bledblue said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

bledblue said:

---

Who are the good coaches in College football? Seems that the ones most people think of usually have way more talent than their opponents. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State and past Clemson teams. Does this make their coaches better at calling plays? or just better recruiters? Couple that with the Power Five leagues aren't equal in talent either, and you get major mismatches. Nick Saban didn't do very well in the NFL, neither did Urban Myers or Chip Kelly. Some would say they were lost in the NFL. In fact, MOST college coaches don't do well in that league because teams are closer in talent levels. The difference between the best team and the worst team in the NFL is about 5 starters. So when you're talking about the X's and O's of football, the NFL coaches have an edge on the college coaches due to parity of talent in the league. They've seen everything.

The College game tries to make up for a mismatch of talent with gimmick offenses ( Sonny Dykes). Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. With all this said, Musgrave has been very successful in the NFL. Saying he needs to learn how to call a game is idiotic. The OL hasn't been very good, but the bigger issue has been the QB. In his offense it all starts with the QB, and if you don't know much about what they're trying to do on offense, you'd actually think that Garbers was a good player. Sighting different instances of when the offense struggled is irrelevant. Plays are called not only based on down and distance, but also on the players ability to be successful executing the play. When the QB or OL doesn't match up well with the defense, it is considered in the gameplan. If the QB runs the offense properly, everyone plays better. And we've seen instances of when it happened.

We don't need a new OC. The problem Wilcox has had from day one has been recruiting and developing players. At 5 yrs in, is it going to change? Maybe. Will Cal loosen it's academic standards to help? Hope so. But until we get Pac-12 Level linemen ( on both sides of the ball) and an all conference type QB, we won't break the 6 win mark. The Pac will get better, and if we don't address the talent issues, we will only get worse.

---

I agree about the line recruiting. JW and, maybe Musgrave too, have repeatedly said that this is a big man's game and they want to recruit big players. They seem to be interpreting "big" as tall, esp on the OL. But, unless a player has the wheelhouse, tall won't do him any good, in fact may be a hindrance. They can work in the weight room all you want, but that won't take the place of natural strength in the hips and back. How many 6, 6/6,7 OLs do you see at AL, GA, OSU, Ok? Maybe a few at LOT, but the rest are in the 6,3/6,5 range. I know it sounds silly, but the low man wins and we're not winning, yet.

I really like Ramsey and Vatikani for those reasons. Coleman, Mettauer (sniff), too. Haven't understood Craig. or Daltoso, except as a demonstration of what we don't have. Power.

---

I agree, tall athletic big guys are better for TE or DL (or basketball).

As a generality, I've been thinking we could:should be recruiting a lot more Polynesian OL, DL and TEs. Just look at Utah's roster and they are headed back to the Rose Bowl.

It would be good to have someone on our staff from Hawaii. Maybe if Alualu ever retires? His recruitment and freshman year overlapped Wilcox.

---

Offensive linemen, particularly OT's, need long arms for pass protection. That's why most good OT's are 6'6"plus.. People aren't usually made with extremely long arms and short bodies. As Defensive ends get longer, the guy's who block them get longer and bigger too. Short OT's usually don't fare too well against really good DLers.
Tall OL'ers who are athletic, and can get low, usually win the leverage game. There have been All-pro interior linemen that were in the 6'6"-6'7" range, but they were exceptions to the rule.
Recruit athletes at all positions.

---

And, yet we had (relatively) short OTs in Craig and Daltoso. I think Daltoso is an OG and was played at ROT as a stop-gap for not having a replacement for whatsisname. Their approach seems to be to put your 5 best guys out there and let them learn the spot you've put them in. Same for Cindo - natural OG who stepped in. In that case, it was relatively unexpected. Now, we've got Mettauer to deal with. And, both OTs.

Neveertheless, we've got good guys to start with next year. Coleman - money (remember, he was a high 3 star out of hs), Craig - solid, at least (if he's healthy), Cindo - reliable, Swinney - player, Johnson - comer (underrated, in my opinion). TBDs: Mett - hope springs eternal, Driscoll - healthy?, Rohme - jury's out, Aguilar - ??? (they see something in him). Too soon to tell: all those young guys - one or more witl rise, Vatikani and Ramsey - both are good enough now. This is a good group.

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

boredom said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I disagree with you that the UCLA was about coaching because I don't think it's as easy to scheme around superior talent as you say it is. There were plenty of good play calls that could not be executed because Garbers was thrown off his game early and often.

You are very intelligent and I agree with your take on things a large majority of the time but forgive me if I assume that Musgrave knows more what he has to deal with against UCLA and simply didn't have the tools to do it.

Musgrave has a long tenure in coaching, to think that he simply wasn't prepared for UCLA despite the evidence is a kind of analysis I'm not willing to make.

---

It is one thing to claim (correctly) that the brewins' Offense this year was super-talented, experienced, and a bit<h to contain. The same cannot be said about their defense.

Five teams scored over 30 pts on that defense. Three scored at least 40, including talent-middling Fresno State (middling at recruiting, impressive after development). BM's 14 pts on that allegedly talent-dominant defense were the second lowest scored in their 12-game season. The next 2 higher scorers vs the baby bluins were the talent-overflowing offenses of Arizona (16) and Colorado (20). The offenses of Washington and Leland Turd-Jr were unimpressive this year, yet both managed to score a more respectable 24 points on the mighty azzinaros.

---

Yeah, I overdid it there. It's funny how many of the Wilcox supports have disappeared on this thread. I'm working too hard by myself. It often leads to overstating my case. You are right, Cal should have been able to do more against UCLA. But, again, I didn't see bad play calling. I saw bad play execution. And the OL was miserable. I suppose McClure and Musgrave need to mesh better in prepping for games.

---

Some Wilcox supporters have moved to a "wait and see" status. Count me in that group. I need some convincing after this mess of a season. Twelve months from now, we will know whether he is a long term solution or just another in a long line of guys who tried and failed…..

---

Yup. But I hope you temper your expectations next year with the understanding that we will be rebuilding.

---

My expectations are another 5-7 season (give or take one win).

---

you're wait and see and expect a 4-6 win regular season next year. You expect to know by the end of next season if he's the guy to take us to the top or a failure. How will you judge if he's the guy or not in 12 months if you expect more of the same next year? I get it if he goes 2-10 or 10-2. But what if he's in the range you expect?

