Oh, so you're saying I'm gonna see a championship in my lifetime?SFCityBear said:That would make Cal more entertaining, and fill the seats. But neither Williamson's or Kidd's teams ever won any conference or NCAA championships. Which one floats your boat, a hot recruit or a championship?concordtom said:Zion Williamson would be even better.parentswerebears said:
I keep waiting for the first transfer in to be announced. Grad big would be preferred...
Or Jason Kidd.
SFCityBear said:Thanks for all the information, and you are spot on with your conclusions.tsubamoto2001 said:
SFCB,
Zion and Kidd were otherworldly college players. One is a Hall of Famer and Zion is likely headed for a HOF NBA career (not an outlandish thing to say, IMO).
He was the main reason Duke was a National Title contender this season and the #1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament. Zion led the NCAA in Box Score Plus-Minus. He was 2nd in Win Shares and WS per 40 minutes. No player had a greater impact on winning basketball than he did this past season.
Duke was way worse without Zion. They beat Virginia twice and that probably doesn't happen without Zion. UVa would have likely gone undefeated in the regular season had Duke not had Zion. Duke went 3-3 without Zion (he played 1 minute in the first UNC game, where his shoe exploded and he hurt his knee). They went 29-3 with Zion. The other 3 games they lost with Zion? A 2-point loss to Gonzaga early in the season, an OT loss to Syracuse, and a 1-point loss to Michigan State in the Elite 8. Had they not had Zion or replaced him with a similar player (a tough task), they probably have 10+ losses.
And the Kidd years for Cal brought the first 2 consecutive seasons of single-digit losses (21-9, 22-8) since the Newell Era. But who would want that, right? And since then Cal has only had single-digit loss seasons 3 times in 25 seasons.
Point is, both Kidd and Zion made their teams much better, and did not simply "entertain" or "fill the seats".SFCityBear said:That would make Cal more entertaining, and fill the seats. But neither Williamson's or Kidd's teams ever won any conference or NCAA championships. Which one floats your boat, a hot recruit or a championship?concordtom said:Zion Williamson would be even better.parentswerebears said:
I keep waiting for the first transfer in to be announced. Grad big would be preferred...
Or Jason Kidd.
However, I was writing my post in response to the topic raised by Parentswerebears that he hoped for Cal to bring in a grad transfer big, and Concord Tom replied that he thought a Zion Williamson or Kidd would be better. So I wrote it in terms of what Cal needs now. There is no doubt that Zion or Jason would improve this wreck of a team called Cal, but only for one year. Jason would improve it more than Zion, IMO, because he would get all five players involved by setting them up for easy open shots, and he would lead the defense, and get them all to play better. Zion is more of an individual star, but the team would be better.
Also, remember that both Zion and Jason did not joint teams at Duke and at Cal which had the deficient roster that Cal has right now. Both of them joined rosters which were already above average. The rosters that they joined were night and day different than Cal's roster at the moment. If Cal wants to go forward this year, a grad big would be desirable. We have no wings other than Bradley, so even a Grant Mullins type would help this roster. If we don't get Vanover back, then a grad transfer big would be good. I would like to see a good grad transfer PG like Arizona's Mark Lyons would help a lot. In any case, it should be a player who does not become the star of the team and then leave in a year, leaving us right back where we were. Jason Kidd would be better than a Zion, because he could teach the rest of the players and maybe the coach how to play winning basketball, all IMHO.
Here is another guy telling me what I'm saying. You'll have to get in line, buddy.concordtom said:Oh, so you're saying I'm gonna see a championship in my lifetime?SFCityBear said:That would make Cal more entertaining, and fill the seats. But neither Williamson's or Kidd's teams ever won any conference or NCAA championships. Which one floats your boat, a hot recruit or a championship?concordtom said:Zion Williamson would be even better.parentswerebears said:
I keep waiting for the first transfer in to be announced. Grad big would be preferred...
Or Jason Kidd.
Bah! Crock!
I agree with you on Vanover and Sueing, Sueing for continuity and Vanover, who has a lot of potential to be a force. It was what I feared most about firing Wyking when they did it. That the roster, and what little he had built would collapse. The next coach starts late in the game, and will be lucky to land recruits or transfers, which is what usually happens. One blessing may be the portal, where a kid can test the waters and change his mind. Austin is OK, but he carries a big load, being asked to set others up and score a lot as well. His defense is not PAC12 level, I think. He would be better if he played on a team with more players who are willing to pass to others when they don't have an open shot.tsubamoto2001 said:
I think the best case scenario would be to get Sueing and Vanover back. It's very unlikely we'll get better players to replace them, especially since they are considered to be a couple of the better sit-out transfers available. IMO, Fox's rebuilding job would be greatly eased if those 2 stay. If they leave, no one can reasonably expect Cal to be better than 9th to 12th place in the conference. The middle of the conference is do-able if our only losses end up being McNeill and Davis.
As far as PG, I feel like Paris Austin is ok. Not great, but he'll be a 5th year senior. The freshman Joel Brown looks promising and getting 15-20 minutes per game from him should be good experience to eventually develop into a starter as a sophomore.SFCityBear said:Thanks for all the information, and you are spot on with your conclusions.tsubamoto2001 said:
SFCB,
Zion and Kidd were otherworldly college players. One is a Hall of Famer and Zion is likely headed for a HOF NBA career (not an outlandish thing to say, IMO).
He was the main reason Duke was a National Title contender this season and the #1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament. Zion led the NCAA in Box Score Plus-Minus. He was 2nd in Win Shares and WS per 40 minutes. No player had a greater impact on winning basketball than he did this past season.
Duke was way worse without Zion. They beat Virginia twice and that probably doesn't happen without Zion. UVa would have likely gone undefeated in the regular season had Duke not had Zion. Duke went 3-3 without Zion (he played 1 minute in the first UNC game, where his shoe exploded and he hurt his knee). They went 29-3 with Zion. The other 3 games they lost with Zion? A 2-point loss to Gonzaga early in the season, an OT loss to Syracuse, and a 1-point loss to Michigan State in the Elite 8. Had they not had Zion or replaced him with a similar player (a tough task), they probably have 10+ losses.
And the Kidd years for Cal brought the first 2 consecutive seasons of single-digit losses (21-9, 22-8) since the Newell Era. But who would want that, right? And since then Cal has only had single-digit loss seasons 3 times in 25 seasons.
Point is, both Kidd and Zion made their teams much better, and did not simply "entertain" or "fill the seats".SFCityBear said:That would make Cal more entertaining, and fill the seats. But neither Williamson's or Kidd's teams ever won any conference or NCAA championships. Which one floats your boat, a hot recruit or a championship?concordtom said:Zion Williamson would be even better.parentswerebears said:
I keep waiting for the first transfer in to be announced. Grad big would be preferred...
