We had like 8 downs and 3 timeouts to get 6 yards. Brooks is falling forward all night. So we go empty set and not hand it off to him again?
Red zone playcalling sequence was the ****tiest I've seen in awhile
3,910 Views |
47 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by 82gradDLSdad
That's what happens when you have brain-dead coaches.concernedparent said:
We had like 8 downs and 3 timeouts to get 6 yards. Brooks is falling forward all night. So we go empty set and not hand it off to him again?
The Musgrave special (vertical routes down the sideline on 3rd and short), red zone edition.Golden One said:That's what happens when you have brain-dead coaches.concernedparent said:
We had like 8 downs and 3 timeouts to get 6 yards. Brooks is falling forward all night. So we go empty set and not hand it off to him again?
concernedparent said:
We had like 8 downs and 3 timeouts to get 6 yards. Brooks is falling forward all night. So we go empty set and not hand it off to him again?
It's more effective high percentage football to have your QB backpedal and loft balls into coverage with no crossing patterns or misdirection or rb in to handle blitz for 8 plays.
"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
blungld said:concernedparent said:
We had like 8 downs and 3 timeouts to get 6 yards. Brooks is falling forward all night. So we go empty set and not hand it off to him again?
It's more effective high percentage football to have your QB backpedal and loft balls into coverage with no crossing patterns or misdirection or rb in to handle blitz for 8 plays.
Ugh
concernedparent said:
We had like 8 downs and 3 timeouts to get 6 yards. Brooks is falling forward all night. So we go empty set and not hand it off to him again?
Spread teams are often ineffective I. The red zone when the field shrinks. Some now switch to power sets in the red zone. Musgrave does the opposite. He uses power sets to drive the field then goes empty backfield in the red zone at the goal line.
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Intermittent fasting coaching
Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Delegating defense seems very different than delegating offense, especially on a final drive with time running out.
Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Dykes fired Buh after year 1. Defensive recruiting was emphasized which we saw materialize under Wilcox. Wilcox sticking with Baldwin three years made his replacement a do or die hire. Musgrave has been better than Baldwin, but just mediocre at best. Now time has likely run out.
I was reading reddits post game thread. Its a string of people calling our OC an idiot.
Honestly all play calling looks horrible when your OL can't block. I think they were gassed at the end and could not stop #5, who was fresh after sitting out first half. Also, you need a QB that knows how to buy time. Garbers is one of the worst red zone QBs I've seen, although he did make that incredible shuffle pass under pressure for the first down.
In general I like the play calling but I think the blocking scheme calls didn't work well in that 8 play sequence.
In general I like the play calling but I think the blocking scheme calls didn't work well in that 8 play sequence.
On the last play, there was a rb going out to the left flat (well covered by the de who didn't rush), a middle cross which the db covered well, and an out and corner route on the right (blanketed). Garber's only option were to lead the crossing route, which would have taken a perfect throw (bc the db was on the back of the receiver) or to hit the corner route right away as it developed with the pass thrown precut. The corner was open. These weren't easy throws, but the play calling had blitz beaters. There was a dropped pass in the end zone and a bad overthrow of an open receiver in the end zone in this sequence as well.
The weird thing is the blocking schemes, especially on running plays, were generally working. Oline players wearing down? inability to adjust?heartofthebear said:
In general I like the play calling but I think the blocking scheme calls didn't work well in that 8 play sequence.
Put the game on the shoulders of your Super Senior O line.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
I don't know. we needed seven yards to score and effectively had seven downs to do it.
our run game was effective all game. I'm a casual fan and don't know much about play calling but based on our performance all night and how Brooks and Garbers were both effective at gaining a handful of yards with each run...
line up for a pass to throw them off, and alternate runs between Brooks and Garbers until we score. seven tries. seven yards. either could sprint for the pylon.
idk why we were doing those boneheaded short passes in the red zone. maybe with another QB and tight end combo but it's clear garbers isn't great at rolling out and oline wasn't giving him quite enough time. plus not much room for receivers to get distance in the red zone.
it is just infuriating to me that red zone play calling didn't have us do short runs using two effective running weapons we had all game. we had the time outs to spare on this strategy too. (idk why we saved those TOs if we weren't going to use them for this)
ugh it's so infuriating and I bet the players feel similarly. those passes just don't work and with a working run scheme between garbers and brooks it is maddening why we didn't call plays that would get those seven yards.