---

This is exactly the dilemma for folks who can't assess a team's status beyond wins and losses. For me, there will be ways to tell if the 5-7 or 6-6 record next season means progress or not. There is an old saying, "it's not whether you win or lose but how you played". How they play, will mean something.

Not every year is a rebuilding year. When you lose your 3 year starting QB, 5 of your starting skill guys on offense, 3 of you best players on defense, your punter and your PK, that's rebuilding. Yes Cal had a great opportunity this season and missed it. Who knows when that will happen again? That's over. Let's move on and look at what can be built moving forward. And there are always opportunities every season. That is what I will be watching for. How does Cal take advantage of what opportunities they have moving forward.

---

Yes, "not every year is a rebuilding year". Take the Wilcox Program, for example . . .

2020 was not a rebuilding year. But it turned out to be a "COVID year", so our record didn't matter.

2021 was not a rebuilding year. But we lost anyway. I forget: What was the deal with this year again?

So now it sounds like 2022 is "officially" a rebuilding year. That's okay, because 2020 and 2021 were not rebuilding years.

I'm really looking forward to 2023! (unless it is like the non-rebuilding years of 2020 and 2021)

---

Some of you are having a hard time getting over this last season. The fact is that Wilcox should have been fired after the WSU game and he probably knows that.
Well he wasn't fired and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, almost all of it positive. So, if he wasn't going to be fired then, he isn't going to be fired now. Everybody knows the points you are making and some of knew it months before you started posting this stuff. For example, I was one of the few that predicted a losing season before the season started. I mean many here blame the coach for their own unrealistic expectations. Folks made it up in their minds that Cal was supposed to better than TCU, Nevada and Washington. I never believed that. We came out strong against Nevada and the other 2 had disappointing seasons causing both coaches to get fired. But the point remains that, on paper Cal was never going to win more than 6 games. On paper Cal was not better than TCU, Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA and Furd was 50/50..

Anyway, however you look at it, it is over, Wilcox survived his worst periods. He is going to be here.

So we can make the best of it or we can continue to undercut the support he needs by continually harping on the past, arguing the same tired points endlessly and acting like your standards are higher than Cal's without having any clue what is in the works to make Cal better.
Folks accuse Wilcox of selling us on him. No.
He sold Cal on him in exchange for some needed changes.
Some of you really don't understand how big that is to have a coach with enough pull to get changes.
Let's see what happens with that before we pull the plug on him.

---

I didn't think Wilcox should be fired after the WSU game this season. You're confusing the realists with the Nega-Bears.

Having a realistic discussion on a fan site about the 2021 season and the current state of the program isn't "undercutting the support he needs" or "harping on the past", IMO. It's just Cal fans talking about their team.

I hope Wilcox succeeds at Cal. It is possible. I am rooting for him. All things considered, it seems to be marginally a good idea to stick with him and give him and the program more support.

What I can't do is make excuses for, or put a smiley face on this past season, or on the offense ever since Wilcox arrived. Nor can I feel like it would have been a disaster if Wilcox had gone to Oregon. We simply would have gone in a different direction, without being burdened by a huge buy out. Still, I'm sort of glad he stayed. Now I really want him to win.

---

Just to be clear. I am not putting a smiley face on the season on the field so much as the events on and off the field combined that I feel are significant.

• Improved play
• Improved play calling on offense
• Getting the axe
• Beating USC
• Comments from Michael Saffel that sold me on Wilcox
• Evidence that the players believe in Wilcox and play hard for him, backing up what Saffel said.
• Comments from players and coaches backing up the last 2 points
• Wilcox declining Oregon job after Oregon requested from Cal that they interview him.
• Wilcox declining again, saying he has unfinished business and support from admin.
• Reports, not just from Wilcox, that the administration and Wilcox are working on structural changes to bring more support to the football program, including academic and financial support.
• Reports that major donors are willing to go to bat for Wilcox.

When I put all of these things together, it seems like a bad time to harp on whether or not Glover was adequately prepared to beat Arizona.

It's like sorting your socks when the house is on fire.
I know many folks here go back to the 60s and feel that they are not going to see Cal in a Rose bowl before they die. They have the right to demand better and Cal can do better.

But these attitudes should not take a back seat to the priorities involved in the process to get there. IOWs, don't put the cart before the horse.

I am all for free speech and I am sorry if I shamed anyone out of expressing their thoughts.
I'm just pleading for a sense of timing.

Every single year I warn folks who are pumping up Cal around June and July that Cal may not do as well as they think. I am summarily ignored or drowned out by the same supposed logicians calling for Wilcox to be fired now. And it makes sense, if you conjure up an idea that Cal is better than they are, then of course you are going to blame the coach for anything less.

Maybe you should scrutinize your own preseason analysis instead of the head coach and maybe pre-season is the time to criticize the team, not after it is too late.

I warned about QB problems after Casey and Brasch transferred out in spring (2020?) and no less than the mods here mocked me, saying we had plenty of back up talent. Absolutely nobody stepped in to support me at that time. And so the issue was dropped. Maybe, had the kind of pressure you are exerting now, been done then, we could have beaten Arizona and gone to a bowl. And maybe other changes could have happened sooner than they did and we could have won 10 games this year. Who knows. And characterizing this as just a few folks posting there unfavorable review of the season is unfair and inaccurate. There is a wholesale movement to remove coaches, mainly Wilcox and Musgrave but McClure gets honorable mention. Notice that none of the defensive coaches get mentioned even though the worst recruiting failures have been on that side of the ball and PIs from our DBs have been a signature issue for years without it being effectively addressed. Add to that the regularity of missed tackles and tackling technique and it gets pretty ugly.

It is a chronic problem with the culture of this board that folks don't see problems and then blame the coach when they finally become too obvious to ignore and when it is too late.

I am simply calling people out for campaigning against specific people without really having solid reasoning for it.

---

tl;dr version, it's my fault that we didn't beat Arizona and go to a bowl game... and even that we didn't win ten games.

heartofthebear, I appreciate the sincerity in your posts, but -- time and time again on this thread -- just when you're almost about to win me over, you often manage to go completely off the rails. W T H ?!? Your big paragraph is so full of tripe I don't even know where to begin, but read my facetious tl;dr version of it. Also, Sirmon and the DB coach have caught plenty of crap this past season from posters who like to single out Assistants.

" ... campaigning against specific people without really having solid reasoning for it." Neither the campaigning part nor the not having solid reasoning is true, not even close.

Nothing personal, but I'm calling out the above post for being absolutely ridiculous.