Or Jason Kidd.
However, I was writing my post in response to the topic raised by Parentswerebears that he hoped for Cal to bring in a grad transfer big, and Concord Tom replied that he thought a Zion Williamson or Kidd would be better. So I wrote it in terms of what Cal needs now. There is no doubt that Zion or Jason would improve this wreck of a team called Cal, but only for one year. Jason would improve it more than Zion, IMO, because he would get all five players involved by setting them up for easy open shots, and he would lead the defense, and get them all to play better. Zion is more of an individual star, but the team would be better.
Also, remember that both Zion and Jason did not joint teams at Duke and at Cal which had the deficient roster that Cal has right now. Both of them joined rosters which were already above average. The rosters that they joined were night and day different than Cal's roster at the moment. If Cal wants to go forward this year, a grad big would be desirable. We have no wings other than Bradley, so even a Grant Mullins type would help this roster. If we don't get Vanover back, then a grad transfer big would be good. I would like to see a good grad transfer PG like Arizona's Mark Lyons would help a lot. In any case, it should be a player who does not become the star of the team and then leave in a year, leaving us right back where we were. Jason Kidd would be better than a Zion, because he could teach the rest of the players and maybe the coach how to play winning basketball, all IMHO.
Probably so, certainly better than the last two seasons. But we have yet to see even one new player so for a while it might be worse than you think.oskidunker said:
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think.
Not knowing all the facts, I still think the AD may not have called a meeting for the three players (one was Kelly, for sure) and their parents and Jones and his staff to address the players' complaints and try and get the parties to see if they could not come to a solution. Before firing the coach as Knowlton did, that is what I would have done. Of course, he may not have thought of it, or maybe he did, and the players and parents or even Wyking refused such a meeting. If there was no attempt at reconciliation, then I certainly expected those 3 players at least to leave right away if Wyking was not fired.oskidunker said:
What you won't believe is that players would have left if Jones was retained. Kelly for sure and probably McNeil and Dyson.
They are tired if losing with Jones and are not convinced Fox will further their nba aspirations or create a championship team
Players come. Players leave. Since we were the worst team in the nation, I am not assuming it was ALL coaching. Suing may not be a starter anywhere else and Vanover still is a defensive liability.
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think. If I knew all the players would leave, I would still fire Jones because he was not teaching anyone anything and even with 5 star players we would not be a championship team.
stu said:Probably so, certainly better than the last two seasons. But we have yet to see even one new player so for a while it might be worse than you think.oskidunker said:
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think.
I'm sure it is going too far to say that Jones was not teaching anyone anything, but there is a serious lack of evidence that Jones was teaching enough.SFCityBear said:Not knowing all the facts, I still think the AD may not have called a meeting for the three players (one was Kelly, for sure) and their parents and Jones and his staff to address the players' complaints and try and get the parties to see if they could not come to a solution. Before firing the coach as Knowlton did, that is what I would have done. Of course, he may not have thought of it, or maybe he did, and the players and parents or even Wyking refused such a meeting. If there was no attempt at reconciliation, then I certainly expected those 3 players at least to leave right away if Wyking was not fired.oskidunker said:
What you won't believe is that players would have left if Jones was retained. Kelly for sure and probably McNeil and Dyson.
They are tired if losing with Jones and are not convinced Fox will further their nba aspirations or create a championship team
Players come. Players leave. Since we were the worst team in the nation, I am not assuming it was ALL coaching. Suing may not be a starter anywhere else and Vanover still is a defensive liability.
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think. If I knew all the players would leave, I would still fire Jones because he was not teaching anyone anything and even with 5 star players we would not be a championship team.
I think the results starting over with new players might be marginally better, simply because we have a veteran coach who knows how to do enough things to win half his games with average material. That would be an improvement. And most coaches do better after they get their own roster. But if he does not recruit well, and first year coaches seldom do, it will take years to rebuild. He is not going to land any one and dones, 2 and dones or 3 and dones this year, unless they are transfers. Maybe he has a good eye for hidden talent and he can find some.
I disagree with you somewhat on Vanover. He is a liability on defense, but what current Cal player isn't? JHD maybe, except he fouls so much, he can't stay on the floor. At least he is aggressive. Cal was one of the worst if not the worst defensive teams in the country, and you can't blame much of that on Vanover, because he played very few minutes compared to most of the rotation.
I also disagree that Wyking did not teach anyone anything. That is speculation on your part, isn't it? Learning is a two way street, and even if the coach teaches the right things, players may not be capable or want to do it. Jones clearly taught Vanover a lot, because he had improved a lot from the beginning of the season. Anticevich looked improved to me. McNeill regressed, in my mind, but he was learning a new position. Kelly seemed to not improve, and regressed a bit. I think Sueing seems to play by himself, and may not be so easy to teach, but that is speculation on my part. Bradley and Vanover are just freshmen, and with more coaching could become good players. It's fun to speculate, but I wish we didn't have to do it.
This post is just petty. You got your way. Wyking Jones was fired by a fumbled process, first maybe a vote of confidence, and maybe a swift retraction after a conference phone call with three disgruntled parents, and then off with his head. No one among you Jones-haters ever publicly stopped to consider the consequences of firing Jones at the end of a season where the team began to show some improvement. You all thought any coach would be better than Jones, and no one thought any of these players would not be happy if Jones got the axe and might leave our precious Cal. You all expected that Cal would hire a good coach or at least hire a promising coach who would give us hope. Surprise. It didn't happen that way, and now you don't like the way forward, the way that you all wished for and maybe helped create.Cal8285 said:I'm sure it is going too far to say that Jones was not teaching anyone anything, but there is a serious lack of evidence that Jones was teaching enough.SFCityBear said:Not knowing all the facts, I still think the AD may not have called a meeting for the three players (one was Kelly, for sure) and their parents and Jones and his staff to address the players' complaints and try and get the parties to see if they could not come to a solution. Before firing the coach as Knowlton did, that is what I would have done. Of course, he may not have thought of it, or maybe he did, and the players and parents or even Wyking refused such a meeting. If there was no attempt at reconciliation, then I certainly expected those 3 players at least to leave right away if Wyking was not fired.oskidunker said:
What you won't believe is that players would have left if Jones was retained. Kelly for sure and probably McNeil and Dyson.
They are tired if losing with Jones and are not convinced Fox will further their nba aspirations or create a championship team
Players come. Players leave. Since we were the worst team in the nation, I am not assuming it was ALL coaching. Suing may not be a starter anywhere else and Vanover still is a defensive liability.
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think. If I knew all the players would leave, I would still fire Jones because he was not teaching anyone anything and even with 5 star players we would not be a championship team.