our run game was effective all game. I'm a casual fan and don't know much about play calling but based on our performance all night and how Brooks and Garbers were both effective at gaining a handful of yards with each run...
line up for a pass to throw them off, and alternate runs between Brooks and Garbers until we score. seven tries. seven yards. either could sprint for the pylon.
idk why we were doing those boneheaded short passes in the red zone. maybe with another QB and tight end combo but it's clear garbers isn't great at rolling out and oline wasn't giving him quite enough time. plus not much room for receivers to get distance in the red zone.
it is just infuriating to me that red zone play calling didn't have us do short runs using two effective running weapons we had all game. we had the time outs to spare on this strategy too. (idk why we saved those TOs if we weren't going to use them for this)
ugh it's so infuriating and I bet the players feel similarly. those passes just don't work and with a working run scheme between garbers and brooks it is maddening why we didn't call plays that would get those seven yards.
Well we did run a Garbers keeper in that series and it got stuffed for no gain
I think we needed a RB to run, for play action, or to pick up a blitz or #5
Instead empty backfield most of those plays
I think we needed a RB to run, for play action, or to pick up a blitz or #5
Instead empty backfield most of those plays
eabandit said:
I don't know. we needed seven yards to score and effectively had seven downs to do it.
our run game was effective all game. I'm a casual fan and don't know much about play calling but based on our performance all night and how Brooks and Garbers were both effective at gaining a handful of yards with each run...
line up for a pass to throw them off, and alternate runs between Brooks and Garbers until we score. seven tries. seven yards. either could sprint for the pylon.
idk why we were doing those boneheaded short passes in the red zone. maybe with another QB and tight end combo but it's clear garbers isn't great at rolling out and oline wasn't giving him quite enough time. plus not much room for receivers to get distance in the red zone.
it is just infuriating to me that red zone play calling didn't have us do short runs using two effective running weapons we had all game. we had the time outs to spare on this strategy too. (idk why we saved those TOs if we weren't going to use them for this)
ugh it's so infuriating and I bet the players feel similarly. those passes just don't work and with a working run scheme between garbers and brooks it is maddening why we didn't call plays that would get those seven yards.
HoopDreams said:
Well we did run a Garbers keeper in that series and it got stuffed for no gain
I think we needed a RB to run, for play action, or to pick up a blitz or #5
Instead empty backfield most of those playseabandit said:
I don't know. we needed seven yards to score and effectively had seven downs to do it.
our run game was effective all game. I'm a casual fan and don't know much about play calling but based on our performance all night and how Brooks and Garbers were both effective at gaining a handful of yards with each run...
line up for a pass to throw them off, and alternate runs between Brooks and Garbers until we score. seven tries. seven yards. either could sprint for the pylon.
idk why we were doing those boneheaded short passes in the red zone. maybe with another QB and tight end combo but it's clear garbers isn't great at rolling out and oline wasn't giving him quite enough time. plus not much room for receivers to get distance in the red zone.
it is just infuriating to me that red zone play calling didn't have us do short runs using two effective running weapons we had all game. we had the time outs to spare on this strategy too. (idk why we saved those TOs if we weren't going to use them for this)
ugh it's so infuriating and I bet the players feel similarly. those passes just don't work and with a working run scheme between garbers and brooks it is maddening why we didn't call plays that would get those seven yards.
1 keeper for Garbers and one where Garbers also ran on a read option to the rb
agree. next play should've given it to Brooks to try again. and if that failed line up for a pass but have Garbers rush it. my point was our offense can't be trusted to make these short red zone passes, but the run game was working for most of the game and we should've leaned on that.
i just feel like we had seven tries (eight if you try a scramble and TO instead of spiking it) to get our run game working in the red zone and instead we largely tried these passes that just weren't working for most of the game, so why would they start working now in the red zone?
i just feel like we had seven tries (eight if you try a scramble and TO instead of spiking it) to get our run game working in the red zone and instead we largely tried these passes that just weren't working for most of the game, so why would they start working now in the red zone?
Collectively, this is one of the worst Cal OL's in recent memory. OL recruiting has been terrible under Dykes/Wilcox and that has resulted in the mess we see today.Bobodeluxe said:
Put the game on the shoulders of your Super Senior O line.
