Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 53 of 53

Thread: Preseason Mags - Athlon

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by OneKeg View Post
    I'm not Ducky, but I guess I'm concerned about almost all of them?

    I really like this coaching staff and It would not surprise me if Greatwood ends up being as tremendous for us as he was for several years at Oregon.

    But coaching aside - I think pretty much every non-Cal-fan would look at that list of players and think below average Pac-12 O-line in terms of talent and experience until proven otherwise. No proven stars. Only 2-3 guys with significant Pac-12 starts under their belt (I think?).

    The rest is all hope and potential. And yeah I have tons of hope for some of these players (e.g. Curhan), but it's not like these guys are 5-star recruits. And even if they were their inexperience would cause major doubts. But we do have Greatwood, and that may be our equalizer.

    By the way, should our transfer from Oregon, Daltoso (sp?) be counted as in the mix at guard, or is he not eligible this year? I also think our incoming recruit Poutasi Poutasi has loads of potential and may be in the mix.
    ^^^ What he said. ^^^

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by heartofthebear View Post
    I really don't have time to a line item evaluation of each player, but I did look at the write ups in calbears.com
    If you go there and bring up the roster, you can click each name listed and it will bring up a playing biography.
    After doing that, plus adding in my own observations from watching practices I have concluded this:

    1. Yes, not many of these guys are going to end up first team all-conference. But nobody expected that of Borrayo either and many of these guys are similar to Borrayo's ranking coming in.

    2. Ooms, Curhan, Uluave and Mekari will be at least serviceable as starters.

    3. From practices I think we are going to be OK with Gibson and Bennett.

    4. Gentle Williams was all-state in Mississippi. When you realize that Mississippi is OL factory for the SEC schools, that gives me hope.

    5. Daltoso was on the Oregon Ducks team and was coached by Greatwood. That gives me hope.

    6. Hinnant, while slow developing, is not a bad OL. And he is now a fifth year senior. At the very least he's had a ton of time in the program to condition and practice technique so I'm guessing he'll be serviceable, at least as a backup.

    7. Juarez was highly sought after and just needs to get healthy. We will know more about that in August but there is no immediate reason to think he can't be.

    8. Poutassi and Saffell both have good reputations coming in. But we probably won't even need both of them. At least 1 could red-shirt.

    Anyway, I'm not trying to sunshine pump. As I said earlier, I agree with the concerns about the line. All I'm saying is that at least some of those concerns could be answered in the positive by September, making the OL at least mediocre enough to compliment a strong set of skill players on offense (minus QB). Combined with a defense improved enough to be mediocre, Cal could be much better than the preseason mags. predict. It still may mean only 3-5 wins but most of the games will be competitive.

    Consider this: 7 of Cal's opponents this season, including 6 conference opponents have issues on the DL. That includes Furd. So, in at least 7 games, Cal's OL liabilities could be offset by playing against mediocre DLs. I'm not saying we can and will beat Furd, but Cal matches up OK against WSU, Arizona, Oregon St., Oregon, Weber St. and Colorado. 4 of those games are at home. The other 2 could be close enough to make things more interesting this season than the pundits seem to predict.
    I'm absolutely amazed at how predictable you are. As long as you can list 12 names from a roster, no matter how inexperienced, how few have actually played well, how few are highly rated, we are deep. (I could switch your copy of the Cal roster with one that says we are choosing between Beetle Bailey, Dagwood, and Garfield at QB and you'd list them to tell me we are 3 deep at the position) We aren't deep at OL. It just isn't so. As for Borrayo's ranking, well most are ranked higher than Alex Mack was, so obviously we will dominate.

    In November you've had it with Cal and won't trust them ever again. In July you are using calbears.com player bios for analysis. Player bios at Cal or anywhere are written to make everyone sound 10 times more awesome than they are. They aren't analysis.