---

I re-read my post and I stand by it. Selectively read it if you want, but there may be 2 sentences out of it that are poorly expressed.
It is hard to counter all of the ridiculous arguments being made against Wilcox and Musgrave.
We clearly all want the best for Cal football and I hope we get it more sooner than later.
I don't care if I win anybody over.
My wishes will win out because Wilcox and Musgtave are sticking around and that will be the case even after Cal goes 5-7 next season.
I was giving people the opportunity to feel optimistic about that. But , if folks want to cry in their milk endlessly or get drunk over it, that's there choice.
Personally I find the criticisms tired, unsophisticated and useless at this point. I have made many of these arguments and criticisms before. And it's easy to make because you feel like you have standards and that feels good.
Well, there comes a point when it's not just free speech and a rousing debate. There comes a point where it is just pity pissing on whoever is a convenient target.

---

We will agree to disagree here. For the record, I am largely a positive poster here, generally supportive of the incumbent coaching staffs (including the current one). It's just that Wilcox really needs to win more and Musgrave needs to score more. I bet even they would agree with that. Results to date have been unsatisfactory and they have been in their positions for five and two years, respectively.

---

I disagree that we disagree because I agree with your comments here. There's a difference between saying what needs to happen and demanding they be fired because it never will happen.

bledblue said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

bledblue said:

---

Who are the good coaches in College football? Seems that the ones most people think of usually have way more talent than their opponents. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State and past Clemson teams. Does this make their coaches better at calling plays? or just better recruiters? Couple that with the Power Five leagues aren't equal in talent either, and you get major mismatches. Nick Saban didn't do very well in the NFL, neither did Urban Myers or Chip Kelly. Some would say they were lost in the NFL. In fact, MOST college coaches don't do well in that league because teams are closer in talent levels. The difference between the best team and the worst team in the NFL is about 5 starters. So when you're talking about the X's and O's of football, the NFL coaches have an edge on the college coaches due to parity of talent in the league. They've seen everything.

The College game tries to make up for a mismatch of talent with gimmick offenses ( Sonny Dykes). Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. With all this said, Musgrave has been very successful in the NFL. Saying he needs to learn how to call a game is idiotic. The OL hasn't been very good, but the bigger issue has been the QB. In his offense it all starts with the QB, and if you don't know much about what they're trying to do on offense, you'd actually think that Garbers was a good player. Sighting different instances of when the offense struggled is irrelevant. Plays are called not only based on down and distance, but also on the players ability to be successful executing the play. When the QB or OL doesn't match up well with the defense, it is considered in the gameplan. If the QB runs the offense properly, everyone plays better. And we've seen instances of when it happened.

We don't need a new OC. The problem Wilcox has had from day one has been recruiting and developing players. At 5 yrs in, is it going to change? Maybe. Will Cal loosen it's academic standards to help? Hope so. But until we get Pac-12 Level linemen ( on both sides of the ball) and an all conference type QB, we won't break the 6 win mark. The Pac will get better, and if we don't address the talent issues, we will only get worse.

---

I agree about the line recruiting. JW and, maybe Musgrave too, have repeatedly said that this is a big man's game and they want to recruit big players. They seem to be interpreting "big" as tall, esp on the OL. But, unless a player has the wheelhouse, tall won't do him any good, in fact may be a hindrance. They can work in the weight room all you want, but that won't take the place of natural strength in the hips and back. How many 6, 6/6,7 OLs do you see at AL, GA, OSU, Ok? Maybe a few at LOT, but the rest are in the 6,3/6,5 range. I know it sounds silly, but the low man wins and we're not winning, yet.

I really like Ramsey and Vatikani for those reasons. Coleman, Mettauer (sniff), too. Haven't understood Craig. or Daltoso, except as a demonstration of what we don't have. Power.

---

I agree, tall athletic big guys are better for TE or DL (or basketball).

As a generality, I've been thinking we could:should be recruiting a lot more Polynesian OL, DL and TEs. Just look at Utah's roster and they are headed back to the Rose Bowl.

It would be good to have someone on our staff from Hawaii. Maybe if Alualu ever retires? His recruitment and freshman year overlapped Wilcox.

---

Offensive linemen, particularly OT's, need long arms for pass protection. That's why most good OT's are 6'6"plus.. People aren't usually made with extremely long arms and short bodies. As Defensive ends get longer, the guy's who block them get longer and bigger too. Short OT's usually don't fare too well against really good DLers.
Tall OL'ers who are athletic, and can get low, usually win the leverage game. There have been All-pro interior linemen that were in the 6'6"-6'7" range, but they were exceptions to the rule.
Recruit athletes at all positions.

---

Can you explain why long arms are better for pass protection? (Other than obvious holding calls).

calumnus said:

---

bledblue said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

bledblue said:

---

Who are the good coaches in College football? Seems that the ones most people think of usually have way more talent than their opponents. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State and past Clemson teams. Does this make their coaches better at calling plays? or just better recruiters? Couple that with the Power Five leagues aren't equal in talent either, and you get major mismatches. Nick Saban didn't do very well in the NFL, neither did Urban Myers or Chip Kelly. Some would say they were lost in the NFL. In fact, MOST college coaches don't do well in that league because teams are closer in talent levels. The difference between the best team and the worst team in the NFL is about 5 starters. So when you're talking about the X's and O's of football, the NFL coaches have an edge on the college coaches due to parity of talent in the league. They've seen everything.

The College game tries to make up for a mismatch of talent with gimmick offenses ( Sonny Dykes). Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. With all this said, Musgrave has been very successful in the NFL. Saying he needs to learn how to call a game is idiotic. The OL hasn't been very good, but the bigger issue has been the QB. In his offense it all starts with the QB, and if you don't know much about what they're trying to do on offense, you'd actually think that Garbers was a good player. Sighting different instances of when the offense struggled is irrelevant. Plays are called not only based on down and distance, but also on the players ability to be successful executing the play. When the QB or OL doesn't match up well with the defense, it is considered in the gameplan. If the QB runs the offense properly, everyone plays better. And we've seen instances of when it happened.

We don't need a new OC. The problem Wilcox has had from day one has been recruiting and developing players. At 5 yrs in, is it going to change? Maybe. Will Cal loosen it's academic standards to help? Hope so. But until we get Pac-12 Level linemen ( on both sides of the ball) and an all conference type QB, we won't break the 6 win mark. The Pac will get better, and if we don't address the talent issues, we will only get worse.