What could go wrong?
concernedparent said:
We had like 8 downs and 3 timeouts to get 6 yards. Brooks is falling forward all night. So we go empty set and not hand it off to him again?
The entirety of the board thinks garbers is the problem with the offense, and if we only had a better QB we would be 2-4 or even 3-3... OooooooOoooooo
Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
LunchTime said:Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
I think Wilcox is showing he's an average to above average DC. That's it. He has not assembled a good staff, he has not recruited well, he doesn't seem to make great game day strategy decisions...just nothing in the 5 years suggests he's going to turn this around.
Interesting that you mention a "bad overthrow" of an open receiver. Earlier in the day, Pac12 Net showed a 2004 film of Cal vs. Oregon, with a guy named Rodgers at QB. He did precisely the same thing as Garbers in overthrowing an open Geoff McArthur in the end zone.oski003 said:
On the last play, there was a rb going out to the left flat (well covered by the de who didn't rush), a middle cross which the db covered well, and an out and corner route on the right (blanketed). Garber's only option were to lead the crossing route, which would have taken a perfect throw (bc the db was on the back of the receiver) or to hit the corner route right away as it developed with the pass thrown precut. The corner was open. These weren't easy throws, but the play calling had blitz beaters. There was a dropped pass in the end zone and a bad overthrow of an open receiver in the end zone in this sequence as well.
It seemed to me we had a mix of passes and runs and nothing worked. The reason is that, while plays can work otherwise, in the redzone, the safeties are effectively able to be in the box. There is less field to defend so basically the defense starts to have an advantage. You have to spread the defense out laterally by rolliing Garbers out and/or running a pitch or option. But to do this, you need to bring in at least 2 TEs and you need to win the one-on-one blocking matchups.
Cal rarely wins one-on-one match-ups which goes back to recruiting. We are generally less talented than the guy on the opposite side of the field. This does not excuse the losses to Nevada and WSU, but it can explain some of the other problems including last night.
Also I don't think Garbers is a clutch QB, generally. He had that great big game run late and some games against Washington but generally he does not do well enough in clutch situations. I think he did not read the defense well on those plays. He needed to anticipate the pressure and audible to give himself a chance. But this is the other problem, he doesn't break the huddle quick enough to have time to audible without a delay of game penalty. This can also be seen as a coaching issue. But, either way, Garbers has been around too long to be having these kinds of mental challenges. If he was a sophomore I would not be this critical. But he's played in 30 games now. Of course the crowd played a factor. It is hard to audible in such cases. So there is that.
Another thought is that maybe we should have had a fullback in there to block.
Cal rarely wins one-on-one match-ups which goes back to recruiting. We are generally less talented than the guy on the opposite side of the field. This does not excuse the losses to Nevada and WSU, but it can explain some of the other problems including last night.
Also I don't think Garbers is a clutch QB, generally. He had that great big game run late and some games against Washington but generally he does not do well enough in clutch situations. I think he did not read the defense well on those plays. He needed to anticipate the pressure and audible to give himself a chance. But this is the other problem, he doesn't break the huddle quick enough to have time to audible without a delay of game penalty. This can also be seen as a coaching issue. But, either way, Garbers has been around too long to be having these kinds of mental challenges. If he was a sophomore I would not be this critical. But he's played in 30 games now. Of course the crowd played a factor. It is hard to audible in such cases. So there is that.
Another thought is that maybe we should have had a fullback in there to block.
71Bear said:Collectively, this is one of the worst Cal OL's in recent memory. OL recruiting has been terrible under Dykes/Wilcox and that has resulted in the mess we see today.Bobodeluxe said:
Put the game on the shoulders of your Super Senior O line.
What could go wrong?
For how many years now have we have said "this is one of the worst Cal OL's in recent memory"? Can every year be "one of the worst"? Maybe so... not sure exactly how that works.
I feel that recruiting on defense was pretty good initially, then there was a lull to help the offense catch up. I think he's recruiting okay on D again. He's had good LBs the whole time but he now has some really good DEs coming in and the DBs have a shot at being pretty good too.82gradDLSdad said:LunchTime said:Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
I think Wilcox is showing he's an average to above average DC. That's it. He has not assembled a good staff, he has not recruited well, he doesn't seem to make great game day strategy decisions...just nothing in the 5 years suggests he's going to turn this around.
