A core difference/schism in this board

2,583 Views | 30 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by calbear93
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:33p, 10/17/21
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 1:00p, 10/17/21
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
We saw the same thing on Friday night. The difference is team speed was reminiscent of the difference between Va. Tech and Cal in the Insight Bowl. Tedford remedied that problem in the following years.

Reply Quote
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 1:06p, 10/17/21
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
Fair points but things are not so binary. Even with the disadvantages you wrote, Cal was in position to win or tie and effectively had 8 plays to try. Yes, there were execution issues, but the play selection was bad. Somewhere in 8 tries there had to be a go to play with misdirection, or alternatively a few pound it up the middle with Brooks. The plays that were called all had a feeling of desperation. The packing it in before the half had the same feeling. Time and time again the coaches have failed to manage clock and show the fire and aggression that pumps up a college team. Yes, we have a talent differential. But I think in-game coaching has cost us 3 games. I did not expect that to be true under Wilcox.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
Reply Quote
16
socaliganbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 1:08p, 10/17/21
blungld said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
Fair points but things are not so binary. Even with the disadvantages you wrote, Cal was in position to win or tie and effectively had 8 plays to try. Yes, there were execution issues, but the play selection was bad. Somewhere in 8 tries there had to be a go to play with misdirection, or alternatively a few pound it up the middle with Brooks. The plays that were called all had a feeling of desperation. The packing it in before the half had the same feeling. Time and time again the coaches have failed to manage clock and show the fire and aggression that pumps up a college team. Yes, we have a talent differential. But I think in-game coaching has cost us 3 games. I did not expect that to be true under Wilcox.


Agreed. I would even say that in our one win, the staff was outcoached .
Reply Quote
3
ducky23
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:12p, 10/17/21
Um when your record is 1-5, usually both your talent and coaching sucks
Reply Quote
9
Rushinbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 1:18p, 10/17/21
blungld said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
Fair points but things are not so binary. Even with the disadvantages you wrote, Cal was in position to win or tie and effectively had 8 plays to try. Yes, there were execution issues, but the play selection was bad. Somewhere in 8 tries there had to be a go to play with misdirection, or alternatively a few pound it up the middle with Brooks. The plays that were called all had a feeling of desperation. The packing it in before the half had the same feeling. Time and time again the coaches have failed to manage clock and show the fire and aggression that pumps up a college team. Yes, we have a talent differential. But I think in-game coaching has cost us 3 games. I did not expect that to be true under Wilcox.
An announcer reiterated the age-old saying, "It's not the x's and o's. It's the Jimmies and Joes." JW's tenure has demonstrated that as well as any.
Reply Quote
FloriDreaming
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 1:57p, 10/17/21
First, the talent gap falls on the coaches. These are all Wilcox's guys and it's the worst year yet.

Second, Oregon State is doing pretty well. Ditto ASU and now even WSU. Why are those teams doing well while Cal, UofA, CU and UW struggle?

Third, Cal is not a hard sell from a recruiting standpoint. The NCAA doing away with standardized tests now means Cal athletes and applicants will be on equal footing, as Cal already did away with standardized tests.

Fourth, Cal lost recruits after it became clear the season was a dumpster fire. Can't blame that on academics or recruiting disadvantage.

Bottom line these excuses don't hold water. The coaching is poor, thus the recruiting is poor, thus the team performance is poor. It all goes back to the coach, there's no endemic "Cal issue" here, apart from a knack of hiring bad coaches.
Reply Quote
5
NVBear78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 2:14p, 10/17/21
71Bear said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
We saw the same thing on Friday night. The difference is team speed was reminiscent of the difference between Va. Tech and Cal in the Insight Bowl. Tedford remedied that problem in the following years.




Tedford BEAT VTech in the insight bowl with what he had, a disciplined team with a strong offensive line and an all world QB. We also had Chase Lyman who was very big and very fast. Haven't had anyone like him since then...
Reply Quote
4
HKBear97!
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 2:22p, 10/17/21
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.


I actually disagree. If you look at recruiting rankings and, more importantly, the number of Power 5 offers our recruits received over the last several classes, Wilcox has recruited well and it's been a steady improvement each year (until now). The lack of development and coaching are what I notice the most. This is not 1-5 talent.
Reply Quote
5
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 2:38p, 10/17/21
Classic example, of "anyone who disagrees With me is wrong" post

Make your statement without intro and people will listen to you more

socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
Reply Quote
1
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HKBear97! • 2:41p, 10/17/21
HKBear97! said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.


I actually disagree. If you look at recruiting rankings and, more importantly, the number of Power 5 offers our recruits received over the last several classes, Wilcox has recruited well and it's been a steady improvement each year (until now). The lack of development and coaching are what I notice the most. This is not 1-5 talent.
I'm afraid I agree with HKB. Wilcox effectively has 4 years worth of his recruiting he can put on the field, and using the consolidated 247 index his average is exactly 6th in the conference. But this is not a middle tier team. Just for comparison purposes during the same four year stretch, Furd averaged 5th in conference, and seems to have a middle tier program currently. Both schools have not done much with transfers or the portal. Wilcox made a mistake not shoring up areas of where there was inexperienced or little depth, such as pursuing an undergrad QB though the portal.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
heartofthebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FloriDreaming • 5:44p, 10/17/21
HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:
First, the talent gap falls on the coaches. These are all Wilcox's guys and it's the worst year yet.

Second, Oregon State is doing pretty well. Ditto ASU and now even WSU. Why are those teams doing well while Cal, UofA, CU and UW struggle?

Third, Cal is not a hard sell from a recruiting standpoint. The NCAA doing away with standardized tests now means Cal athletes and applicants will be on equal footing, as Cal already did away with standardized tests.

Fourth, Cal lost recruits after it became clear the season was a dumpster fire. Can't blame that on academics or recruiting disadvantage.

Bottom line these excuses don't hold water. The coaching is poor, thus the recruiting is poor, thus the team performance is poor. It all goes back to the coach, there's no endemic "Cal issue" here, apart from a knack of hiring bad coaches.
I agree except that our "bad" coaches often have success elsewhere. I've been very critical of Ragle because of the insufferable problems with our snaps and kicks. But I have not forgotten that this board went full on lynch mob one of the ST coaches under Tedford only to find his unit beating us as a coach at Furd.
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 6:30p, 10/17/21
"One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit."

I'm a fan of our Bears and the Lions, because of Goff. This is how I feel every weekend:




*I used to be a fan of the Raiders, and now they win games, naturally.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
1 edit
txwharfrat
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 7:00p, 10/17/21
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.


It's not the X's and the O's, it's the Joes and the Schmoes.
Reply Quote
1
BearoutEast67
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:07p, 10/17/21
Negative Nancies will be livin large until Cal wins again.

Tell me this - how many of you donate to Cal Football? Put your money where your mouth is, hey?
Donate to Cal's NIL at https://calegends.com/donation/
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
sefton
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:20p, 10/17/21
Now I am not big Troy Taylor advocate but I do recognize him as a good, maybe exceptional HC. I casually follow the Hornets and noted with mild surprise their win over Montana in Missoula this Saturday.

The goal was to come out strong, to keep the opponent guessing and gassed even, and then to do something that just doesn't happen.

Win in Missoula, at a venue the University of Montana has embraced as a ghoulish nightmare for visitors.

Sacramento State knows such misery, having gone 0-12 at Washington-Grizzly Stadium over the decades, and the Hornets came into Saturday's Big Sky Conference showdown against the No. 5 Grizzlies as 19-point underdogs. Time to refresh the data. It's a new day.

"We wanted to come out and punch them in the mouth and set the tempo," Dunniway said in a news conference after the game. "We wanted to start fast and maintain the energy."

Appears Taylor and his team has verve as well as X's and O's.

Sacramento Bee
Ever hopeful and it seems like forever.
Reply Quote
2
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:49p, 10/17/21

I can't help but wonder if anybody has ever named their kid "Schism". Not a really attractive sound, at least at first impression, but maybe when paired with the right family name...
Reply Quote
79 Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:59p, 10/17/21
Schism Musk has a nice ring to it.

https://abc7news.com/elon-musk-grimes-baby-name-kid-x--a-12-pronunciation/6210635/
Reply Quote
1
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NVBear78 • 10:17p, 10/17/21
NVBear78 said:
71Bear said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
We saw the same thing on Friday night. The difference is team speed was reminiscent of the difference between Va. Tech and Cal in the Insight Bowl. Tedford remedied that problem in the following years.




Tedford BEAT VTech in the insight bowl with what he had, a disciplined team with a strong offensive line and an all world QB. We also had Chase Lyman who was very big and very fast. Haven't had anyone like him since then...
Yep. It is still hard to believe Cal won the game. It was a coaching clinic game - Tedford at his best - how to win when you are outmanned…..
Reply Quote
1
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txwharfrat • 4:50a, 10/18/21
txwharfrat said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.


It's not the X's and the O's, it's the Joes and the Schmoes.
It is both. Oregon has a lot more talent. They actually played down to Cal's level for much of the game IMO. But when they needed to they made plays. Cal played hard but not always well. They hung around due to effort and Oregon turning it over twice. But Cal when it really mattered did not have the right stuff.

The play calling was weak. But Qb play in key moments was not good enough. A WR did not catch a catchable ball. It was not an easy play but a very makeable play.

So far this season Oregon was the only team they faced where the talent was clearly better. UW and TCU probably had a slight advantage. The P12 is full of teams like Cal. Mid tier talent. What is the difference? Coaching, injuries, turnovers, motivation.

This program lacks difference makers. They are not fast. They need everything to go well to win. Especially against a strong team like Oregon. Where coaching really makes a big difference is when the talent is close. But Cal loses too many games against similar talent. They are 1-3 vs Stanford. 1-3 vs UCLA. 2-2 vs OSU and WSU. 0-2 vs UA . You expect the team to lose to Oregon. To USC where the on field talent is lopsided. USC is the poster child program for underachieving and dysfunction.

The recruiting has to get better for the program to get better. The coaching has to improve for the close games to fall Cal's way more often. They will have an occasional upset or win a close game against a similar opponent. And many will declare the program is turning the corner. You need a minimum of 3 strong recruiting classes piled up on top of each other to truly change the program. You need good coaching to win the close games. You need some luck with injury etc.

Cal is really an average talent program, that is below average in some key places. And the coaching is not great. They need to play with terrific effort every game to have a chance. When they are flat like vs WSU they get throttled.

I do believe this team should be sitting at 3-3 right now. There are a stretch of winnable games coming. Colorado and Arizona are less talented than the Bears. Arizona by a lot and Colorado by a decent margin. OSU is similar to the Bears but have a better overall staff than does Cal. USC is who knows what. They have the 2nd best overall talent in the conference. They rarely play like it. They are a mess. At Cal if the Bears show up and USC does not it could go Cal's way. If USC is motivated they should win. Perhaps easily. Stanford is similar to Cal. UCLA is better but like Cal has swings in effort.

When you go 11-23 in conference it is mostly a talent issue. This staff is not awful, just far from elite. They are not difference making. I think some changes in coaching could help. But really this program only turns around if the recruiting really perks up. Not just an occasional stud, but 8-10 real top guys each class. And few misses. The program still has too many guys that cannot play at the level required to compete for a P12 North championship. In any one game you can pull an upset or eke out a narrow win. But the more games you play the more the talent takes over. In the close games where coaching really matters, the team comes up short more than it should.

Both need to improve. Can it happen under Justin Wilcox? I do not believe it can.

Reply Quote
5
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:59a, 10/18/21
I thought it was interesting that DeRuyter beat Cal on that final play with an all-out blitz. As Cal's DC, he repeatedly showed that, despite not always having the best athletes on the field, he would also take those chances. I certainly miss a lot of subtleties on the field, but it seems to me that the play of Cal's front seven is maddeningly predictable. The outside linebackers generally get swallowed up by larger OTs and there is little pressure on the QB. Cal rarely sends an inside LB or DB on a blitz.
Reply Quote
1
mbBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 8:43a, 10/18/21
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
It was a loss. How I see it vs. how you see it matters very little....we have no impact on wins and losses.
You, me, or the guy in the next post can see it all through Blue and Gold glasses all we want. We aren't journalists, and I don't need you or another poster to be "right," and the only point of agreement is that we all care a ton about Cal sports. Also what we think we are seeing(positive or negative) has no context in terms of actual information, or actual expertise.
Not saying everyone isn't entitled to their opinion, but agreement here doesn't matter.
Reply Quote
1
ducky23
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54a, 10/18/21
Look if you want my honest opinion, I think the coaching and talent level is around mid tier for the conference.