I think the results starting over with new players might be marginally better, simply because we have a veteran coach who knows how to do enough things to win half his games with average material. That would be an improvement. And most coaches do better after they get their own roster. But if he does not recruit well, and first year coaches seldom do, it will take years to rebuild. He is not going to land any one and dones, 2 and dones or 3 and dones this year, unless they are transfers. Maybe he has a good eye for hidden talent and he can find some.
I disagree with you somewhat on Vanover. He is a liability on defense, but what current Cal player isn't? JHD maybe, except he fouls so much, he can't stay on the floor. At least he is aggressive. Cal was one of the worst if not the worst defensive teams in the country, and you can't blame much of that on Vanover, because he played very few minutes compared to most of the rotation.
I also disagree that Wyking did not teach anyone anything. That is speculation on your part, isn't it? Learning is a two way street, and even if the coach teaches the right things, players may not be capable or want to do it. Jones clearly taught Vanover a lot, because he had improved a lot from the beginning of the season. Anticevich looked improved to me. McNeill regressed, in my mind, but he was learning a new position. Kelly seemed to not improve, and regressed a bit. I think Sueing seems to play by himself, and may not be so easy to teach, but that is speculation on my part. Bradley and Vanover are just freshmen, and with more coaching could become good players. It's fun to speculate, but I wish we didn't have to do it.
To avoid putting words into your mouth, however, here is exactly what YOU posted 3 months ago regarding Jones: "There is no evidence he can help with game strategy, or with game tactics. There is not a lot of evidence over the last two years that he can make players individually better, or better team players. He might be able to coach bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO last season, maybe regression. Did Rooks leave because he felt he'd get better personal coaching at SDS? So that leaves recruiting. Jones is perhaps adequate in that regard."
With that analysis from the biggest Jones supporter around, the AD doesn't need to have a meeting. Sure, there is some "speculation," but we can see results. No meeting necessary to fire the HC that you described, all one needs is your observations. And I'm sure that Knowlton made many observations beyond that which warranted a firing.
I am not optimistic that Fox can take Cal beyond middle of the Pac. I am, however, optimistic that he will be a big improvement over Jones. Based on the words I quoted from SFCityBear, that is a very low bar. Still, an improvement.
How do you know the process was fumbled when Jones was fired? You are speculating. You are basing that on unverified posts made that the AD seems to deny were true. Why do you trust unverified posts and not the AD? I acknowledge, the AD could be lying, but he also could be telling the truth.SFCityBear said:This post is just petty. You got your way. Wyking Jones was fired by a fumbled process, first maybe a vote of confidence, and maybe a swift retraction after a conference phone call with three disgruntled parents, and then off with his head. No one among you Jones-haters ever publicly stopped to consider the consequences of firing Jones at the end of a season where the team began to show some improvement. You all thought any coach would be better than Jones, and no one thought any of these players would not be happy if Jones got the axe and might leave our precious Cal. You all expected that Cal would hire a good coach or at least hire a promising coach who would give us hope. Surprise. It didn't happen that way, and now you don't like the way forward, the way that you all wished for and maybe helped create.Cal8285 said:I'm sure it is going too far to say that Jones was not teaching anyone anything, but there is a serious lack of evidence that Jones was teaching enough.SFCityBear said:Not knowing all the facts, I still think the AD may not have called a meeting for the three players (one was Kelly, for sure) and their parents and Jones and his staff to address the players' complaints and try and get the parties to see if they could not come to a solution. Before firing the coach as Knowlton did, that is what I would have done. Of course, he may not have thought of it, or maybe he did, and the players and parents or even Wyking refused such a meeting. If there was no attempt at reconciliation, then I certainly expected those 3 players at least to leave right away if Wyking was not fired.oskidunker said:
What you won't believe is that players would have left if Jones was retained. Kelly for sure and probably McNeil and Dyson.
They are tired if losing with Jones and are not convinced Fox will further their nba aspirations or create a championship team
Players come. Players leave. Since we were the worst team in the nation, I am not assuming it was ALL coaching. Suing may not be a starter anywhere else and Vanover still is a defensive liability.
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think. If I knew all the players would leave, I would still fire Jones because he was not teaching anyone anything and even with 5 star players we would not be a championship team.
I think the results starting over with new players might be marginally better, simply because we have a veteran coach who knows how to do enough things to win half his games with average material. That would be an improvement. And most coaches do better after they get their own roster. But if he does not recruit well, and first year coaches seldom do, it will take years to rebuild. He is not going to land any one and dones, 2 and dones or 3 and dones this year, unless they are transfers. Maybe he has a good eye for hidden talent and he can find some.
I disagree with you somewhat on Vanover. He is a liability on defense, but what current Cal player isn't? JHD maybe, except he fouls so much, he can't stay on the floor. At least he is aggressive. Cal was one of the worst if not the worst defensive teams in the country, and you can't blame much of that on Vanover, because he played very few minutes compared to most of the rotation.
I also disagree that Wyking did not teach anyone anything. That is speculation on your part, isn't it? Learning is a two way street, and even if the coach teaches the right things, players may not be capable or want to do it. Jones clearly taught Vanover a lot, because he had improved a lot from the beginning of the season. Anticevich looked improved to me. McNeill regressed, in my mind, but he was learning a new position. Kelly seemed to not improve, and regressed a bit. I think Sueing seems to play by himself, and may not be so easy to teach, but that is speculation on my part. Bradley and Vanover are just freshmen, and with more coaching could become good players. It's fun to speculate, but I wish we didn't have to do it.
To avoid putting words into your mouth, however, here is exactly what YOU posted 3 months ago regarding Jones: "There is no evidence he can help with game strategy, or with game tactics. There is not a lot of evidence over the last two years that he can make players individually better, or better team players. He might be able to coach bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO last season, maybe regression. Did Rooks leave because he felt he'd get better personal coaching at SDS? So that leaves recruiting. Jones is perhaps adequate in that regard."
With that analysis from the biggest Jones supporter around, the AD doesn't need to have a meeting. Sure, there is some "speculation," but we can see results. No meeting necessary to fire the HC that you described, all one needs is your observations. And I'm sure that Knowlton made many observations beyond that which warranted a firing.
I am not optimistic that Fox can take Cal beyond middle of the Pac. I am, however, optimistic that he will be a big improvement over Jones. Based on the words I quoted from SFCityBear, that is a very low bar. Still, an improvement.
Yes, I said those words you quoted and stick by them. The guy who wrote them does not sound like a Jones supporter to me. And I wasn't. I said so a number of times. I was not a Jones supporter. I was a supporter of a proper process to decide his fate. I said a few times that I did not know enough to fire him. I wanted to know whether he was not teaching the players the right things or whether the players were resisting doing the right things. Were they stubborn punks or were they immature kids wanting to goof off and not listen to an inexperienced coach? Were they just not very talented players? I needed to see practices to gauge what was going on between players and coach. We are barred from practice, and so I depend on those who have seen practice, like Mike Montgomery. He stated that Jones was teaching the right things. Some Jones detractors went so far as to accuse Montgomery of not being honest when talking about another coach. Montgomery may be many things, but you got more honesty out of him over the years as Cal coach than I've heard from a lot of coaches. A number of you guys had your minds made up to fire Jones the day he took the job as head coach.