Perhaps it is because Cal hasn't had a good OL since the middle of the first decade of this century.Big C said:71Bear said:Collectively, this is one of the worst Cal OL's in recent memory. OL recruiting has been terrible under Dykes/Wilcox and that has resulted in the mess we see today.Bobodeluxe said:
Put the game on the shoulders of your Super Senior O line.
What could go wrong?
For ow many years now have we have said "this is one of the worst Cal OL's in recent memory"? Can every year be "one of the worst"? Maybe so... not sure exactly how that works.
I'll be honest, at the start of the season I thought our LBs were really bad, and they were. But they are young. They were actually really good vs Oregon though, so seems they are growing. Their tackling got a lot better.heartofthebear said:I feel that recruiting on defense was pretty good initially, then there was a lull to help the offense catch up. I think he's recruiting okay on D again. He's had good LBs the whole time but he now has some really good DEs coming in and the DBs have a shot at being pretty good too.82gradDLSdad said:LunchTime said:Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
I think Wilcox is showing he's an average to above average DC. That's it. He has not assembled a good staff, he has not recruited well, he doesn't seem to make great game day strategy decisions...just nothing in the 5 years suggests he's going to turn this around.
We are actually going to be really deep at DE next season. If guys develop, we may actually have a pass rush. It has historically been very difficult for us to recruit the DL, particularly the interior. But we will have some serviceable people on the interior assuming they are healthy finally (Maldonado, Johnson and Mackenzie). We will lose Goode and Deng at OLB so there will definitely be a drop off but the DE strength might help mitigate that. I think folks are going to be pleasantly surprised by the DBs next season. However I'm not convinced that Watson is the right DB coach to develop them fully.MinotStateBeav said:I'll be honest, at the start of the season I thought our LBs were really bad, and they were. But they are young. They were actually really good vs Oregon though, so seems they are growing. Their tackling got a lot better.heartofthebear said:I feel that recruiting on defense was pretty good initially, then there was a lull to help the offense catch up. I think he's recruiting okay on D again. He's had good LBs the whole time but he now has some really good DEs coming in and the DBs have a shot at being pretty good too.82gradDLSdad said:LunchTime said:Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
I think Wilcox is showing he's an average to above average DC. That's it. He has not assembled a good staff, he has not recruited well, he doesn't seem to make great game day strategy decisions...just nothing in the 5 years suggests he's going to turn this around.
Geez, here we go…heartofthebear said:We are actually going to be really deep at DE next season. If guys develop, we may actually have a pass rush. It has historically been very difficult for us to recruit the DL, particularly the interior. But we will have some serviceable people on the interior assuming they are healthy finally (Maldonado, Johnson and Mackenzie). We will lose Goode and Deng at OLB so there will definitely be a drop off but the DE strength might help mitigate that. I think folks are going to be pleasantly surprised by the DBs next season. However I'm not convinced that Watson is the right DB coach to develop them fully.MinotStateBeav said:I'll be honest, at the start of the season I thought our LBs were really bad, and they were. But they are young. They were actually really good vs Oregon though, so seems they are growing. Their tackling got a lot better.heartofthebear said:I feel that recruiting on defense was pretty good initially, then there was a lull to help the offense catch up. I think he's recruiting okay on D again. He's had good LBs the whole time but he now has some really good DEs coming in and the DBs have a shot at being pretty good too.82gradDLSdad said:LunchTime said:Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
I think Wilcox is showing he's an average to above average DC. That's it. He has not assembled a good staff, he has not recruited well, he doesn't seem to make great game day strategy decisions...just nothing in the 5 years suggests he's going to turn this around.
Next year, bah, blah, blah….
Newsflash - the best thing, all guys are returning; the worst thing, all guys are returning.