    Cal is extremely thin, inexperienced and unproven at OL, and the prospects that make up the OL were not particularly highly rated. Those are facts. Have offensive lines with similar profiles or worse ended up fine or even good? Yes. Most of them? No. Most struggle. Claiming otherwise is putting unreasonable expectations on the coaching staff. Frankly, if the offensive line is even serviceable the coaching staff will deserve a lot of credit

  3. #48
    OaktownBear - my thoughts to a T. I have read many player bios over the years that we real jokes - like years ago when the Chron headlined the recruit lists with a "today everyone is a superstar". Every recruit got a trophy - reality be damned. Cal needs to rebuild starting with the oline. I think this staff can do it, but they don't have the bodies yet. It took Snyder years, it will take Wilcox years also. This next recruiting class will tell us if they are headed up the right path.

  4. #49
    True Blue Golden Bear heartofthebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ben Lomond, a small town outside of Santa Cruz in the mountains
    Posts
    8,741
    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    I'm absolutely amazed at how predictable you are. As long as you can list 12 names from a roster, no matter how inexperienced, how few have actually played well, how few are highly rated, we are deep. (I could switch your copy of the Cal roster with one that says we are choosing between Beetle Bailey, Dagwood, and Garfield at QB and you'd list them to tell me we are 3 deep at the position) We aren't deep at OL. It just isn't so. As for Borrayo's ranking, well most are ranked higher than Alex Mack was, so obviously we will dominate.

    In November you've had it with Cal and won't trust them ever again. In July you are using calbears.com player bios for analysis. Player bios at Cal or anywhere are written to make everyone sound 10 times more awesome than they are. They aren't analysis.

    Cal is extremely thin, inexperienced and unproven at OL, and the prospects that make up the OL were not particularly highly rated. Those are facts. Have offensive lines with similar profiles or worse ended up fine or even good? Yes. Most of them? No. Most struggle. Claiming otherwise is putting unreasonable expectations on the coaching staff. Frankly, if the offensive line is even serviceable the coaching staff will deserve a lot of credit
    LOL
    Thanks man

  5. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    I'm absolutely amazed at how predictable you are. As long as you can list 12 names from a roster, no matter how inexperienced, how few have actually played well, how few are highly rated, we are deep. (I could switch your copy of the Cal roster with one that says we are choosing between Beetle Bailey, Dagwood, and Garfield at QB and you'd list them to tell me we are 3 deep at the position) We aren't deep at OL. It just isn't so. As for Borrayo's ranking, well most are ranked higher than Alex Mack was, so obviously we will dominate.

    In November you've had it with Cal and won't trust them ever again. In July you are using calbears.com player bios for analysis. Player bios at Cal or anywhere are written to make everyone sound 10 times more awesome than they are. They aren't analysis.

    Cal is extremely thin, inexperienced and unproven at OL, and the prospects that make up the OL were not particularly highly rated. Those are facts. Have offensive lines with similar profiles or worse ended up fine or even good? Yes. Most of them? No. Most struggle. Claiming otherwise is putting unreasonable expectations on the coaching staff. Frankly, if the offensive line is even serviceable the coaching staff will deserve a lot of credit
    What if I told you that J.D. Hinnant is on the "watch list" for the John Hannah Award?* Ha! What is your response to THAT?!?


    * The John Hannah Award (if it exists) maybe goes annually to the best interior offensive lineman in college football!
    Last edited by Big C_Cal; 07-19-2017 at 09:41 AM.

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Big C_Cal View Post
    What if I told you that J.D. Hinnant is on the "watch list" for the John Hannah Award?* Ha! What is your response to THAT?!?


    * The John Hannah Award (if it exists) maybe goes annually to the best interior offensive lineman in college football!
    The John Hannah Award was created by Pro Football Focus and is awarded annually to the best run blocker in the NFL. Nicely done, Big C......

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by 71Bear View Post
    The John Hannah Award was created by Pro Football Focus and is awarded annually to the best run blocker in the NFL. Nicely done, Big C......
    Goes to show: I've probably forgotten more about football than I ever knew... or something like that.

  8. #53
    While I was out shopping this morning, I saw the USA Today College Football preview and scanned through it briefly. I've always thought they put out a weak effort, but they've out done themselves this year.

    They project Cal with a 2-10 record and have them as the 114th best team in the FBS. San Jose State was around 105th. Ouch.

    It's hard to fully understand their reasoning since their 5 sentence analysis basically said new coach, very bad defense, Davis Webb is gone.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •