a one and done on it. Thus, it is a bogus argument.
BC
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 76lsjumb - 03-10-2016
(03-09-2016, 11:54 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We are really only talking about a dozen players per year. Last year there were 13 freshmen drafted by the NBA, of which exactly two were Pac-12 players (Stanley Johnson from Arizona and Kevin Looney from UCLA). The 2014 draft featured 9 freshmen, again with two from the Pac-12 (again one each from Arizona and UCLA). The 2013 draft had 8 freshmen, again one each from Arizona and UCLA. I'm not going to go back the entire tenure of Dawkins' career, but it looks like one-and-dones constitute about 8 - 12 players a year, of which 2 or 3 are from the Pac-12, so even most teams that can take one-and-dones don't, and specifically about 7/8 of the NCAA field of 66 doesn't have a one and done on it. Thus, it is a bogus argument.
BC
Clearly, the number of actual freshmen draftees is not h.uge, although it is interesting to note, from your numbers at least, that the Pac-12 apparently seems to get a higher percentage than the other conferences. But the actual number of draftees isn't the relevant number to look at. The relevant number is the players coming out of high school who believe they may be one-and-dones when they go through the recruiting process, regardless of whether it actually pans out that way. It seems to me that that number is going to be higher, and perhaps significantly so, than the number who ultimately follow through on that aspiration. And, in fact, someone who enrolls as a player with a reasonable one-and-done possibility, but who then decides to play longer, may actually turn out to be more of a benefit to the school at which he enrolls [and more of a problem for that school's opponents] -- just as winflop says -- than if he does, in fact, leave early. The point is, however, that Stanford isn't likely to get that player, either, since he was planning on being one-and-done when he went through recruiting.
Is this the sole, or even the most important, obstacle to recruiting at Stanford? Of course not. But I don't think it helps...and I don't think it's bogus.
And, also, it wasn't just Dr. Tom who left Stanford [before Monty] because he didn't think it could recruit at the necessary level. Trent Johnson said something very similar when he left ...AFTER Monty.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 76lsjumb - 03-10-2016
(03-09-2016, 11:54 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We are really only talking about a dozen players per year. Last year there were 13 freshmen drafted by the NBA, of which exactly two were Pac-12 players (Stanley Johnson from Arizona and Kevin Looney from UCLA). The 2014 draft featured 9 freshmen, again with two from the Pac-12 (again one each from Arizona and UCLA). The 2013 draft had 8 freshmen, again one each from Arizona and UCLA. I'm not going to go back the entire tenure of Dawkins' career, but it looks like one-and-dones constitute about 8 - 12 players a year, of which 2 or 3 are from the Pac-12, so even most teams that can take one-and-dones don't, and specifically about 7/8 of the NCAA field of 66 doesn't have a one and done on it. Thus, it is a bogus argument.
BC
Clearly, the number of actual freshmen draftees is not h.uge, although it is interesting to note, from your numbers at least, that the Pac-12 apparently seems to get a higher percentage than the other conferences. But the actual number of draftees isn't the relevant number to look at. The relevant number is the players coming out of high school who believe they may be one-and-dones when they go through the recruiting process, regardless of whether it actually pans out that way. It seems to me that that number is going to be higher, and perhaps significantly so, than the number who ultimately follow through on that aspiration. And, in fact, someone who enrolls as a player with a reasonable one-and-done possibility, but who then decides to play longer, may actually turn out to be more of a benefit to the school at which he enrolls [and more of a problem for that school's opponents] -- just as winflop says -- than if he does, in fact, leave early. The point is, however, that Stanford isn't likely to get that player, either, since he was planning on being one-and-done when he went through recruiting.
Is this the sole, or even the most important, obstacle to recruiting at Stanford? Of course not. But I don't think it helps...and I don't think it's bogus.
And, also, it wasn't just Dr. Tom who left Stanford [before Monty] because he didn't think it could recruit at the necessary level. Trent Johnson said something very similar when he left ...AFTER Monty.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 2006alum - 03-10-2016
(03-10-2016, 12:14 AM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14714.msg158270#msg158270 date=1457592850]
We are really only talking about a dozen players per year. Last year there were 13 freshmen drafted by the NBA, of which exactly two were Pac-12 players (Stanley Johnson from Arizona and Kevin Looney from UCLA). The 2014 draft featured 9 freshmen, again with two from the Pac-12 (again one each from Arizona and UCLA). The 2013 draft had 8 freshmen, again one each from Arizona and UCLA. I'm not going to go back the entire tenure of Dawkins' career, but it looks like one-and-dones constitute about 8 - 12 players a year, of which 2 or 3 are from the Pac-12, so even most teams that can take one-and-dones don't, and specifically about 7/8 of the NCAA field of 66 doesn't have a one and done on it. Thus, it is a bogus argument.