---

I agree about the line recruiting. JW and, maybe Musgrave too, have repeatedly said that this is a big man's game and they want to recruit big players. They seem to be interpreting "big" as tall, esp on the OL. But, unless a player has the wheelhouse, tall won't do him any good, in fact may be a hindrance. They can work in the weight room all you want, but that won't take the place of natural strength in the hips and back. How many 6, 6/6,7 OLs do you see at AL, GA, OSU, Ok? Maybe a few at LOT, but the rest are in the 6,3/6,5 range. I know it sounds silly, but the low man wins and we're not winning, yet.

I really like Ramsey and Vatikani for those reasons. Coleman, Mettauer (sniff), too. Haven't understood Craig. or Daltoso, except as a demonstration of what we don't have. Power.

---

I agree, tall athletic big guys are better for TE or DL (or basketball).

As a generality, I've been thinking we could:should be recruiting a lot more Polynesian OL, DL and TEs. Just look at Utah's roster and they are headed back to the Rose Bowl.

It would be good to have someone on our staff from Hawaii. Maybe if Alualu ever retires? His recruitment and freshman year overlapped Wilcox.

---

Offensive linemen, particularly OT's, need long arms for pass protection. That's why most good OT's are 6'6"plus.. People aren't usually made with extremely long arms and short bodies. As Defensive ends get longer, the guy's who block them get longer and bigger too. Short OT's usually don't fare too well against really good DLers.
Tall OL'ers who are athletic, and can get low, usually win the leverage game. There have been All-pro interior linemen that were in the 6'6"-6'7" range, but they were exceptions to the rule.
Recruit athletes at all positions.

---

Can you explain why long arms are better for pass protection? (Other than obvious holding calls).

---

Keep the rusher from getting to your body. If the DE gets his hands on you, there is a twist move that will throw you out of the way...among others.

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bledblue said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

bledblue said:

---

Who are the good coaches in College football? Seems that the ones most people think of usually have way more talent than their opponents. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State and past Clemson teams. Does this make their coaches better at calling plays? or just better recruiters? Couple that with the Power Five leagues aren't equal in talent either, and you get major mismatches. Nick Saban didn't do very well in the NFL, neither did Urban Myers or Chip Kelly. Some would say they were lost in the NFL. In fact, MOST college coaches don't do well in that league because teams are closer in talent levels. The difference between the best team and the worst team in the NFL is about 5 starters. So when you're talking about the X's and O's of football, the NFL coaches have an edge on the college coaches due to parity of talent in the league. They've seen everything.

The College game tries to make up for a mismatch of talent with gimmick offenses ( Sonny Dykes). Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. With all this said, Musgrave has been very successful in the NFL. Saying he needs to learn how to call a game is idiotic. The OL hasn't been very good, but the bigger issue has been the QB. In his offense it all starts with the QB, and if you don't know much about what they're trying to do on offense, you'd actually think that Garbers was a good player. Sighting different instances of when the offense struggled is irrelevant. Plays are called not only based on down and distance, but also on the players ability to be successful executing the play. When the QB or OL doesn't match up well with the defense, it is considered in the gameplan. If the QB runs the offense properly, everyone plays better. And we've seen instances of when it happened.

We don't need a new OC. The problem Wilcox has had from day one has been recruiting and developing players. At 5 yrs in, is it going to change? Maybe. Will Cal loosen it's academic standards to help? Hope so. But until we get Pac-12 Level linemen ( on both sides of the ball) and an all conference type QB, we won't break the 6 win mark. The Pac will get better, and if we don't address the talent issues, we will only get worse.

---

I agree about the line recruiting. JW and, maybe Musgrave too, have repeatedly said that this is a big man's game and they want to recruit big players. They seem to be interpreting "big" as tall, esp on the OL. But, unless a player has the wheelhouse, tall won't do him any good, in fact may be a hindrance. They can work in the weight room all you want, but that won't take the place of natural strength in the hips and back. How many 6, 6/6,7 OLs do you see at AL, GA, OSU, Ok? Maybe a few at LOT, but the rest are in the 6,3/6,5 range. I know it sounds silly, but the low man wins and we're not winning, yet.

I really like Ramsey and Vatikani for those reasons. Coleman, Mettauer (sniff), too. Haven't understood Craig. or Daltoso, except as a demonstration of what we don't have. Power.

---

I agree, tall athletic big guys are better for TE or DL (or basketball).

As a generality, I've been thinking we could:should be recruiting a lot more Polynesian OL, DL and TEs. Just look at Utah's roster and they are headed back to the Rose Bowl.

It would be good to have someone on our staff from Hawaii. Maybe if Alualu ever retires? His recruitment and freshman year overlapped Wilcox.

---

Offensive linemen, particularly OT's, need long arms for pass protection. That's why most good OT's are 6'6"plus.. People aren't usually made with extremely long arms and short bodies. As Defensive ends get longer, the guy's who block them get longer and bigger too. Short OT's usually don't fare too well against really good DLers.
Tall OL'ers who are athletic, and can get low, usually win the leverage game. There have been All-pro interior linemen that were in the 6'6"-6'7" range, but they were exceptions to the rule.
Recruit athletes at all positions.

---

Can you explain why long arms are better for pass protection? (Other than obvious holding calls).

---

Keep the rusher from getting to your body. If the DE gets his hands on you, there is a twist move that will throw you out of the way...among others.

---

Yes, that makes sense, thanks

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bledblue said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

bledblue said:

---

Who are the good coaches in College football? Seems that the ones most people think of usually have way more talent than their opponents. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State and past Clemson teams. Does this make their coaches better at calling plays? or just better recruiters? Couple that with the Power Five leagues aren't equal in talent either, and you get major mismatches. Nick Saban didn't do very well in the NFL, neither did Urban Myers or Chip Kelly. Some would say they were lost in the NFL. In fact, MOST college coaches don't do well in that league because teams are closer in talent levels. The difference between the best team and the worst team in the NFL is about 5 starters. So when you're talking about the X's and O's of football, the NFL coaches have an edge on the college coaches due to parity of talent in the league. They've seen everything.

The College game tries to make up for a mismatch of talent with gimmick offenses ( Sonny Dykes). Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. With all this said, Musgrave has been very successful in the NFL. Saying he needs to learn how to call a game is idiotic. The OL hasn't been very good, but the bigger issue has been the QB. In his offense it all starts with the QB, and if you don't know much about what they're trying to do on offense, you'd actually think that Garbers was a good player. Sighting different instances of when the offense struggled is irrelevant. Plays are called not only based on down and distance, but also on the players ability to be successful executing the play. When the QB or OL doesn't match up well with the defense, it is considered in the gameplan. If the QB runs the offense properly, everyone plays better. And we've seen instances of when it happened.

