PDA

View Full Version : Dawkins - Tough going at Stanford



stanfan
02-23-2009, 10:34 PM
Hey all- I'm a Stanford fan and it's been a rough year this year. On our boards, there has been some major debate on if (and when) Dawkins can turn around the troubled ship. After a clean walk through the out-of-conference schedule against some awful competition, the team has imploded in the Pac-10 (and frankly an off-year in the P10). The ugliest moment was this weekend's loss to Oregon who was 0-14 in conference.

Most fans agree that you need to allow some time, but the question I have for you guys is simple. Why will JD be successful?

I've heard the positives...nice guy, great player, NBA background

But we've also heard the negatives...not a recruiter, not really an X's and O's guy, no west coast history

Can he get the kind of athletes that would fit into the Duke system as that's what he's installed? What disciples of your Coach were successful in installing the Duke system at their new schools?

Next year is going to be way rougher as the team graduates 4 seniors and Dawkins has only got 1 commit (3 star guy). Lost out on a bunch and this is before the bad Pac-10 schedule. On the plus side, Stanford has a ton of scholies available (think at least 5 open) and the quality of the returnees means that plenty of playing time is available.

OZZIE4DUKE
02-23-2009, 10:53 PM
Next year is going to be way rougher as the team graduates 4 seniors and Dawkins has only got 1 commit (3 star guy). Lost out on a bunch and this is before the bad Pac-10 schedule. On the plus side, Stanford has a ton of scholies available (think at least 5 open) and the quality of the returnees means that plenty of playing time is available.
In Coach K's first recruiting class, he signed one player. He missed out on a bunch of top players, finishing second on most lists. He started turning that around with his second recruiting class, including some kid named Dawkins. I hears Stanford is a pretty decent school ;), so top players should want to go there, at least as their safety school if they don't get into Duke :cool:. OK, just yanking your chain a bit. I realize you have asked some serious questions, looking for serious answers.

Johnny is/will be an excellent coach. Don't be too quick to run him off; it would be quite a mistake.

BahamaDukie
02-23-2009, 10:58 PM
Many Duke folks wanted to run K off after his first few years.....look at Herb Sendek.....NCSU ran him off and he is doing very well at ASU

Dean Smith was hung in effigy in Chapel Hill after his first few games.....oh well

Johnny is a quality guy and was involved in the best program for the last 20+ yrs, so he brings a ton of good things. Being a head coach is totally diff than being an Asst...Don't expect too much too soon. Time will tell, but Johnny should do well once he establishes himself.

Good Luck

BlueintheFace
02-23-2009, 11:27 PM
Next year he brings in his first recruiting class and 2010 he brings in his first complete recruiting class (since he took over in the summer of '08 and a lot of kids were already signed) if the 2010-2011 season doesn't look like it has the pieces to grow into a force then I think concern would be warranted. I suspect that Stanford could vie for the Pac10 title in 2011-2012 season IMO.

-bdbd
02-24-2009, 12:47 AM
Hey Stanfan -

Keep the faith! I went to High School in nearby Mtn. View and grew up a big Cardinal fan (got to see Elway play there a few times...), before going to Duke. Love the beautiful campus and the academic standards, and overall excellence in athletics. There's a LOT to attract great student athletes -- and that counts for much in recruiting! (And J.D. knows who to use that theme.)

J.D. is going to be successful in Palo Alto - but you have to give it a few years. The cubboard was largely bare on his arrival. Even if the former coach had stayed, this was going to be a (way) down year anyway. Most people seem to have lost sight of that fact.