My observations which you quoted were from January 27, prior to the time when Vanover had made enough improvement to move from the far end of the bench with the walk-ons into Wyking's usual 6 or 7 man rotation and start getting meaningful minutes. That happened on February 3, against Stanford. Two games later, on February 6, against Oregon State, Vanover had progressed enough to be named a starter, where he remained for the rest of the season. Cal began to play better as a team, but it would be 5 more games until Cal before would win its first PAC12 game, a great win against the eventual PAC12 champion, Washington on February 28. There were even Jones haters who said that the reason Vanover improved was not anything Wyking Jones did, it was just that he got more playing time and got more comfortable the more he played. Of course playing in games helps, but he had to impress the coach in practice before he would be granted minutes. Some of you guys are unbelievable, in what you will say to defend a point of view, just close your eyes and type.
Anyone who has been a manager knows that you have to resolve disputes, and a good AD doesn't do that by making a decision just by looking from the stands at how the games are being played, and whether the team or the players are playing better or not. You say you are sure that the AD made a lot more observations than mine to make his decision. How can you be sure of that? Did you talk with him or Jones or any of the players? Do you even know if he attended practices at all? If you are so sure of this, then what are your sources? I, in fact, am very suspicious. It sure looks to me from the events that took place, that he talked with no one we know of beyond what we have read in the media. I doubt that he ever went to practices. Why do you think Monty went to Jones' practices? He wanted to make up his mind about Jones. I doubt that Knowlton did a thorough coaching search. I think he allowed himself to be swayed by those in the Admin who worried about the empty seats, by the deep pocket donors, and maybe threatened by the three sets of parents on the conference call. I got the feeling he doesn't know a basketball from a beach ball, any more than Mike Williams did. I hope to hell I'm wrong, and Fox turns out to be a bright light and saves the Cal program from its current situation. And saves the AD his job.
SFCityBear said:This post is just petty. You got your way. Wyking Jones was fired by a fumbled process, first maybe a vote of confidence, and maybe a swift retraction after a conference phone call with three disgruntled parents, and then off with his head. No one among you Jones-haters ever publicly stopped to consider the consequences of firing Jones at the end of a season where the team began to show some improvement. You all thought any coach would be better than Jones, and no one thought any of these players would not be happy if Jones got the axe and might leave our precious Cal. You all expected that Cal would hire a good coach or at least hire a promising coach who would give us hope. Surprise. It didn't happen that way, and now you don't like the way forward, the way that you all wished for and maybe helped create.Cal8285 said:I'm sure it is going too far to say that Jones was not teaching anyone anything, but there is a serious lack of evidence that Jones was teaching enough.SFCityBear said:Not knowing all the facts, I still think the AD may not have called a meeting for the three players (one was Kelly, for sure) and their parents and Jones and his staff to address the players' complaints and try and get the parties to see if they could not come to a solution. Before firing the coach as Knowlton did, that is what I would have done. Of course, he may not have thought of it, or maybe he did, and the players and parents or even Wyking refused such a meeting. If there was no attempt at reconciliation, then I certainly expected those 3 players at least to leave right away if Wyking was not fired.oskidunker said:
What you won't believe is that players would have left if Jones was retained. Kelly for sure and probably McNeil and Dyson.
They are tired if losing with Jones and are not convinced Fox will further their nba aspirations or create a championship team
Players come. Players leave. Since we were the worst team in the nation, I am not assuming it was ALL coaching. Suing may not be a starter anywhere else and Vanover still is a defensive liability.
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think. If I knew all the players would leave, I would still fire Jones because he was not teaching anyone anything and even with 5 star players we would not be a championship team.
I think the results starting over with new players might be marginally better, simply because we have a veteran coach who knows how to do enough things to win half his games with average material. That would be an improvement. And most coaches do better after they get their own roster. But if he does not recruit well, and first year coaches seldom do, it will take years to rebuild. He is not going to land any one and dones, 2 and dones or 3 and dones this year, unless they are transfers. Maybe he has a good eye for hidden talent and he can find some.
I disagree with you somewhat on Vanover. He is a liability on defense, but what current Cal player isn't? JHD maybe, except he fouls so much, he can't stay on the floor. At least he is aggressive. Cal was one of the worst if not the worst defensive teams in the country, and you can't blame much of that on Vanover, because he played very few minutes compared to most of the rotation.
I also disagree that Wyking did not teach anyone anything. That is speculation on your part, isn't it? Learning is a two way street, and even if the coach teaches the right things, players may not be capable or want to do it. Jones clearly taught Vanover a lot, because he had improved a lot from the beginning of the season. Anticevich looked improved to me. McNeill regressed, in my mind, but he was learning a new position. Kelly seemed to not improve, and regressed a bit. I think Sueing seems to play by himself, and may not be so easy to teach, but that is speculation on my part. Bradley and Vanover are just freshmen, and with more coaching could become good players. It's fun to speculate, but I wish we didn't have to do it.
To avoid putting words into your mouth, however, here is exactly what YOU posted 3 months ago regarding Jones: "There is no evidence he can help with game strategy, or with game tactics. There is not a lot of evidence over the last two years that he can make players individually better, or better team players. He might be able to coach bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO last season, maybe regression. Did Rooks leave because he felt he'd get better personal coaching at SDS? So that leaves recruiting. Jones is perhaps adequate in that regard."
With that analysis from the biggest Jones supporter around, the AD doesn't need to have a meeting. Sure, there is some "speculation," but we can see results. No meeting necessary to fire the HC that you described, all one needs is your observations. And I'm sure that Knowlton made many observations beyond that which warranted a firing.
I am not optimistic that Fox can take Cal beyond middle of the Pac. I am, however, optimistic that he will be a big improvement over Jones. Based on the words I quoted from SFCityBear, that is a very low bar. Still, an improvement.
Yes, I said those words you quoted and stick by them. The guy who wrote them does not sound like a Jones supporter to me. And I wasn't. I said so a number of times. I was not a Jones supporter. I was a supporter of a proper process to decide his fate. I said a few times that I did not know enough to fire him. I wanted to know whether he was not teaching the players the right things or whether the players were resisting doing the right things. Were they stubborn punks or were they immature kids wanting to goof off and not listen to an inexperienced coach? Were they just not very talented players? I needed to see practices to gauge what was going on between players and coach. We are barred from practice, and so I depend on those who have seen practice, like Mike Montgomery. He stated that Jones was teaching the right things. Some Jones detractors went so far as to accuse Montgomery of not being honest when talking about another coach. Montgomery may be many things, but you got more honesty out of him over the years as Cal coach than I've heard from a lot of coaches. A number of you guys had your minds made up to fire Jones the day he took the job as head coach.