We don't need a new OC. The problem Wilcox has had from day one has been recruiting and developing players. At 5 yrs in, is it going to change? Maybe. Will Cal loosen it's academic standards to help? Hope so. But until we get Pac-12 Level linemen ( on both sides of the ball) and an all conference type QB, we won't break the 6 win mark. The Pac will get better, and if we don't address the talent issues, we will only get worse.

---

I agree about the line recruiting. JW and, maybe Musgrave too, have repeatedly said that this is a big man's game and they want to recruit big players. They seem to be interpreting "big" as tall, esp on the OL. But, unless a player has the wheelhouse, tall won't do him any good, in fact may be a hindrance. They can work in the weight room all you want, but that won't take the place of natural strength in the hips and back. How many 6, 6/6,7 OLs do you see at AL, GA, OSU, Ok? Maybe a few at LOT, but the rest are in the 6,3/6,5 range. I know it sounds silly, but the low man wins and we're not winning, yet.

I really like Ramsey and Vatikani for those reasons. Coleman, Mettauer (sniff), too. Haven't understood Craig. or Daltoso, except as a demonstration of what we don't have. Power.

---

I agree, tall athletic big guys are better for TE or DL (or basketball).

As a generality, I've been thinking we could:should be recruiting a lot more Polynesian OL, DL and TEs. Just look at Utah's roster and they are headed back to the Rose Bowl.

It would be good to have someone on our staff from Hawaii. Maybe if Alualu ever retires? His recruitment and freshman year overlapped Wilcox.

---

Offensive linemen, particularly OT's, need long arms for pass protection. That's why most good OT's are 6'6"plus.. People aren't usually made with extremely long arms and short bodies. As Defensive ends get longer, the guy's who block them get longer and bigger too. Short OT's usually don't fare too well against really good DLers.
Tall OL'ers who are athletic, and can get low, usually win the leverage game. There have been All-pro interior linemen that were in the 6'6"-6'7" range, but they were exceptions to the rule.
Recruit athletes at all positions.

---

Can you explain why long arms are better for pass protection? (Other than obvious holding calls).

---

Keep the rusher from getting to your body. If the DE gets his hands on you, there is a twist move that will throw you out of the way...among others.

---

Once a player gets into your body, you've lost leverage, and it shortens the angles to the QB. Maintaining the proper body position in relation to the defender is almost impossible at that point.

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

boredom said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I disagree with you that the UCLA was about coaching because I don't think it's as easy to scheme around superior talent as you say it is. There were plenty of good play calls that could not be executed because Garbers was thrown off his game early and often.

You are very intelligent and I agree with your take on things a large majority of the time but forgive me if I assume that Musgrave knows more what he has to deal with against UCLA and simply didn't have the tools to do it.

Musgrave has a long tenure in coaching, to think that he simply wasn't prepared for UCLA despite the evidence is a kind of analysis I'm not willing to make.

---

It is one thing to claim (correctly) that the brewins' Offense this year was super-talented, experienced, and a bit<h to contain. The same cannot be said about their defense.

Five teams scored over 30 pts on that defense. Three scored at least 40, including talent-middling Fresno State (middling at recruiting, impressive after development). BM's 14 pts on that allegedly talent-dominant defense were the second lowest scored in their 12-game season. The next 2 higher scorers vs the baby bluins were the talent-overflowing offenses of Arizona (16) and Colorado (20). The offenses of Washington and Leland Turd-Jr were unimpressive this year, yet both managed to score a more respectable 24 points on the mighty azzinaros.

---

Yeah, I overdid it there. It's funny how many of the Wilcox supports have disappeared on this thread. I'm working too hard by myself. It often leads to overstating my case. You are right, Cal should have been able to do more against UCLA. But, again, I didn't see bad play calling. I saw bad play execution. And the OL was miserable. I suppose McClure and Musgrave need to mesh better in prepping for games.

---

Some Wilcox supporters have moved to a "wait and see" status. Count me in that group. I need some convincing after this mess of a season. Twelve months from now, we will know whether he is a long term solution or just another in a long line of guys who tried and failed…..

---

Yup. But I hope you temper your expectations next year with the understanding that we will be rebuilding.

---

My expectations are another 5-7 season (give or take one win).

---

you're wait and see and expect a 4-6 win regular season next year. You expect to know by the end of next season if he's the guy to take us to the top or a failure. How will you judge if he's the guy or not in 12 months if you expect more of the same next year? I get it if he goes 2-10 or 10-2. But what if he's in the range you expect?

---

This is exactly the dilemma for folks who can't assess a team's status beyond wins and losses. For me, there will be ways to tell if the 5-7 or 6-6 record next season means progress or not. There is an old saying, "it's not whether you win or lose but how you played". How they play, will mean something.

Not every year is a rebuilding year. When you lose your 3 year starting QB, 5 of your starting skill guys on offense, 3 of you best players on defense, your punter and your PK, that's rebuilding. Yes Cal had a great opportunity this season and missed it. Who knows when that will happen again? That's over. Let's move on and look at what can be built moving forward. And there are always opportunities every season. That is what I will be watching for. How does Cal take advantage of what opportunities they have moving forward.

---

Yes, "not every year is a rebuilding year". Take the Wilcox Program, for example . . .

2020 was not a rebuilding year. But it turned out to be a "COVID year", so our record didn't matter.

2021 was not a rebuilding year. But we lost anyway. I forget: What was the deal with this year again?

So now it sounds like 2022 is "officially" a rebuilding year. That's okay, because 2020 and 2021 were not rebuilding years.

I'm really looking forward to 2023! (unless it is like the non-rebuilding years of 2020 and 2021)

---

Some of you are having a hard time getting over this last season. The fact is that Wilcox should have been fired after the WSU game and he probably knows that.
Well he wasn't fired and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, almost all of it positive. So, if he wasn't going to be fired then, he isn't going to be fired now. Everybody knows the points you are making and some of knew it months before you started posting this stuff. For example, I was one of the few that predicted a losing season before the season started. I mean many here blame the coach for their own unrealistic expectations. Folks made it up in their minds that Cal was supposed to better than TCU, Nevada and Washington. I never believed that. We came out strong against Nevada and the other 2 had disappointing seasons causing both coaches to get fired. But the point remains that, on paper Cal was never going to win more than 6 games. On paper Cal was not better than TCU, Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA and Furd was 50/50..