When Coach K first arrived at Duke, after a couple of holdover big stars graduated after his first couple of years - Mike Gminski, Gene Banks, etc - Coach K had some BAD seasons - winning all of 10 -11 games a couple years in a row. At the same time our two nearest rivals, UNC and NC State (remember Jimmy V and the Hakeem "The Dream" Olijawan (sp?) game??) were both winning National Championships.... and as Ozzie pointed out K kept coming in 2nd on loads of stud 4-star recruits (Chris Mullens of GS Warriors fame being one of them). Then in 1982, I think his 3rd year, he convinced a gangly kid from DC to commit to Duke -- that kid did happen to be a Parade AA by the name of Dawkins -- and in that class several other stud recruits committed to Duke following JD, including Jay Bilas and Mark Alarie from the West Coast. Four years later that group of kids came within 3 points of winning the national championship. Point is, Duke has been there, and many felt our AD was really going out on a limb sticking with this young Coach from Army... and the loyalty has paid off in spades.

JD has what it takes - don't let his softspoken, gentlemanly manner disguise his fierce competitiveness. He knows how to recruit (has over time led the successful recruiting of several of the well known Duke players, including a couple currently on our squad). He has the college and NBA pedigree and contacts. He's been in all of the tough game, crunch-time situations and knows how to win when its all on the line.

We just hope he's willing to leave Palo Alto in ten years, once he's winning 20+ per season again for you, to come back and replace Coach K when he retires (circa 2020 we hope!). Hang in there. It doesn't happen overnight. It didn't here either.

-BDBD :cool:

P.S. Nice football recruiting class this year! Congrats! (He'll use that too...)

gotham devil
02-24-2009, 01:58 AM
Hey all- I'm a Stanford fan and it's been a rough year this year. On our boards, there has been some major debate on if (and when) Dawkins can turn around the troubled ship. After a clean walk through the out-of-conference schedule against some awful competition, the team has imploded in the Pac-10 (and frankly an off-year in the P10). The ugliest moment was this weekend's loss to Oregon who was 0-14 in conference.

Most fans agree that you need to allow some time, but the question I have for you guys is simple. Why will JD be successful?

I've heard the positives...nice guy, great player, NBA background

But we've also heard the negatives...not a recruiter, not really an X's and O's guy, no west coast history

Can he get the kind of athletes that would fit into the Duke system as that's what he's installed? What disciples of your Coach were successful in installing the Duke system at their new schools?

Next year is going to be way rougher as the team graduates 4 seniors and Dawkins has only got 1 commit (3 star guy). Lost out on a bunch and this is before the bad Pac-10 schedule. On the plus side, Stanford has a ton of scholies available (think at least 5 open) and the quality of the returnees means that plenty of playing time is available.
I have a steady hand when I bet or invest, but I'd be fairly alarmed if I were you. You have a lot to sell, but my guess is that in five years you'll regret hiring him.

There are a limited amount of academically qualified, elite-level basketball players annually. As long as Mike Krzyzewski is the head coach here, a recruit will generally opt for the real McCoy over any of his ex-assistants, as long as they have a choice. If a recruit wants to stay in the glorious state of California, Dawkins is going to have to convince a recruit and his family to take a leap of faith on him over very established head coaches like Ben Howland, Mike Montgomery, and even Tim Floyd. If Arizona can attract a home run head coach, his job will be all the harder.

By starting off weakly, as he will do over the first two years (at least), unfairly or fairly, it will create more doubts about his ability to be a head coach. This will only make recruiting, the lifeblood of every program, far more difficult.

To preach patience to every fan base for every struggling head coach over the past twenty years, people always cite the classic, one-in-a-million Tom Butters/Mike Krzyzewski example. If that helps you cope with the losing and all of the missed recruits, good luck and God bless. It's a different time, a brutal business, and the window has become a lot smaller. Frankly, I am glad that the Dawkins experiment is done on Stanford's time and at their expense.

JStuart
02-24-2009, 05:54 AM
And, here's a question that -surprisingly- hasn't been brought up to my readings on the boards, could some of our recent troubles be related to Johnny's absence on the bench and at practice?
Honestly I'm just curious here; JD needed to strike out on his own, and Stanford would have been my pick, too. He'll do just fine.