My observations which you quoted were from January 27, prior to the time when Vanover had made enough improvement to move from the far end of the bench with the walk-ons into Wyking's usual 6 or 7 man rotation and start getting meaningful minutes. That happened on February 3, against Stanford. Two games later, on February 6, against Oregon State, Vanover had progressed enough to be named a starter, where he remained for the rest of the season. Cal began to play better as a team, but it would be 5 more games until Cal before would win its first PAC12 game, a great win against the eventual PAC12 champion, Washington on February 28. There were even Jones haters who said that the reason Vanover improved was not anything Wyking Jones did, it was just that he got more playing time and got more comfortable the more he played. Of course playing in games helps, but he had to impress the coach in practice before he would be granted minutes. Some of you guys are unbelievable, in what you will say to defend a point of view, just close your eyes and type.
Anyone who has been a manager knows that you have to resolve disputes, and a good AD doesn't do that by making a decision just by looking from the stands at how the games are being played, and whether the team or the players are playing better or not. You say you are sure that the AD made a lot more observations than mine to make his decision. How can you be sure of that? Did you talk with him or Jones or any of the players? Do you even know if he attended practices at all? If you are so sure of this, then what are your sources? I, in fact, am very suspicious. It sure looks to me from the events that took place, that he talked with no one we know of beyond what we have read in the media. I doubt that he ever went to practices. Why do you think Monty went to Jones' practices? He wanted to make up his mind about Jones. I doubt that Knowlton did a thorough coaching search. I think he allowed himself to be swayed by those in the Admin who worried about the empty seats, by the deep pocket donors, and maybe threatened by the three sets of parents on the conference call. I got the feeling he doesn't know a basketball from a beach ball, any more than Mike Williams did. I hope to hell I'm wrong, and Fox turns out to be a bright light and saves the Cal program from its current situation. And saves the AD his job.
Should have ordered steak tartare.OaktownBear said:
I go to a restaurant and order a steak. The waiter brings it out and it is burned beyond recognition. I'm upset. I send it back. The waiter comes back in 30 second with a raw steak on a plate. Now I'm really mad. His response is that I should have realized when I sent the first steak back that it could get worse so it is my own fault and I have no right to complain.
You are the waiter in this scenario. I expect that the AD will be competent. That means he makes competent decisions. Not that he makes some competent decisions and some incompetent. I expect 2 competent decisions here. Fire a failing coach. Hire a good candidate to replace him. If he fails in either decision, he gets a failing grade. He doesn't get a pass on the second decision because he made the first. You keep saying we got what we want - Jones getting fired, and we're still not happy. Jones being fired was not what I wanted. A good coach is what I wanted. If Knowlton instead found Aladdin's lamp and used a wish to turn Jones into a good coach, I would be fine. Given that unlikelihood, firing him and hiring a good coach was the only way to get what I wanted. That is a two step process. It was implied as part of the desire of everyone who wanted Jones fired. Being cute and pretending ignorance in that so you can say "well you didn't say that is what you wanted" like an effing 3 year old is not a genuine argument.
SFCityBear said:
You all thought any coach would be better than Jones, and no one thought any of these players would not be happy if Jones got the axe and might leave our precious Cal. You all expected that Cal would hire a good coach or at least hire a promising coach who would give us hope. Surprise. It didn't happen that way, and now you don't like the way forward, the way that you all wished for and maybe helped create.
Quote:
Here is another guy telling me what I'm saying. You'll have to get in line, buddy.
He shouldn't order steaks at Golden Corral. And that's the real key here. Cal is to D1 Basketball as Golden Corral is to restaurants.joe amos yaks said:Should have ordered steak tartare.OaktownBear said:
I go to a restaurant and order a steak. The waiter brings it out and it is burned beyond recognition. I'm upset. I send it back. The waiter comes back in 30 second with a raw steak on a plate. Now I'm really mad. His response is that I should have realized when I sent the first steak back that it could get worse so it is my own fault and I have no right to complain.
You are the waiter in this scenario. I expect that the AD will be competent. That means he makes competent decisions. Not that he makes some competent decisions and some incompetent. I expect 2 competent decisions here. Fire a failing coach. Hire a good candidate to replace him. If he fails in either decision, he gets a failing grade. He doesn't get a pass on the second decision because he made the first. You keep saying we got what we want - Jones getting fired, and we're still not happy. Jones being fired was not what I wanted. A good coach is what I wanted. If Knowlton instead found Aladdin's lamp and used a wish to turn Jones into a good coach, I would be fine. Given that unlikelihood, firing him and hiring a good coach was the only way to get what I wanted. That is a two step process. It was implied as part of the desire of everyone who wanted Jones fired. Being cute and pretending ignorance in that so you can say "well you didn't say that is what you wanted" like an effing 3 year old is not a genuine argument.
You sure it wasn't filet de cheval?Big C said:
Ever eat steak in France? They serve 'em REALLY rare. I mean, what they call "medium", we would call "rare-to-very-rare". They say you can tell how good the meat is that way. Twice, I could hardly chew the meat, it was so rare. No way I was sending it back. i figure who knows what they're going to do to an American's steak that gets sent back.
Look, don't you think you are arguing for the sake of arguing? You respond to my post by accusing me of speculating, while writing a post full of your own speculation. Speculation about what happened in the firing, why the coach was fired, what the AD did, and what I think or believe. You are another guy who reads what I write and likes to then tell me what it is that I really am saying or thinking. Never mind the actual words I write. So you are allowed to speculate and I'm not? Sure I speculated. I plead guilty. That is what many of us do on this forum. If we didn't speculate here, we'd have far fewer posts, especially in a losing season.Cal8285 said:How do you know the process was fumbled when Jones was fired? You are speculating. You are basing that on unverified posts made that the AD seems to deny were true. Why do you trust unverified posts and not the AD? I acknowledge, the AD could be lying, but he also could be telling the truth.SFCityBear said:This post is just petty. You got your way. Wyking Jones was fired by a fumbled process, first maybe a vote of confidence, and maybe a swift retraction after a conference phone call with three disgruntled parents, and then off with his head. No one among you Jones-haters ever publicly stopped to consider the consequences of firing Jones at the end of a season where the team began to show some improvement. You all thought any coach would be better than Jones, and no one thought any of these players would not be happy if Jones got the axe and might leave our precious Cal. You all expected that Cal would hire a good coach or at least hire a promising coach who would give us hope. Surprise. It didn't happen that way, and now you don't like the way forward, the way that you all wished for and maybe helped create.Cal8285 said:I'm sure it is going too far to say that Jones was not teaching anyone anything, but there is a serious lack of evidence that Jones was teaching enough.SFCityBear said:Not knowing all the facts, I still think the AD may not have called a meeting for the three players (one was Kelly, for sure) and their parents and Jones and his staff to address the players' complaints and try and get the parties to see if they could not come to a solution. Before firing the coach as Knowlton did, that is what I would have done. Of course, he may not have thought of it, or maybe he did, and the players and parents or even Wyking refused such a meeting. If there was no attempt at reconciliation, then I certainly expected those 3 players at least to leave right away if Wyking was not fired.oskidunker said:
What you won't believe is that players would have left if Jones was retained. Kelly for sure and probably McNeil and Dyson.