But it's all about the QB stupid. If cal had an above average QB, we would at least be 3-3 (if not better). A good QB covers up a lot of other flaws. And Wilcox has yet to really have an above average QB

So yes we can complain about recruiting and play calling and development etc. but at the end of the day wilcox's greatest failure was his inability to develop a good quarterback. That's it.

Which should teach us a lesson when looking for the next HC. At a bare minimum you need a coach who can identify and develop qbs. Your ceiling can only be so high with a middling quarterback

Reply Quote
2
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 12:26p, 10/18/21
ducky23 said:
Look if you want my honest opinion, I think the coaching and talent level is around mid tier for the conference.

But it's all about the QB stupid. If cal had an above average QB, we would at least be 3-3 (if not better). A good QB covers up a lot of other flaws. And Wilcox has yet to really have an above average QB

So yes we can complain about recruiting and play calling and development etc. but at the end of the day wilcox's greatest failure was his inability to develop a good quarterback. That's it.

Which should teach us a lesson when looking for the next HC. At a bare minimum you need a coach who can identify and develop qbs. Your ceiling can only be so high with a middling quarterback

Yep. This.

Reply Quote
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 1:20p, 10/18/21
ducky23 said:
Look if you want my honest opinion, I think the coaching and talent level is around mid tier for the conference.

But it's all about the QB stupid. If cal had an above average QB, we would at least be 3-3 (if not better). A good QB covers up a lot of other flaws. And Wilcox has yet to really have an above average QB

So yes we can complain about recruiting and play calling and development etc. but at the end of the day wilcox's greatest failure was his inability to develop a good quarterback. That's it.

Which should teach us a lesson when looking for the next HC. At a bare minimum you need a coach who can identify and develop qbs. Your ceiling can only be so high with a middling quarterback

A lot of truth in this. I would also suggest that Cal has no real impact players. No great WR. No home run RB. No bonified pass rusher. No lockdown CB. No OT that you can count on to hold out the opponents edge rushers with any consistency.

In other words they are mid tier everywhere. Or worse. Hard to win when you have no real impact guys. Garbers is not going to be able to lift the team. He simply misses too many makeable plays. Everyone misses some. He misses multiples each and every week.

During JTs best run they had lots of impact guys. DJ, Marshawn, Best, Follett, SQT, Rodgers, Alualu,Mack. etc. And a lot of other really good players. Vereen, Hawkins, Arrington, Mohammed, Forsett and others. We have heard a lot about improved depth. What that means with this team is subbing one mediocre player for another.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 1:28p, 10/18/21
ducky23 said:
Look if you want my honest opinion, I think the coaching and talent level is around mid tier for the conference.

But it's all about the QB stupid. If cal had an above average QB, we would at least be 3-3 (if not better). A good QB covers up a lot of other flaws. And Wilcox has yet to really have an above average QB

So yes we can complain about recruiting and play calling and development etc. but at the end of the day wilcox's greatest failure was his inability to develop a good quarterback. That's it.

Which should teach us a lesson when looking for the next HC. At a bare minimum you need a coach who can identify and develop qbs. Your ceiling can only be so high with a middling quarterback

I don't think the line is average. There are GREAT QBs who look horrible when they are running for their lives (see KC this year) and average QBs (Much of Big Ben's career in Pitt) that look fantastic when they have protection and can sit back in the pocket for 5 seconds and run through their progressions twice.

I don't think Chase is great but I how many holding penalties did we have because the OL was overwhelemed?
Reply Quote
1
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:53p, 10/18/21
There seems to be a convergence of opinion on growls:

We ain't to good, and would better if we were.
Reply Quote
1
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 6956bear • 2:15p, 10/18/21
6956bear said:
ducky23 said:
Look if you want my honest opinion, I think the coaching and talent level is around mid tier for the conference.

But it's all about the QB stupid. If cal had an above average QB, we would at least be 3-3 (if not better). A good QB covers up a lot of other flaws. And Wilcox has yet to really have an above average QB

So yes we can complain about recruiting and play calling and development etc. but at the end of the day wilcox's greatest failure was his inability to develop a good quarterback. That's it.

Which should teach us a lesson when looking for the next HC. At a bare minimum you need a coach who can identify and develop qbs. Your ceiling can only be so high with a middling quarterback

A lot of truth in this. I would also suggest that Cal has no real impact players. No great WR. No home run RB. No bonified pass rusher. No lockdown CB. No OT that you can count on to hold out the opponents edge rushers with any consistency.