Anyway, however you look at it, it is over, Wilcox survived his worst periods. He is going to be here.

So we can make the best of it or we can continue to undercut the support he needs by continually harping on the past, arguing the same tired points endlessly and acting like your standards are higher than Cal's without having any clue what is in the works to make Cal better.
Folks accuse Wilcox of selling us on him. No.
He sold Cal on him in exchange for some needed changes.
Some of you really don't understand how big that is to have a coach with enough pull to get changes.
Let's see what happens with that before we pull the plug on him.

---

I didn't think Wilcox should be fired after the WSU game this season. You're confusing the realists with the Nega-Bears.

Having a realistic discussion on a fan site about the 2021 season and the current state of the program isn't "undercutting the support he needs" or "harping on the past", IMO. It's just Cal fans talking about their team.

I hope Wilcox succeeds at Cal. It is possible. I am rooting for him. All things considered, it seems to be marginally a good idea to stick with him and give him and the program more support.

What I can't do is make excuses for, or put a smiley face on this past season, or on the offense ever since Wilcox arrived. Nor can I feel like it would have been a disaster if Wilcox had gone to Oregon. We simply would have gone in a different direction, without being burdened by a huge buy out. Still, I'm sort of glad he stayed. Now I really want him to win.

---

Just to be clear. I am not putting a smiley face on the season on the field so much as the events on and off the field combined that I feel are significant.

• Improved play
• Improved play calling on offense
• Getting the axe
• Beating USC
• Comments from Michael Saffel that sold me on Wilcox
• Evidence that the players believe in Wilcox and play hard for him, backing up what Saffel said.
• Comments from players and coaches backing up the last 2 points
• Wilcox declining Oregon job after Oregon requested from Cal that they interview him.
• Wilcox declining again, saying he has unfinished business and support from admin.
• Reports, not just from Wilcox, that the administration and Wilcox are working on structural changes to bring more support to the football program, including academic and financial support.
• Reports that major donors are willing to go to bat for Wilcox.

When I put all of these things together, it seems like a bad time to harp on whether or not Glover was adequately prepared to beat Arizona.

It's like sorting your socks when the house is on fire.
I know many folks here go back to the 60s and feel that they are not going to see Cal in a Rose bowl before they die. They have the right to demand better and Cal can do better.

But these attitudes should not take a back seat to the priorities involved in the process to get there. IOWs, don't put the cart before the horse.

I am all for free speech and I am sorry if I shamed anyone out of expressing their thoughts.
I'm just pleading for a sense of timing.

Every single year I warn folks who are pumping up Cal around June and July that Cal may not do as well as they think. I am summarily ignored or drowned out by the same supposed logicians calling for Wilcox to be fired now. And it makes sense, if you conjure up an idea that Cal is better than they are, then of course you are going to blame the coach for anything less.

Maybe you should scrutinize your own preseason analysis instead of the head coach and maybe pre-season is the time to criticize the team, not after it is too late.

I warned about QB problems after Casey and Brasch transferred out in spring (2020?) and no less than the mods here mocked me, saying we had plenty of back up talent. Absolutely nobody stepped in to support me at that time. And so the issue was dropped. Maybe, had the kind of pressure you are exerting now, been done then, we could have beaten Arizona and gone to a bowl. And maybe other changes could have happened sooner than they did and we could have won 10 games this year. Who knows. And characterizing this as just a few folks posting there unfavorable review of the season is unfair and inaccurate. There is a wholesale movement to remove coaches, mainly Wilcox and Musgrave but McClure gets honorable mention. Notice that none of the defensive coaches get mentioned even though the worst recruiting failures have been on that side of the ball and PIs from our DBs have been a signature issue for years without it being effectively addressed. Add to that the regularity of missed tackles and tackling technique and it gets pretty ugly.

It is a chronic problem with the culture of this board that folks don't see problems and then blame the coach when they finally become too obvious to ignore and when it is too late.

I am simply calling people out for campaigning against specific people without really having solid reasoning for it.

---

tl;dr version, it's my fault that we didn't beat Arizona and go to a bowl game... and even that we didn't win ten games.

heartofthebear, I appreciate the sincerity in your posts, but -- time and time again on this thread -- just when you're almost about to win me over, you often manage to go completely off the rails. W T H ?!? Your big paragraph is so full of tripe I don't even know where to begin, but read my facetious tl;dr version of it. Also, Sirmon and the DB coach have caught plenty of crap this past season from posters who like to single out Assistants.

" ... campaigning against specific people without really having solid reasoning for it." Neither the campaigning part nor the not having solid reasoning is true, not even close.

Nothing personal, but I'm calling out the above post for being absolutely ridiculous.

---

I re-read my post and I stand by it. Selectively read it if you want, but there may be 2 sentences out of it that are poorly expressed.
It is hard to counter all of the ridiculous arguments being made against Wilcox and Musgrave.
We clearly all want the best for Cal football and I hope we get it more sooner than later.
I don't care if I win anybody over.
My wishes will win out because Wilcox and Musgtave are sticking around and that will be the case even after Cal goes 5-7 next season.
I was giving people the opportunity to feel optimistic about that. But , if folks want to cry in their milk endlessly or get drunk over it, that's there choice.
Personally I find the criticisms tired, unsophisticated and useless at this point. I have made many of these arguments and criticisms before. And it's easy to make because you feel like you have standards and that feels good.
Well, there comes a point when it's not just free speech and a rousing debate. There comes a point where it is just pity pissing on whoever is a convenient target.

---

We will agree to disagree here. For the record, I am largely a positive poster here, generally supportive of the incumbent coaching staffs (including the current one). It's just that Wilcox really needs to win more and Musgrave needs to score more. I bet even they would agree with that. Results to date have been unsatisfactory and they have been in their positions for five and two years, respectively.

---

To me this is simple stuff. Wins matter. The HC of a major college program has certain expectations for results. They keep score the team with the most points wins. Not hard to understand. Wilcox is paid quite well to produce a winning program. Musgrave similarly to produce an offense that can score points. Both are failing in that endeavor IMHO.

There are folks that will disagree. That is fine. If winning does not matter then why even bother. The team needs to win. The HC is the leader of the program. His decisions matter. His decision to keep Musgrave will receive lots of scrutiny. As it should.

I would have fired Wilcox the Sunday after the USC game. He has failed to win enough games to justify his continued employment IMO. Not to mention the ROI. Donors continue to pour resources into the program at levels not seen in my lifetime. Yet they still lose more than they win.