They are tired if losing with Jones and are not convinced Fox will further their nba aspirations or create a championship team
Players come. Players leave. Since we were the worst team in the nation, I am not assuming it was ALL coaching. Suing may not be a starter anywhere else and Vanover still is a defensive liability.
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think. If I knew all the players would leave, I would still fire Jones because he was not teaching anyone anything and even with 5 star players we would not be a championship team.
I think the results starting over with new players might be marginally better, simply because we have a veteran coach who knows how to do enough things to win half his games with average material. That would be an improvement. And most coaches do better after they get their own roster. But if he does not recruit well, and first year coaches seldom do, it will take years to rebuild. He is not going to land any one and dones, 2 and dones or 3 and dones this year, unless they are transfers. Maybe he has a good eye for hidden talent and he can find some.
I disagree with you somewhat on Vanover. He is a liability on defense, but what current Cal player isn't? JHD maybe, except he fouls so much, he can't stay on the floor. At least he is aggressive. Cal was one of the worst if not the worst defensive teams in the country, and you can't blame much of that on Vanover, because he played very few minutes compared to most of the rotation.
I also disagree that Wyking did not teach anyone anything. That is speculation on your part, isn't it? Learning is a two way street, and even if the coach teaches the right things, players may not be capable or want to do it. Jones clearly taught Vanover a lot, because he had improved a lot from the beginning of the season. Anticevich looked improved to me. McNeill regressed, in my mind, but he was learning a new position. Kelly seemed to not improve, and regressed a bit. I think Sueing seems to play by himself, and may not be so easy to teach, but that is speculation on my part. Bradley and Vanover are just freshmen, and with more coaching could become good players. It's fun to speculate, but I wish we didn't have to do it.
To avoid putting words into your mouth, however, here is exactly what YOU posted 3 months ago regarding Jones: "There is no evidence he can help with game strategy, or with game tactics. There is not a lot of evidence over the last two years that he can make players individually better, or better team players. He might be able to coach bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO last season, maybe regression. Did Rooks leave because he felt he'd get better personal coaching at SDS? So that leaves recruiting. Jones is perhaps adequate in that regard."
With that analysis from the biggest Jones supporter around, the AD doesn't need to have a meeting. Sure, there is some "speculation," but we can see results. No meeting necessary to fire the HC that you described, all one needs is your observations. And I'm sure that Knowlton made many observations beyond that which warranted a firing.
I am not optimistic that Fox can take Cal beyond middle of the Pac. I am, however, optimistic that he will be a big improvement over Jones. Based on the words I quoted from SFCityBear, that is a very low bar. Still, an improvement.
Yes, I said those words you quoted and stick by them. The guy who wrote them does not sound like a Jones supporter to me. And I wasn't. I said so a number of times. I was not a Jones supporter. I was a supporter of a proper process to decide his fate. I said a few times that I did not know enough to fire him. I wanted to know whether he was not teaching the players the right things or whether the players were resisting doing the right things. Were they stubborn punks or were they immature kids wanting to goof off and not listen to an inexperienced coach? Were they just not very talented players? I needed to see practices to gauge what was going on between players and coach. We are barred from practice, and so I depend on those who have seen practice, like Mike Montgomery. He stated that Jones was teaching the right things. Some Jones detractors went so far as to accuse Montgomery of not being honest when talking about another coach. Montgomery may be many things, but you got more honesty out of him over the years as Cal coach than I've heard from a lot of coaches. A number of you guys had your minds made up to fire Jones the day he took the job as head coach.
My observations which you quoted were from January 27, prior to the time when Vanover had made enough improvement to move from the far end of the bench with the walk-ons into Wyking's usual 6 or 7 man rotation and start getting meaningful minutes. That happened on February 3, against Stanford. Two games later, on February 6, against Oregon State, Vanover had progressed enough to be named a starter, where he remained for the rest of the season. Cal began to play better as a team, but it would be 5 more games until Cal before would win its first PAC12 game, a great win against the eventual PAC12 champion, Washington on February 28. There were even Jones haters who said that the reason Vanover improved was not anything Wyking Jones did, it was just that he got more playing time and got more comfortable the more he played. Of course playing in games helps, but he had to impress the coach in practice before he would be granted minutes. Some of you guys are unbelievable, in what you will say to defend a point of view, just close your eyes and type.
Anyone who has been a manager knows that you have to resolve disputes, and a good AD doesn't do that by making a decision just by looking from the stands at how the games are being played, and whether the team or the players are playing better or not. You say you are sure that the AD made a lot more observations than mine to make his decision. How can you be sure of that? Did you talk with him or Jones or any of the players? Do you even know if he attended practices at all? If you are so sure of this, then what are your sources? I, in fact, am very suspicious. It sure looks to me from the events that took place, that he talked with no one we know of beyond what we have read in the media. I doubt that he ever went to practices. Why do you think Monty went to Jones' practices? He wanted to make up his mind about Jones. I doubt that Knowlton did a thorough coaching search. I think he allowed himself to be swayed by those in the Admin who worried about the empty seats, by the deep pocket donors, and maybe threatened by the three sets of parents on the conference call. I got the feeling he doesn't know a basketball from a beach ball, any more than Mike Williams did. I hope to hell I'm wrong, and Fox turns out to be a bright light and saves the Cal program from its current situation. And saves the AD his job.
If you have been around Cal long enough, then you should know that certain things are true. A LOT of things have happened beyond what you read in the media. The Cal rumor mill is VERY unreliable, even with the sources are typically reliable sources. Case in point, I heard 3 inconsistent different versions of John Kasser leaving Cal, all of which came from well connected typically reliable sources. To this day, I don't know which, if any, was true, but I know that at most, one was true.
If you think that the firing was based on player complaints and any need to "come to a solution" to "resolve disputes," then a) you are speculating, and b) I'm 99.4% sure you are wrong. I don't care who your sources are, players, coaches, the AD himself, whatever you think happened, you are speculating.
Any good manager knows that when a lower level manager under him is hopelessly over his head, you don't try to resolve a "dispute," the "solution" you come to is replace that lower level manager.
