Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53

Thread: Preseason Mags - Athlon

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Big C_Cal View Post
    You want to wager a cyber-beverage? You pick 3 wins or less; I'll take 5 wins or more. Bears win 4 and we each drown our sorrows at home, no-host.
    I want in on that bet!

    Here's what Athlon said about Colorado 2016:


    NATIONAL FORECAST
    #61
    PAC-12 SOUTH PREDICTION
    #6

    In 2016 Clorado was "ranked" #12 out of 12 in PAC 12 football recruiting

    But they won the PAC 12 South with an 8-1 record and finished ranked #17. Athlon ain't no thang...

  2. #32
    I have Cal at 5-7 this year....

  3. #33
    Imo the OL and the qb have a lot more to do with success than do the wrs (which is our sole strength on offense). Even Phil Steele has our oline as worst in the league. The defense will be better, but we simply won't have the strength to come back in games if we get behind - and that was one of the few strengths Dykes' teams did have. People who say Athlon is full of it need to look at Phil Steele's mag - pretty much the same appraisal and predictions as Athlon.

  4. #34
    What did Steele say about Colorado last year?

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by 71Bear View Post
    I have Cal at 5-7 this year....
    Me too. Sounds like our possible bet is off.

    Hey, Mr. Athlon, would you be interested in wagering a cyber-beverage with regards to...

  6. #36
    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
    8,743
    Quote Originally Posted by ducky23 View Post
    Heart, you seem to have a pretty good beat on this team. I do agree that the defense is going to surprise some people. But I keep coming back to the o-line. Let's assume that they stay relatively healthy. Convince me that they can be at least league average (besides just assuming great wood can work some sort of magic).
    super busy and will respond more fully in a day or 2.
    basically I agree.

  7. #37

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by 71Bear View Post
    We've gone through this every year since the late Tedford years. The preseason mags say Cal will be crappy, fans say the mags are crazy and, in fact, the Bears are crappy thus redeeming the mags forecast.

    Sports fans are always hopeful their team will do well. Otherwise, why bother.

    I am confident that Wilcox will get things turned around. However, he is not a magician. It will take some time. In the meanwhile, this year's edition of Athlon is closer to correct than wrong....
    I tend to agree with this assessment. However I do think the P12 north is not the juggernaut many believe. IMO only UW and Stanford are definitely superior to Cal. OSU, WSU and Oregon are beatable. Cal gets OSU and WSU at home along with a beatable Arizona team. Now WSU is returning a very good QB in Falk but are losing several good offensive weapons. So on paper it seems Cal beating Weber St., Ole Miss, WSU, OSU and Arizona at home are the most likely wins. To have a bowl season all these games seem like they must end up in the win column and find a win on the road somewhere. UNC, UO and Colorado seem the most likely spots for this to occur. I believe this is possible. Not saying it happens for sure but those 5 home games do not seem out of reach at this point in time. USC is of course another matter entirely.

    This home schedule aside from USC is favorable. They need to establish CMS as Bear Territory. If they can then a bowl is possible. If not ....

  9. #39
    Cal will win one they should lose and lose one they should win. That puts the Bears back at 5-7

  10. #40
    NVBear78 - In his 2016 book, Phil Steele had Colorado tied for 5th with Arizona in the South, but noted that he almost had them on his most improved list.
    This year he noted "I think Coach Mike MacIntyre is one of the best in the country..." No wonder I want him ahead of Dykes for the next Cal coach after JT was fired.

  11. #41
    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
    8,743
    Quote Originally Posted by ducky23 View Post
    Heart, you seem to have a pretty good beat on this team. I do agree that the defense is going to surprise some people. But I keep coming back to the o-line. Let's assume that they stay relatively healthy. Convince me that they can be at least league average (besides just assuming great wood can work some sort of magic).
    Ducky: There are 11 guys listed on the OL and 3 more coming in a month. That means we have nearly 3 deep on the OL.
    Now lets examine who they are. Currently, only 2 of the 11 are non-scholarship players, that being Prenovost and Bazakas. If we eliminate those 2, we still have 9 currently and 12 total for the season. That covers a 2 deep. Our starters are Ooms, Mekari, Curhan, Bennett and whoever wins the battle for Wallace's vacated spot at OG. It will probably be Uluave, Hinnant or G. Williams. The second string would include the 2 losers of that battle plus Gibson, Juarez and a new guy.

    Tell me which of these guys you are so concerned about and we can go from there.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by heartofthebear View Post
    Ducky: There are 11 guys listed on the OL and 3 more coming in a month. That means we have nearly 3 deep on the OL.
    Now lets examine who they are. Currently, only 2 of the 11 are non-scholarship players, that being Prenovost and Bazakas. If we eliminate those 2, we still have 9 currently and 12 total for the season. That covers a 2 deep. Our starters are Ooms, Mekari, Curhan, Bennett and whoever wins the battle for Wallace's vacated spot at OG. It will probably be Uluave, Hinnant or G. Williams. The second string would include the 2 losers of that battle plus Gibson, Juarez and a new guy.

    Tell me which of these guys you are so concerned about and we can go from there.
    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.

  13. #43
    True Blue Golden Bear moonpod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    9,864
    daltoso will PROBABLY be eligible and in the mix. he was in the mix at oregon, just wouldn't have gotten a scholly this year.
    3-9 and a 95% graduation rate trump a Rose Bowl

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by heartofthebear View Post
    Ducky: There are 11 guys listed on the OL and 3 more coming in a month. That means we have nearly 3 deep on the OL.
    Now lets examine who they are. Currently, only 2 of the 11 are non-scholarship players, that being Prenovost and Bazakas. If we eliminate those 2, we still have 9 currently and 12 total for the season. That covers a 2 deep. Our starters are Ooms, Mekari, Curhan, Bennett and whoever wins the battle for Wallace's vacated spot at OG. It will probably be Uluave, Hinnant or G. Williams. The second string would include the 2 losers of that battle plus Gibson, Juarez and a new guy.

    Tell me which of these guys you are so concerned about and we can go from there.
    I feel that Ooms has a bunch of experience and has done fairly well in his limited time. Curhan I have heard good things about. I would love to hear more informed/knowledgeable people weigh in on each probable starter. Probable outcome, ceiling, limitations....Thanks!!

  15. #45
    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
    8,743
    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.
    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.



Posting Permissions

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