I believe the resources are necessary. I just do not believe Justin Wilcox has done enough to "earn it" as he likes to say. Keep the resources and go find a coach that can actually produce results and hold assistants accountable for results. IMO Wilcox needs to win a minimum of 8 regular season games to keep his job after next season. Musgrave needs to have an offense that sits in the top half of the P12 in points scored. You win games by scoring more than your opponent.

For all the heat the defensive staff gets (some of it justified) they sit in the upper half of the P12 in most categories. Including the most important one. Points allowed.

6956bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

boredom said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I disagree with you that the UCLA was about coaching because I don't think it's as easy to scheme around superior talent as you say it is. There were plenty of good play calls that could not be executed because Garbers was thrown off his game early and often.

You are very intelligent and I agree with your take on things a large majority of the time but forgive me if I assume that Musgrave knows more what he has to deal with against UCLA and simply didn't have the tools to do it.

Musgrave has a long tenure in coaching, to think that he simply wasn't prepared for UCLA despite the evidence is a kind of analysis I'm not willing to make.

---

It is one thing to claim (correctly) that the brewins' Offense this year was super-talented, experienced, and a bit<h to contain. The same cannot be said about their defense.

Five teams scored over 30 pts on that defense. Three scored at least 40, including talent-middling Fresno State (middling at recruiting, impressive after development). BM's 14 pts on that allegedly talent-dominant defense were the second lowest scored in their 12-game season. The next 2 higher scorers vs the baby bluins were the talent-overflowing offenses of Arizona (16) and Colorado (20). The offenses of Washington and Leland Turd-Jr were unimpressive this year, yet both managed to score a more respectable 24 points on the mighty azzinaros.

---

Yeah, I overdid it there. It's funny how many of the Wilcox supports have disappeared on this thread. I'm working too hard by myself. It often leads to overstating my case. You are right, Cal should have been able to do more against UCLA. But, again, I didn't see bad play calling. I saw bad play execution. And the OL was miserable. I suppose McClure and Musgrave need to mesh better in prepping for games.

---

Some Wilcox supporters have moved to a "wait and see" status. Count me in that group. I need some convincing after this mess of a season. Twelve months from now, we will know whether he is a long term solution or just another in a long line of guys who tried and failed…..

---

Yup. But I hope you temper your expectations next year with the understanding that we will be rebuilding.

---

My expectations are another 5-7 season (give or take one win).

---

you're wait and see and expect a 4-6 win regular season next year. You expect to know by the end of next season if he's the guy to take us to the top or a failure. How will you judge if he's the guy or not in 12 months if you expect more of the same next year? I get it if he goes 2-10 or 10-2. But what if he's in the range you expect?

---

This is exactly the dilemma for folks who can't assess a team's status beyond wins and losses. For me, there will be ways to tell if the 5-7 or 6-6 record next season means progress or not. There is an old saying, "it's not whether you win or lose but how you played". How they play, will mean something.

Not every year is a rebuilding year. When you lose your 3 year starting QB, 5 of your starting skill guys on offense, 3 of you best players on defense, your punter and your PK, that's rebuilding. Yes Cal had a great opportunity this season and missed it. Who knows when that will happen again? That's over. Let's move on and look at what can be built moving forward. And there are always opportunities every season. That is what I will be watching for. How does Cal take advantage of what opportunities they have moving forward.

---

Yes, "not every year is a rebuilding year". Take the Wilcox Program, for example . . .

2020 was not a rebuilding year. But it turned out to be a "COVID year", so our record didn't matter.

2021 was not a rebuilding year. But we lost anyway. I forget: What was the deal with this year again?

So now it sounds like 2022 is "officially" a rebuilding year. That's okay, because 2020 and 2021 were not rebuilding years.

I'm really looking forward to 2023! (unless it is like the non-rebuilding years of 2020 and 2021)

---

Some of you are having a hard time getting over this last season. The fact is that Wilcox should have been fired after the WSU game and he probably knows that.
Well he wasn't fired and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, almost all of it positive. So, if he wasn't going to be fired then, he isn't going to be fired now. Everybody knows the points you are making and some of knew it months before you started posting this stuff. For example, I was one of the few that predicted a losing season before the season started. I mean many here blame the coach for their own unrealistic expectations. Folks made it up in their minds that Cal was supposed to better than TCU, Nevada and Washington. I never believed that. We came out strong against Nevada and the other 2 had disappointing seasons causing both coaches to get fired. But the point remains that, on paper Cal was never going to win more than 6 games. On paper Cal was not better than TCU, Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA and Furd was 50/50..

Anyway, however you look at it, it is over, Wilcox survived his worst periods. He is going to be here.

So we can make the best of it or we can continue to undercut the support he needs by continually harping on the past, arguing the same tired points endlessly and acting like your standards are higher than Cal's without having any clue what is in the works to make Cal better.
Folks accuse Wilcox of selling us on him. No.
He sold Cal on him in exchange for some needed changes.
Some of you really don't understand how big that is to have a coach with enough pull to get changes.
Let's see what happens with that before we pull the plug on him.

---

I didn't think Wilcox should be fired after the WSU game this season. You're confusing the realists with the Nega-Bears.

Having a realistic discussion on a fan site about the 2021 season and the current state of the program isn't "undercutting the support he needs" or "harping on the past", IMO. It's just Cal fans talking about their team.

I hope Wilcox succeeds at Cal. It is possible. I am rooting for him. All things considered, it seems to be marginally a good idea to stick with him and give him and the program more support.

What I can't do is make excuses for, or put a smiley face on this past season, or on the offense ever since Wilcox arrived. Nor can I feel like it would have been a disaster if Wilcox had gone to Oregon. We simply would have gone in a different direction, without being burdened by a huge buy out. Still, I'm sort of glad he stayed. Now I really want him to win.

---

Just to be clear. I am not putting a smiley face on the season on the field so much as the events on and off the field combined that I feel are significant.

• Improved play
• Improved play calling on offense
• Getting the axe
• Beating USC
• Comments from Michael Saffel that sold me on Wilcox
• Evidence that the players believe in Wilcox and play hard for him, backing up what Saffel said.
• Comments from players and coaches backing up the last 2 points
• Wilcox declining Oregon job after Oregon requested from Cal that they interview him.
• Wilcox declining again, saying he has unfinished business and support from admin.
• Reports, not just from Wilcox, that the administration and Wilcox are working on structural changes to bring more support to the football program, including academic and financial support.
• Reports that major donors are willing to go to bat for Wilcox.