JStuart
02-24-2009, 06:10 AM
"To preach patience to every fan base for every struggling head coach over the past twenty years, people always cite the classic, one-in-a-million Tom Butters/Mike Krzyzewski example. If that helps you cope with the losing and all of the missed recruits, good luck and God bless. It's a different time, a brutal business, and the window has become a lot smaller. Frankly, I am glad that the Dawkins experiment is done on Stanford's time and at their expense."

Tell us how you really feel, gd!
What about a kid who wants his coach to be under 62, African-American, poised and with NBA cred? Wouldn't Johnny fit the bill?
That's about the bitterest statement about NCAA coaching I've seen here. Sure, different time, different century, but way too harsh.

camion
02-24-2009, 08:10 AM
That analysis could apply to any coach they could hire who didn't have a Krzyzewski-like resume. It argues for the hiring of an established major college head coach who is already a proven winner. That's really nice in theory. How do you pull it off?

Johnny is an excellent hire for Stanford. He may or may not work out, but he's as good a bet as any Stanford could realistically have gotten.

roywhite
02-24-2009, 08:33 AM
That analysis could apply to any coach they could hire who didn't have a Krzyzewski-like resume. It argues for the hiring of an established major college head coach who is already a proven winner. That's really nice in theory. How do you pull it off?

Johnny is an excellent hire for Stanford. He may or may not work out, but he's as good a bet as any Stanford could realistically have gotten.

Agree. Seems to me like Johnny has a challenge at Stanford, but don't see any reason why he can't be successful. Stanford is good in just about every sport they undertake, and even in football (which is more affected by academic requirements simply because of numbers) they recruited well this last season.

Mike Montgomery won consistently; it's not easy, but it is do-able.

Johnny's experience and his determination are about as solid as you find. I wish him well.

jv001
02-24-2009, 08:45 AM
JD is going to be a good college coach because he's a good recruiter, relates to his players and first and foremost Johnny is a class act. As far as I'm concerned we(Duke) are going to miss him on the recruiting trail. Go Duke!

bjornolf
02-24-2009, 09:05 AM
What about a kid who wants his coach to be under 62, African-American, poised and with NBA cred?

I wonder if this in any way affected Coach K's recent staff hirings. After Johnny left, his staff became decidedly...white. I'm sure a lot of African American players and their parents like the idea of having at least part of the staff "represent" them, or at least act as a role model to help out. We had Tommy Amaker, then JD. When JD left, they didn't really have any African American representation on the staff, and I wonder if that affected recruiting in any way. I'm sure that the guys are qualified, but maybe their race was an added bonus. Any thoughts?

COYS
02-24-2009, 09:12 AM
I wonder if this in any way affected Coach K's recent staff hirings. After Johnny left, his staff became decidedly...white. I'm sure a lot of African American players and their parents like the idea of having at least part of the staff "represent" them, or at least act as a role model to help out. We had Tommy Amaker, then JD. When JD left, they didn't really have any African American representation on the staff, and I wonder if that affected recruiting in any way. I'm sure that the guys are qualified, but maybe their race was an added bonus. Any thoughts?

Um . . . Nate James?

JG Nothing
02-24-2009, 09:12 AM
JD is going to be a good college coach because he's a good recruiter, relates to his players and first and foremost Johnny is a class act. As far as I'm concerned we(Duke) are going to miss him on the recruiting trail. Go Duke!
How involved was Dawkins in recruiting at Duke, particularly off campus? My understanding is that he rarely traveled to evaluate players because of his family. I use to attend the Nike AA basketball camp every year and always saw K, Wojo, and Collins, but never Dawkins.

bjornolf
02-24-2009, 09:47 AM
Um . . . Nate James?

Nate is who I was talking about. According to the website, he was hired on May 6, 2008, yet he is listed on the goduke website as being part of the 2007-2008 season staff (oddly, JD is NOT listed as part of the 2007-2008 staff). That's over a month after the season was over. ESPN announced Johnny's hiring at Stanford at the end of April, and Nate was hired the first week of May. I assume that Johnny discussed this all with K, which means K knew it was coming and started looking for somebody else well before April 27th. As I said, I'm sure that Nate was perfectly qualified for the job. I just wonder if they saw his ethnicity as a bonus with Johnny leaving, that's all. Is that something that recruits and parents look at and take into account? I wonder if Johnny's departure and Nate's hiring affected any recruits. After all, Johnny was K's right hand man, with experience and stature. Nate's the new guy at the bottom of the totem pole.

Just wondering.

Bluedog
02-24-2009, 10:01 AM
As I said, I'm sure that Nate was perfectly qualified for the job. I just wonder if they saw his ethnicity as a bonus with Johnny leaving, that's all. Is that something that recruits and parents look at and take into account? I wonder if Johnny's departure and Nate's hiring affected any recruits. After all, Johnny was K's right hand man, with experience and stature. Nate's the new guy at the bottom of the totem pole.

I don't think it affected any recruits, but we'll never now. And, yes, Nate James is certainly qualified and him being African American is a bonus. Certainly, some recruits take this into account.

Here's a thread back from April 2008 discussing the leaving of Dawkins/hiring of James, with the following quotes from Jumbo:
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8985&


No one is suggesting that Duke should "play the race card." No one is suggesting Duke hire an unqualified coach. But given certain unfortunate circumstances, it would be beneficial for Duke to have a good assistant coach who happens to be African-American. Just out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with how the recruiting game is being played right now?


In the end, it's simply a matter of human nature in a lot of cases. And you're right, we're venturing too far into PPB domain. I'm happy to start a thread there where we can discuss race and basketball. The last thing I want anyone to think is that Nate James would get the job "because he is black." Nate James will get the job because he has worked for it, is a leader, is loved by the kids on the team already and is a major badass. That he happens to add some diversity to the staff is a bonus.


Because, sadly, teams are recruiting in a country that still has strong racial issues. You may not think it matters, but in some cases it really does. Again, I wish this were not true.

OldSchool
02-24-2009, 10:34 AM
I think JD ultimately will be very successful at Stanford if they give him a few years.

JD will be fine at teaching basketball and motivating the kids, running the program and coaching in games.

How successful he will be at Stanford will, IMO, come down to recruiting.

For a kid who is a high quality basketball player but is not a lock for the NBA, and who wants to stay on the west coast, Stanford actually offers a recruiting advantage because of the value of the degree the kid can fall back on if the pro basketball career does not materialize. JD can build a solid program with such recruits.

Can JD convince the elite NBA-level talent to come to Stanford, the Derrick Favorses, the John Walls, the Greg Monroes, etc., who may be one-and-done or at least two-and-done? If he does, I think he can take Stanford to an elite status. JD is a very competitive person.

jimsumner
02-24-2009, 12:04 PM
RE: Nate. He was on the basketball staff last year but was not a coach.

"In Coach K's first recruiting class, he signed one player. He missed out on a bunch of top players, finishing second on most lists. He started turning that around with his second recruiting class, including some kid named Dawkins."

Oz is conflating two classes here. Doug McNeely was the only signee in K's first class. Dan Meagher, Todd Anderson, Greg Wendt, and Jay Bryan constituted his second class, after he missed on Chris Mullin, Bill Wennington, Uwe Blab, Jimmy Miller et.al. The Dawkins-Alarie class was his third.

But yes, it does sometimes take awhile. That's why most coaches ask for and receive at least five years. So, I wouldn't write-off JD just yet.

duke09hms
03-20-2011, 03:11 AM
Dawkins finishes up his 3rd year at Stanford at 15-16 (Pac-10 7-11) after a 14-18 record the year before. Several Stanford alums I know, including my best friend ('08), are saying he is on the hot seat next year. Their complaints are not with the record since they acknowledge it's a very young team but moreso with how they play. They follow Stanford bball very closely and give the following reasons:

- Team regresses throughout the season every year, cited as a sign of poor coaching.
- Constantly poor lackluster defense, players frequently getting outworked and outhustled, which supposedly used to be a trademark of Stanford basketball
- No energy or passion from the coaching staff during games. "Dawkins just sits there all game, no fire at all"
- Poor shot selection, too many 3s, Dawkins trying to play "like Duke but without the sharpshooting personnel"

They do say that he seems to be a good recruiter.