Cal needs a major infusion of talent. They cannot count on the current bunch to do anything………
What do you want? Do you want a bunch of 4 stars to sign up for the program right now without any evidence that it is going to support them? We have to get incrementally better in the meantime before a bunch of 4 stars sign up. Tedford had to do that. Snyder had to do that. Wilcox has recruited pretty well considering the circumstances, especially on D. We were failing to recruit on O under Baldwin but have improved considerably under Musgrave, although the QBs have been leaving unfortunately. But defense is about as good as can be expected under the circumstances.71Bear said:Geez, here we go…heartofthebear said:We are actually going to be really deep at DE next season. If guys develop, we may actually have a pass rush. It has historically been very difficult for us to recruit the DL, particularly the interior. But we will have some serviceable people on the interior assuming they are healthy finally (Maldonado, Johnson and Mackenzie). We will lose Goode and Deng at OLB so there will definitely be a drop off but the DE strength might help mitigate that. I think folks are going to be pleasantly surprised by the DBs next season. However I'm not convinced that Watson is the right DB coach to develop them fully.MinotStateBeav said:I'll be honest, at the start of the season I thought our LBs were really bad, and they were. But they are young. They were actually really good vs Oregon though, so seems they are growing. Their tackling got a lot better.heartofthebear said:I feel that recruiting on defense was pretty good initially, then there was a lull to help the offense catch up. I think he's recruiting okay on D again. He's had good LBs the whole time but he now has some really good DEs coming in and the DBs have a shot at being pretty good too.82gradDLSdad said:LunchTime said:Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
I think Wilcox is showing he's an average to above average DC. That's it. He has not assembled a good staff, he has not recruited well, he doesn't seem to make great game day strategy decisions...just nothing in the 5 years suggests he's going to turn this around.
Next year, bah, blah, blah….
Newsflash - the best thing, all guys are returning; the worst thing, all guys are returning.
Cal needs a major infusion of talent. They cannot count on the current bunch to do anything………
The main problem isn't the recruiting right now, it is the coaching of that talent, especially on game day. The players are being poorly coordinated for success.
We do need to get faster though. We have been recruiting size lately, according to Wilcox. Maybe that was at the expense of speed. I don't know.
BTW, a lot of guys are not returning. And just because we don't have talent this year, does not mean we did not recruit it. It generally takes a year, at least, before guys see the field. Usually it is 2 years before guys have major roles. We have some talent waiting in the wings:
Safety
Williams
Losefa
Woodson
Barthe
Cornerback
Hearns III
Gamble
Higgins
McWilliams
Inside Linebacker
Paster
Rutchena
Losefa
Puskas
Antzoulatos
Outside Linebacker
Histake
Patu
Leremia
Williams
DT/NT/NG
Maldonado
Johnson
Roberts
DE
Wilkins
Calhoun
Saunders
Say what you like, but if Oregon St./Wash St. had these guys, they'd compete for a conference title.
And some of them are 4 star players. Most of them are upper 3 star at least. This is a major upgrade on what we had previously and puts us above average in the conference for recruiting at these positions.
What we could really use is a JC/Grad transfer at QB next season.
82gradDLSdad said:LunchTime said:Strykur said:Dykes would have been alright if he had hired a good defensive coordinator and had not blown it with Buh, likewise Wilcox cannot seem to hire a decent offensive coordinator or figure out what offensive system he wants, in year 5.wifeisafurd said:
Well the head coach might have suggested something different. Oh wait, Wilcox was on TV wandering around, while the offense huddled around Musgrave during all those time outs, and not involved with the offense on all those play calls. The Sonny Dykes of offensive delegation.
Except Wilcox's defense also needs a better DC.
I think Wilcox is showing he's an average to above average DC. That's it. He has not assembled a good staff, he has not recruited well, he doesn't seem to make great game day strategy decisions...just nothing in the 5 years suggests he's going to turn this around.
His first staff was awesome. With the exception of Beau, that staff did the most it could with average to below average Pac 12 talent, and I though Beau was a great hire at the time. I had felt that Wilcox would need to show his worth as a long-term coach in whom he hired to replace those guys when they inevitably left.
Deruyter was either tacitly allowed to leave or actively run off, depending on one's opinion. Other defensive coaching hires haven't panned out either. Greatwood has not been adequately replaced, IMO.
Wilcox's two major coaching failings have been his inability to replace assistants and his inability to recruit. I'm not sure either can be improved with more experience.
But it's all on Garbers let some try to tell it
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Former 4 star Wisconsin DE TJ Bollers
by Jim McGill
Bears Add Maryland Portal Tight End Corey Dyches
by Jim McGill
Cal Duo Earns Pac-12 Weekly Honors
by Cal Athletics