BC
Clearly, the number of actual freshmen draftees is not h.uge, although it is interesting to note, from your numbers at least, that the Pac-12 apparently seems to get a higher percentage than the other conferences. But the actual number of draftees isn't the relevant number to look at. The relevant number is the players coming out of high school who believe they may be one-and-dones when they go through the recruiting process, regardless of whether it actually pans out that way. It seems to me that that number is going to be higher, and perhaps significantly so, than the number who ultimately follow through on that aspiration. And, in fact, someone who enrolls as a player with a reasonable one-and-done possibility, but who then decides to play longer, may actually turn out to be more of a benefit to the school at which he enrolls [and more of a problem for that school's opponents] -- just as winflop says -- than if he does, in fact, leave early. The point is, however, that Stanford isn't likely to get that player, either, since he was planning on being one-and-done when he went through recruiting.
Is this the sole, or even the most important, obstacle to recruiting at Stanford? Of course not. But I don't think it helps...and I don't think it's bogus.
And, also, it wasn't just Dr. Tom who left Stanford [before Monty] because he didn't think it could recruit at the necessary level. Trent Johnson said something very similar when he left ...AFTER Monty.
[/quote]
Do we have reason to think even SOME of the one-and-dones would be competitive for Stanford admissions? My sense is that we rarely would have had the top-flight talent even if they were required to spend four years on campus. For example, in the 30+ year history of McDonald's All-Americans (i.e. top high school recruits), we've had six: Childress, Jacobsen, and the Lopi and Collins twins. I simply don't think most NBA-prospect level players are the kinds of high school students to do what it takes to get into Stanford. So as far as I'm concerned, absent evidence to the contrary, that argument is basically a red herring.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 2006alum - 03-10-2016
(03-10-2016, 12:14 AM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14714.msg158270#msg158270 date=1457592850]
We are really only talking about a dozen players per year. Last year there were 13 freshmen drafted by the NBA, of which exactly two were Pac-12 players (Stanley Johnson from Arizona and Kevin Looney from UCLA). The 2014 draft featured 9 freshmen, again with two from the Pac-12 (again one each from Arizona and UCLA). The 2013 draft had 8 freshmen, again one each from Arizona and UCLA. I'm not going to go back the entire tenure of Dawkins' career, but it looks like one-and-dones constitute about 8 - 12 players a year, of which 2 or 3 are from the Pac-12, so even most teams that can take one-and-dones don't, and specifically about 7/8 of the NCAA field of 66 doesn't have a one and done on it. Thus, it is a bogus argument.
BC
Clearly, the number of actual freshmen draftees is not h.uge, although it is interesting to note, from your numbers at least, that the Pac-12 apparently seems to get a higher percentage than the other conferences. But the actual number of draftees isn't the relevant number to look at. The relevant number is the players coming out of high school who believe they may be one-and-dones when they go through the recruiting process, regardless of whether it actually pans out that way. It seems to me that that number is going to be higher, and perhaps significantly so, than the number who ultimately follow through on that aspiration. And, in fact, someone who enrolls as a player with a reasonable one-and-done possibility, but who then decides to play longer, may actually turn out to be more of a benefit to the school at which he enrolls [and more of a problem for that school's opponents] -- just as winflop says -- than if he does, in fact, leave early. The point is, however, that Stanford isn't likely to get that player, either, since he was planning on being one-and-done when he went through recruiting.
Is this the sole, or even the most important, obstacle to recruiting at Stanford? Of course not. But I don't think it helps...and I don't think it's bogus.
And, also, it wasn't just Dr. Tom who left Stanford [before Monty] because he didn't think it could recruit at the necessary level. Trent Johnson said something very similar when he left ...AFTER Monty.
[/quote]
Do we have reason to think even SOME of the one-and-dones would be competitive for Stanford admissions? My sense is that we rarely would have had the top-flight talent even if they were required to spend four years on campus. For example, in the 30+ year history of McDonald's All-Americans (i.e. top high school recruits), we've had six: Childress, Jacobsen, and the Lopi and Collins twins. I simply don't think most NBA-prospect level players are the kinds of high school students to do what it takes to get into Stanford. So as far as I'm concerned, absent evidence to the contrary, that argument is basically a red herring.