Jones was way over his head, you know it, I know it, he needed to be replaced. You said in a post TWO DAYS AGO, "Jones had almost nothing to recommend him except enough team improvement to win their last three games."
If that's all that Jones had to recommend him, then any competent AD should have fired him. In one sense, I think you don't give Jones enough credit, he also had to recommend him the fact that in 8 of the final 10 games, the team was improved over the prior 12 games. However, that begs the question, when the team showed how it could play in games like St. John's and San Diego St., why couldn't Jones get them to play decently for a 12 game stretch? They played 31 minutes of really good basketball against UW. Why couldn't the team play that level of basketball at any other time during the year, not even in the next two games they won or the Pac-12 tournament, and certainly not during any other prior game. Unlike the UW game in Seattle, when the Bears got ahead by 11 in the first half and it was more about how poorly UW was playing than how well Cal was playing, those first 31 minutes against UW at Cal were precisely about how well Cal was playing. They had it in them, why could Jones never get that quality of play out of his team all season except in those 31 minutes? How could any competent HC let a team play the way they did against USC at Haas, when it was very hard not to feel like a 6th grade CYO team had better fundamentals?
Maybe the process of terminating him was fumbled, maybe the process of replacing him was fumbled, but none of that changes what I think every observer understood -- Jones was in over his head as a HC. That may not be enough for you, but a good manager would say that is enough to cut the losses on the old decision and move ahead.
If there were two choices, several more years of basketball doom under Jones or a couple years of doom under Fox followed by mediocrity, well, I'll take the latter. I hope we do better than that with Fox, but no matter what, I don't want a coach of whom you said 2 days ago, "Jones had almost nothing to recommend him except enough team improvement to win their last three games."
Nope, that's a coach that needed to go, perhaps in a better process, perhaps replaced in a better process, but man, that's a coach that needs to go, period.
I've eaten horse (also in France). It's somewhat different than beef; I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference. On a side note, while I was eating it (horse meat), my mind flashed on the first horse I could think of: Mr. Ed. Then, I immediately thought of John Elway. Highly doubtful I'll ever eat horse again. On the other hand, I have sometimes gone to great lengths to try and impress the French, so who knows?Civil Bear said:You sure it wasn't filet de cheval?Big C said:
Ever eat steak in France? They serve 'em REALLY rare. I mean, what they call "medium", we would call "rare-to-very-rare". They say you can tell how good the meat is that way. Twice, I could hardly chew the meat, it was so rare. No way I was sending it back. i figure who knows what they're going to do to an American's steak that gets sent back.
I go to restaurants but they are mostly Chinese and Japanese, so I don't have these problems. My father was a meat eater, about a whole cow every month. I remember a time when my mother overcooked a steak, and he threw it on the floor. My mom threw the frying pan at him. And that was life in a house with an Italian father and Irish mother.OaktownBear said:SFCityBear said:This post is just petty. You got your way. Wyking Jones was fired by a fumbled process, first maybe a vote of confidence, and maybe a swift retraction after a conference phone call with three disgruntled parents, and then off with his head. No one among you Jones-haters ever publicly stopped to consider the consequences of firing Jones at the end of a season where the team began to show some improvement. You all thought any coach would be better than Jones, and no one thought any of these players would not be happy if Jones got the axe and might leave our precious Cal. You all expected that Cal would hire a good coach or at least hire a promising coach who would give us hope. Surprise. It didn't happen that way, and now you don't like the way forward, the way that you all wished for and maybe helped create.Cal8285 said:I'm sure it is going too far to say that Jones was not teaching anyone anything, but there is a serious lack of evidence that Jones was teaching enough.SFCityBear said:Not knowing all the facts, I still think the AD may not have called a meeting for the three players (one was Kelly, for sure) and their parents and Jones and his staff to address the players' complaints and try and get the parties to see if they could not come to a solution. Before firing the coach as Knowlton did, that is what I would have done. Of course, he may not have thought of it, or maybe he did, and the players and parents or even Wyking refused such a meeting. If there was no attempt at reconciliation, then I certainly expected those 3 players at least to leave right away if Wyking was not fired.oskidunker said:
What you won't believe is that players would have left if Jones was retained. Kelly for sure and probably McNeil and Dyson.
They are tired if losing with Jones and are not convinced Fox will further their nba aspirations or create a championship team
Players come. Players leave. Since we were the worst team in the nation, I am not assuming it was ALL coaching. Suing may not be a starter anywhere else and Vanover still is a defensive liability.
If we start over with all new players, the results may be better than you think. If I knew all the players would leave, I would still fire Jones because he was not teaching anyone anything and even with 5 star players we would not be a championship team.
I think the results starting over with new players might be marginally better, simply because we have a veteran coach who knows how to do enough things to win half his games with average material. That would be an improvement. And most coaches do better after they get their own roster. But if he does not recruit well, and first year coaches seldom do, it will take years to rebuild. He is not going to land any one and dones, 2 and dones or 3 and dones this year, unless they are transfers. Maybe he has a good eye for hidden talent and he can find some.
I disagree with you somewhat on Vanover. He is a liability on defense, but what current Cal player isn't? JHD maybe, except he fouls so much, he can't stay on the floor. At least he is aggressive. Cal was one of the worst if not the worst defensive teams in the country, and you can't blame much of that on Vanover, because he played very few minutes compared to most of the rotation.
I also disagree that Wyking did not teach anyone anything. That is speculation on your part, isn't it? Learning is a two way street, and even if the coach teaches the right things, players may not be capable or want to do it. Jones clearly taught Vanover a lot, because he had improved a lot from the beginning of the season. Anticevich looked improved to me. McNeill regressed, in my mind, but he was learning a new position. Kelly seemed to not improve, and regressed a bit. I think Sueing seems to play by himself, and may not be so easy to teach, but that is speculation on my part. Bradley and Vanover are just freshmen, and with more coaching could become good players. It's fun to speculate, but I wish we didn't have to do it.
To avoid putting words into your mouth, however, here is exactly what YOU posted 3 months ago regarding Jones: "There is no evidence he can help with game strategy, or with game tactics. There is not a lot of evidence over the last two years that he can make players individually better, or better team players. He might be able to coach bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO last season, maybe regression. Did Rooks leave because he felt he'd get better personal coaching at SDS? So that leaves recruiting. Jones is perhaps adequate in that regard."
With that analysis from the biggest Jones supporter around, the AD doesn't need to have a meeting. Sure, there is some "speculation," but we can see results. No meeting necessary to fire the HC that you described, all one needs is your observations. And I'm sure that Knowlton made many observations beyond that which warranted a firing.
I am not optimistic that Fox can take Cal beyond middle of the Pac. I am, however, optimistic that he will be a big improvement over Jones. Based on the words I quoted from SFCityBear, that is a very low bar. Still, an improvement.
