Our HC, OC and DC all played at Oregon. It might normally be seen a disadvantage, emotionally, subconsciously (I would not be as motivated coaching a team against Cal as I would be against Stanford or USC) but can it be an advantage? They have something to prove? Wilcox's teams have generally played well against Oregon. Or is this where this staff's overall lack of emotion a benefit?

GoOskie said:

---

Hopefully all three stay there.

---

Yes!!

KoreAmBear said:

---

Wilcox has never been able to intercede for his OCs. Cheez It bowl - late in the game he should have told Beau no passes. Oregon game last night he should have told Musgrave near the goal line, give Chris the rock. Many other examples in between those games. He just goes down with the Titanic overly reliant on his OCs.

---

I don't know, I remember the days when the quarterbacks called all the plays (or most of them). Seems like a highly paid offensive coordinator should be able to call the plays better than you or me or Wilcox.

Seems like, anyways (okay, evidence to the contrary here). But if not, why hire that offensive coordinator? Why retain him?

KoreAmBear said:

---

Wilcox has never been able to intercede for his OCs. Cheez It bowl - late in the game he should have told Beau no passes. Oregon game last night he should have told Musgrave near the goal line, give Chris the rock. Many other examples in between those games. He just goes down with the Titanic overly reliant on his OCs.

---

The reason Wilcox needed to be involved in helping Musgrave is he knows TDRs' tendencies, Musgrave does not. Everyone on the defensive side knew a full on blitz was coming. If Musgrave had been told that he might have called something other than having Garber's drop back to pass.