I'm pulling for Dawkins to succeed at Stanford since he's my choice for future Duke coach, and I'm curious as to what others think. The Pac-10 has been down for the last few years, but it appears Dawkins hasn't been able to take advantage. Perhaps they're just spoiled with Harbaugh as their former football coach . . .

DukieInBrasil
03-20-2011, 07:41 AM
I wonder if this in any way affected Coach K's recent staff hirings. After Johnny left, his staff became decidedly...white. I'm sure a lot of African American players and their parents like the idea of having at least part of the staff "represent" them, or at least act as a role model to help out. We had Tommy Amaker, then JD. When JD left, they didn't really have any African American representation on the staff, and I wonder if that affected recruiting in any way. I'm sure that the guys are qualified, but maybe their race was an added bonus. Any thoughts?

Nate James is not white, and he's a badass. Chris Carawell is also not white, and involved with Duke basketball, not sure what his title is though.

Bluedevil114
03-20-2011, 08:18 AM
Dawkins finishes up his 3rd year at Stanford at 15-16 (Pac-10 7-11) after a 14-18 record the year before. Several Stanford alums I know, including my best friend ('08), are saying he is on the hot seat next year. Their complaints are not with the record since they acknowledge it's a very young team but moreso with how they play. They follow Stanford bball very closely and give the following reasons:

- Team regresses throughout the season every year, cited as a sign of poor coaching.
- Constantly poor lackluster defense, players frequently getting outworked and outhustled, which supposedly used to be a trademark of Stanford basketball
- No energy or passion from the coaching staff during games. "Dawkins just sits there all game, no fire at all"
- Poor shot selection, too many 3s, Dawkins trying to play "like Duke but without the sharpshooting personnel"

They do say that he seems to be a good recruiter.

I'm pulling for Dawkins to succeed at Stanford since he's my choice for future Duke coach, and I'm curious as to what others think. The Pac-10 has been down for the last few years, but it appears Dawkins hasn't been able to take advantage. Perhaps they're just spoiled with Harbaugh as their former football coach . . .

I love Johnny Dawkins but I believe Chris Collins is the next Duke head coach IMHO.

SuperTurkey
03-20-2011, 08:18 AM
Nate James is not white, and he's a badass. Chris Carawell is also not white, and involved with Duke basketball, not sure what his title is though.

Chris' title is 'next assistant coach once Wojo or Collins get head jobs.' But last I heard his official title was something like 'Athletics Outreach Coordinator.'

moonpie23
03-20-2011, 08:21 AM
I love Johnny Dawkins but I believe Chris Collins is the next Duke head coach IMHO.

i totally agree...

SuperTurkey
03-20-2011, 08:22 AM
i totally agree...

Yep. He has even taken over the Johnny Dawkins memorial pre-halftime interview duties.

BD80
03-20-2011, 08:23 AM
I love Johnny Dawkins but I believe Chris Collins is the next Duke head coach IMHO.

Wow, that would make Chris 53 when he gets the job!

Bob Green
03-20-2011, 08:31 AM
Dawkins finishes up his 3rd year at Stanford at 15-16 (Pac-10 7-11) after a 14-18 record the year before. Several Stanford alums I know, including my best friend ('08), are saying he is on the hot seat next year.

There are no seniors on this season's team so JD should show considerable improvement next year. Being on the hot seat (I'm not saying he is) isn't necessarily a bad situation as it all depends upon how JD and his team responds. It could motivate them to excel.