Yes, I said those words you quoted and stick by them. The guy who wrote them does not sound like a Jones supporter to me. And I wasn't. I said so a number of times. I was not a Jones supporter. I was a supporter of a proper process to decide his fate. I said a few times that I did not know enough to fire him. I wanted to know whether he was not teaching the players the right things or whether the players were resisting doing the right things. Were they stubborn punks or were they immature kids wanting to goof off and not listen to an inexperienced coach? Were they just not very talented players? I needed to see practices to gauge what was going on between players and coach. We are barred from practice, and so I depend on those who have seen practice, like Mike Montgomery. He stated that Jones was teaching the right things. Some Jones detractors went so far as to accuse Montgomery of not being honest when talking about another coach. Montgomery may be many things, but you got more honesty out of him over the years as Cal coach than I've heard from a lot of coaches. A number of you guys had your minds made up to fire Jones the day he took the job as head coach.
My observations which you quoted were from January 27, prior to the time when Vanover had made enough improvement to move from the far end of the bench with the walk-ons into Wyking's usual 6 or 7 man rotation and start getting meaningful minutes. That happened on February 3, against Stanford. Two games later, on February 6, against Oregon State, Vanover had progressed enough to be named a starter, where he remained for the rest of the season. Cal began to play better as a team, but it would be 5 more games until Cal before would win its first PAC12 game, a great win against the eventual PAC12 champion, Washington on February 28. There were even Jones haters who said that the reason Vanover improved was not anything Wyking Jones did, it was just that he got more playing time and got more comfortable the more he played. Of course playing in games helps, but he had to impress the coach in practice before he would be granted minutes. Some of you guys are unbelievable, in what you will say to defend a point of view, just close your eyes and type.
Anyone who has been a manager knows that you have to resolve disputes, and a good AD doesn't do that by making a decision just by looking from the stands at how the games are being played, and whether the team or the players are playing better or not. You say you are sure that the AD made a lot more observations than mine to make his decision. How can you be sure of that? Did you talk with him or Jones or any of the players? Do you even know if he attended practices at all? If you are so sure of this, then what are your sources? I, in fact, am very suspicious. It sure looks to me from the events that took place, that he talked with no one we know of beyond what we have read in the media. I doubt that he ever went to practices. Why do you think Monty went to Jones' practices? He wanted to make up his mind about Jones. I doubt that Knowlton did a thorough coaching search. I think he allowed himself to be swayed by those in the Admin who worried about the empty seats, by the deep pocket donors, and maybe threatened by the three sets of parents on the conference call. I got the feeling he doesn't know a basketball from a beach ball, any more than Mike Williams did. I hope to hell I'm wrong, and Fox turns out to be a bright light and saves the Cal program from its current situation. And saves the AD his job.
I go to a restaurant and order a steak. The waiter brings it out and it is burned beyond recognition. I'm upset. I send it back. The waiter comes back in 30 second with a raw steak on a plate. Now I'm really mad. His response is that I should have realized when I sent the first steak back that it could get worse so it is my own fault and I have no right to complain.
You are the waiter in this scenario. I expect that the AD will be competent. That means he makes competent decisions. Not that he makes some competent decisions and some incompetent. I expect 2 competent decisions here. Fire a failing coach. Hire a good candidate to replace him. If he fails in either decision, he gets a failing grade. He doesn't get a pass on the second decision because he made the first. You keep saying we got what we want - Jones getting fired, and we're still not happy. Jones being fired was not what I wanted. A good coach is what I wanted. If Knowlton instead found Aladdin's lamp and used a wish to turn Jones into a good coach, I would be fine. Given that unlikelihood, firing him and hiring a good coach was the only way to get what I wanted. That is a two step process. It was implied as part of the desire of everyone who wanted Jones fired. Being cute and pretending ignorance in that so you can say "well you didn't say that is what you wanted" like an effing 3 year old is not a genuine argument.
II wonder if Bob St. Clair, the 49er Hall of Fame tackle, ever went to France? He ate raw meat every day of his life, I think.Big C said:
Ever eat steak in France? They serve 'em REALLY rare. I mean, what they call "medium", we would call "rare-to-very-rare". They say you can tell how good the meat is that way. Twice, I could hardly chew the meat, it was so rare. No way I was sending it back. i figure who knows what they're going to do to an American's steak that gets sent back.
I well recall those annual prime rib luncheons where, even as a Niner alum, he would show up and eat the current linemen under the table. Sometimes, so they say, he would arrive and bellow, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!"SFCityBear said:II wonder if Bob St. Clair, the 49er Hall of Fame tackle, ever went to France? He ate raw meat every day of his life, I think.Big C said:
Ever eat steak in France? They serve 'em REALLY rare. I mean, what they call "medium", we would call "rare-to-very-rare". They say you can tell how good the meat is that way. Twice, I could hardly chew the meat, it was so rare. No way I was sending it back. i figure who knows what they're going to do to an American's steak that gets sent back.
Big C said:I've eaten horse (also in France). It's somewhat different than beef; I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference. On a side note, while I was eating it (horse meat), my mind flashed on the first horse I could think of: Mr. Ed. Then, I immediately thought of John Elway. Highly doubtful I'll ever eat horse again. On the other hand, I have sometimes gone to great lengths to try and impress the French, so who knows?Civil Bear said:You sure it wasn't filet de cheval?Big C said:
Ever eat steak in France? They serve 'em REALLY rare. I mean, what they call "medium", we would call "rare-to-very-rare". They say you can tell how good the meat is that way. Twice, I could hardly chew the meat, it was so rare. No way I was sending it back. i figure who knows what they're going to do to an American's steak that gets sent back.
The difference between my speculation and yours is that I'm willing to be open to all speculation, you want to just focus on the wild speculation that leads you to conclude the process was fumbled. I think you decided it looked fumbled based on how SOME media reported unconfirmed things, again, just speculation. It is hard to control what SOME media will say. Yet you ignore what a competent AD might have been doing in a situation where the funds to terminate the HC weren't yet established, in which case, what the AD was saying to people and causing erroneous speculation in the media was exactly how he should have handled the process.SFCityBear said:
. . . I said the process was fumbled. At least the way it appeared in the media it was fumbled. Hopefully the AD, if he ever has to do this again, will get out in front of the press, instead of letting the press lead him. . . .
. . . Sure Jones was in over his head. . . .
. . . In business, as a manager I have fired employees, and as an employee, I have been fired a few times. The good manager will try and hear all sides before making a decision to fire someone. . . .
. . .I understand that Jones still probably had to go, and don't disagree with it. Just sad that Jones failed. I think he tried hard, and finally had a little success. . . .
parentswerebears said:
This thread is so far off topic that I don't even know were I am anymore...