In other words they are mid tier everywhere. Or worse. Hard to win when you have no real impact guys. Garbers is not going to be able to lift the team. He simply misses too many makeable plays. Everyone misses some. He misses multiples each and every week.

During JTs best run they had lots of impact guys. DJ, Marshawn, Best, Follett, SQT, Rodgers, Alualu,Mack. etc. And a lot of other really good players. Vereen, Hawkins, Arrington, Mohammed, Forsett and others. We have heard a lot about improved depth. What that means with this team is subbing one mediocre player for another.


We had no players named to the preseason All PAC-12 teams, 1st, 2nd or Honorable Mention. Same in basketball.

Under Wilcox have been near the bottom of the Psc-12 in recruiting 4 and 5 star elite talent. When our Freshman All American Demitris Robertson transferred people said it was no big deal, and then pointed at his lack of playing time at Georgia. He is tearing it up this year at Auburn.

Baldwin scared off more top talent than he brought in. We had a good WR class this year under Musgrave, but they appear to be redshirting? Why? Now our top commits for next year have decommited.

We had All-PAC-12 players on defense that were recruited by Dykes. Why has Wilcox's recruiting on that side not been better? Our top defensive recruit was Deng, an ILB in a basketball player's body. A unicorn. There were times that he got pushed around because of his high center of gravity. We moved him outside this year where his rangy speed and height can be better put to use but then he got hurt. I like his ability to defend tall TEs. He probably would have given us an effective blitz? Somehow I think TDR would have been more imaginative. But he's been hurt anyway.

A lot has been said about Garbers. I used to defend Garbers saying he was the best player on offense. We had WRs dropping balls. Our RBs were last in the conference in rushing average. Most importantly our OC and his choice of scheme given our players was terrible. Except for Garbers. Baldwin's offense needed a running QB and Garbers could do that. A spread also needs multiple threats at WR or a scheme to get them open and we didn't have that. We could not even get yardage on simple wide receiver screens because 1) with no speed at WR, DBs could play press coverage, 2) we signaled the play and 3) we did not have WRs that could make the first guy miss.

However, we have improved in almost every area to "average" PAC-12. We have 3 good if not great WRs, we have multiple good RBs and Brooks has added moves and quickness that we didn't see from him before. We have TEs that can block and catch. Our line still has problems in pass protection but is pretty good in run blocking. Our limitations are now Garbers and Musgrave's play calling. Garbers is not a pocket passer. He can run, but he cannot throw on the run. He needs to have his feet set. Musgrave needs a QB with a bigger arm. Our best offense is power run outside the tackkes or throwing to TEs off play action. Our WRs need to run more than sideline go routes, we need to attack the middle of the field after play action draws in the safeties. Other teams set up plays to WRs with legal pick plays (within 5 yards). The big improvement this year over last is Musgrave is letting Garbers run if nothing is open. Other teams are aware and try to contain him with the outside rush. We need to move the pocket, get Garbers outside of the tackles (after play action) where he can either set his feet and throw, or tuck the ball and run.
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NVBear78 • 4:47p, 10/18/21
NVBear78 said:
71Bear said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
We saw the same thing on Friday night. The difference is team speed was reminiscent of the difference between Va. Tech and Cal in the Insight Bowl. Tedford remedied that problem in the following years.




Tedford BEAT VTech in the insight bowl with what he had, a disciplined team with a strong offensive line and an all world QB. We also had Chase Lyman who was very big and very fast. Haven't had anyone like him since then...
In his prime years, Tedford came up with ingenious play calls to mask the team's talent issues. You think Vinny Strang was beating anyone on pure talent? Tedford found ways to make him useful.

The current staff clearly isn't doing that. We don't have great talent, but it should be better than 1-5. Coaching is a problem, and that surprises me since in the first few Wilcox seasons I thought we looked like a generally well-coached team.
Reply Quote
ducky23
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:51p, 10/18/21
sycasey said:
NVBear78 said:
71Bear said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
We saw the same thing on Friday night. The difference is team speed was reminiscent of the difference between Va. Tech and Cal in the Insight Bowl. Tedford remedied that problem in the following years.