When I put all of these things together, it seems like a bad time to harp on whether or not Glover was adequately prepared to beat Arizona.

It's like sorting your socks when the house is on fire.
I know many folks here go back to the 60s and feel that they are not going to see Cal in a Rose bowl before they die. They have the right to demand better and Cal can do better.

But these attitudes should not take a back seat to the priorities involved in the process to get there. IOWs, don't put the cart before the horse.

I am all for free speech and I am sorry if I shamed anyone out of expressing their thoughts.
I'm just pleading for a sense of timing.

Every single year I warn folks who are pumping up Cal around June and July that Cal may not do as well as they think. I am summarily ignored or drowned out by the same supposed logicians calling for Wilcox to be fired now. And it makes sense, if you conjure up an idea that Cal is better than they are, then of course you are going to blame the coach for anything less.

Maybe you should scrutinize your own preseason analysis instead of the head coach and maybe pre-season is the time to criticize the team, not after it is too late.

I warned about QB problems after Casey and Brasch transferred out in spring (2020?) and no less than the mods here mocked me, saying we had plenty of back up talent. Absolutely nobody stepped in to support me at that time. And so the issue was dropped. Maybe, had the kind of pressure you are exerting now, been done then, we could have beaten Arizona and gone to a bowl. And maybe other changes could have happened sooner than they did and we could have won 10 games this year. Who knows. And characterizing this as just a few folks posting there unfavorable review of the season is unfair and inaccurate. There is a wholesale movement to remove coaches, mainly Wilcox and Musgrave but McClure gets honorable mention. Notice that none of the defensive coaches get mentioned even though the worst recruiting failures have been on that side of the ball and PIs from our DBs have been a signature issue for years without it being effectively addressed. Add to that the regularity of missed tackles and tackling technique and it gets pretty ugly.

It is a chronic problem with the culture of this board that folks don't see problems and then blame the coach when they finally become too obvious to ignore and when it is too late.

I am simply calling people out for campaigning against specific people without really having solid reasoning for it.

---

tl;dr version, it's my fault that we didn't beat Arizona and go to a bowl game... and even that we didn't win ten games.

heartofthebear, I appreciate the sincerity in your posts, but -- time and time again on this thread -- just when you're almost about to win me over, you often manage to go completely off the rails. W T H ?!? Your big paragraph is so full of tripe I don't even know where to begin, but read my facetious tl;dr version of it. Also, Sirmon and the DB coach have caught plenty of crap this past season from posters who like to single out Assistants.

" ... campaigning against specific people without really having solid reasoning for it." Neither the campaigning part nor the not having solid reasoning is true, not even close.

Nothing personal, but I'm calling out the above post for being absolutely ridiculous.

---

I re-read my post and I stand by it. Selectively read it if you want, but there may be 2 sentences out of it that are poorly expressed.
It is hard to counter all of the ridiculous arguments being made against Wilcox and Musgrave.
We clearly all want the best for Cal football and I hope we get it more sooner than later.
I don't care if I win anybody over.
My wishes will win out because Wilcox and Musgtave are sticking around and that will be the case even after Cal goes 5-7 next season.
I was giving people the opportunity to feel optimistic about that. But , if folks want to cry in their milk endlessly or get drunk over it, that's there choice.
Personally I find the criticisms tired, unsophisticated and useless at this point. I have made many of these arguments and criticisms before. And it's easy to make because you feel like you have standards and that feels good.
Well, there comes a point when it's not just free speech and a rousing debate. There comes a point where it is just pity pissing on whoever is a convenient target.

---

We will agree to disagree here. For the record, I am largely a positive poster here, generally supportive of the incumbent coaching staffs (including the current one). It's just that Wilcox really needs to win more and Musgrave needs to score more. I bet even they would agree with that. Results to date have been unsatisfactory and they have been in their positions for five and two years, respectively.

---

To me this is simple stuff. Wins matter. The HC of a major college program has certain expectations for results. They keep score the team with the most points wins. Not hard to understand. Wilcox is paid quite well to produce a winning program. Musgrave similarly to produce an offense that can score points. Both are failing in that endeavor IMHO.

There are folks that will disagree. That is fine. If winning does not matter then why even bother. The team needs to win. The HC is the leader of the program. His decisions matter. His decision to keep Musgrave will receive lots of scrutiny. As it should.

I would have fired Wilcox the Sunday after the USC game. He has failed to win enough games to justify his continued employment IMO. Not to mention the ROI. Donors continue to pour resources into the program at levels not seen in my lifetime. Yet they still lose more than they win.

I believe the resources are necessary. I just do not believe Justin Wilcox has done enough to "earn it" as he likes to say. Keep the resources and go find a coach that can actually produce results and hold assistants accountable for results. IMO Wilcox needs to win a minimum of 8 regular season games to keep his job after next season. Musgrave needs to have an offense that sits in the top half of the P12 in points scored. You win games by scoring more than your opponent.

For all the heat the defensive staff gets (some of it justified) they sit in the upper half of the P12 in most categories. Including the most important one. Points allowed.

---

I agree. But there are those who's only criteria is that the coach refused Oregon and thus loves Cal. I love Cal but would not be a good football coach . We all know how this will work out, as it always.

oskidunker said:

---

I agree. But there are those who's only criteria is that the coach refused Oregon and thus loves Cal. I love Cal but would not be a good football coach . We all know how this will work out, as it always.

---

Sorry if I got a little lost in your logic. Maybe I misunderstand your comment.

I very much like the fact that that JW refused UO 's offers (TWICE) not because it shows he loves Cal but because it is some evidence that

1. He is a good coach. A school with a tradition of hiring good coaches and regularly in the top 3 of the PAC-12 evaluated him and TWICE came to the conclusion that he was good enough to hire as a a head coach.

2. He believes his future is better at Cal than at UO. There are a lot of different factors that go into a decision whether one school is better for a coach's career than another. One of those factors is where am I more likely to succeed and which has the better infrastructure for success. JW picked Cal over UO. I never thought any good college coach would pick Cal over UO. Therefore JW who knows more about what is going on behind the scenes knows/believes that Cal is more likely to provide him a chance to succeed. That means a lot to me.

It has nothing to do with whether JW loves Cal or not. For all I know he is more likely to have a fondness for UO more than for Cal. All his prior connections would lead him to love UO over Cal.