Tedford BEAT VTech in the insight bowl with what he had, a disciplined team with a strong offensive line and an all world QB. We also had Chase Lyman who was very big and very fast. Haven't had anyone like him since then...
In his prime years, Tedford came up with ingenious play calls to mask the team's talent issues. You think Vinny Strang was beating anyone on pure talent? Tedford found ways to make him useful.

The current staff clearly isn't doing that. We don't have great talent, but it should be better than 1-5. Coaching is a problem, and that surprises me since in the first few Wilcox seasons I thought we looked like a generally well-coached team.
I don't want to go off a complete tangent, but I've always wondered how much of those "prime" Tedford years was actually Tedford and how much was actually Cortez. I feel like a lot of the imagination and ingenuity suddenly disappeared once Cortez left.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 4:53p, 10/18/21
ducky23 said:
sycasey said:
NVBear78 said:
71Bear said:
socaltownie said:
One thing that is clear is that there are "fans" on BI that watch the game through blue and gold colored glasses and can't step back a bit.

Here is what I saw on Friday night - an undersized Cal offensive line and a defensive line that is SLOOOOOWWWW. Secondaries that are vastly difference in skill. Runners who are as well. Ditto WR.

Oregon shot itself in the foot three times and absent that would have had likely a 2 TD lead and milked the clock at the end of the game (and likely put Garbers on a stretcher).

But rather than look at the skill (and recruiting) gap we have posters who say that people like Musgroves are idiots and if they just could call the game all would be right.

It is talent and thus recruiting. That is, bluntly, the alpha and omega and absent coaching who can do that (and continuined improvements in the structural challenges of recruiting to a place like Cal) we will not compete.

And I don't know who else saw the crawl on the broadcast but it gets EVEN BETTER with the NCAA proposal to the Presidents to do away with test score requirements to qualify SA. Will make it even harder to compete talent wise with the rest of our conference.
We saw the same thing on Friday night. The difference is team speed was reminiscent of the difference between Va. Tech and Cal in the Insight Bowl. Tedford remedied that problem in the following years.




Tedford BEAT VTech in the insight bowl with what he had, a disciplined team with a strong offensive line and an all world QB. We also had Chase Lyman who was very big and very fast. Haven't had anyone like him since then...
In his prime years, Tedford came up with ingenious play calls to mask the team's talent issues. You think Vinny Strang was beating anyone on pure talent? Tedford found ways to make him useful.

The current staff clearly isn't doing that. We don't have great talent, but it should be better than 1-5. Coaching is a problem, and that surprises me since in the first few Wilcox seasons I thought we looked like a generally well-coached team.
I don't want to go off a complete tangent, but I've always wondered how much of those "prime" Tedford years was actually Tedford and how much was actually Cortez. I feel like a lot of the imagination and ingenuity suddenly disappeared once Cortez left.
There was still some of it there in 2006-08. Remember the Big Game in 2008? Some inspired plays in that one. And that was on the downside of JT's prime.
Reply Quote
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ducky23 • 4:59p, 10/18/21
ducky23 said:
Look if you want my honest opinion, I think the coaching and talent level is around mid tier for the conference.

But it's all about the QB stupid. If cal had an above average QB, we would at least be 3-3 (if not better). A good QB covers up a lot of other flaws. And Wilcox has yet to really have an above average QB

So yes we can complain about recruiting and play calling and development etc. but at the end of the day wilcox's greatest failure was his inability to develop a good quarterback. That's it.

Which should teach us a lesson when looking for the next HC. At a bare minimum you need a coach who can identify and develop qbs. Your ceiling can only be so high with a middling quarterback

I thought Tedford was the QB guru until he wasn't. Dykes had no issues identifying and developing QBs, but his teams were miserable. We just need a change in culture and develop the attitude/mindset that every player has to win the one-to-one battles, and losing is not acceptable. As an institution, we just lack a winning culture where everyone feels the need to win. Our linemen don't block or rush well. Our wide receivers don't separate. Our QBs don't deliver or make the right decisions. And it's not just one year or one coach. That culture permeates across the entire vertical, from fans, donors, administration, coaches and players. Can't change it until you reset what is acceptable, what the right principles and principles are, and what the acceptable mentality is. As much as I hated Harbaugh, the one thing he changed at Stanford was the culture and attitude. He didn't have better athletes. That came after. He changed the mindset (which we foolishly mocked) and the attitude. And they have been riding that for years.
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.