When Wilcox was hired in late 2016, Cal had been all offense and little defense under Sonny Dykes. Wilcox, having been primarily a defense guy, including several high profile DC jobs inside the conference and a stint under JT at Cal prior to that. So, Cal did a flip and became much better on D, almost immediately. The hope was that young superstar Beau Baldwin would take care of the offense. But that didn't happen and Baldwin found another position at Cal Poly after the 2019. Bill Musgrave was then hired with mixed reviews and concerns from this board. Criticisms seemed largely based on the idea that Musgrave is old and washed up. The fear that Musgrave was a symptom of the fact that Wilcox cannot get the offense right and would just be another Baldwin drove a lot of the rhetoric to the point that actual facts did not matter. He was accused of conservative play calling, something you have to do when the offense is not fully installed and/or the OL is struggling. Even so, few bothered to specify what sort of play calling would have been more successful under the circumstance.

The purpose of this report is to provide data in support of a more reasoned narrative. It largely focuses on showing that, at a minimum, Musgrave is significantly better than Baldwin. Keep in mind that, when Baldwin was on his way out, the Cal defense had so firmly established itself that the belief was that we didn't even need a great offense or OC. We just needed to be mediocre and no longer miserable like we were under Baldwin. So another goal is to show that, while I agree that Musgrave is not the greatest OC, he is at least good enough to accomplish the mediocrity necessary to accomplish winning seasons, assuming the defense continues to be one of the best in the conference. To be more specific, Musgrave needs to be better in the second half of games.

Here is the breakdown of the Cal offense under Baldwin and Musgrave (rankings are conference rankings):

UNDER BEAU BALDWIN
2017

• Scoring Offense=10th
• Rushing Offense=10th
• Passing Offense=5th
• Total Offense=11th
• Pass Efficiency=11th
• Turnovers=4th

2018

• Scoring Offense=12th
• Rushing Offense=6th @ 157.3/gm.
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=12th
• Turnovers=12th

2019

• Scoring Offense=12th
• Rushing Offense=8th
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=12th
• Turnovers=3 way for 3rd

UNDER BILL MUSGRAVE
2020

• Scoring Offense=11th
• Rushing Offense=11th
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=10th
• Turnovers=3 way tie for 2nd

2021

• Scoring Offense=8th
• Rushing Offense=6th @ 164.25/gm.
• Passing Offense=6th
• Total Offense= tied for 6th
• Pass Efficiency=9th
• Turnovers=2nd

Note: In the 2 years under Musgrave, Cal has committed less turnovers than any other team in the conference, committing an astoundingly low of 15 over 16 games, which is less than 1/game. Of any single metric, this is the most dramatic shift over the years under Baldwin, even though turnovers were also Baldwin's best metric, finishing 3rd and 4th in 2 of his 3 seasons as OC. The other year he finished last, however.

In Musgrave's only full year at Cal-2021, he was superior to any of Baldwin's metrics over his 3 year tenure. And that include's the horrid stats Cal were virtually forced to produce vs. Arizona. Other than that game, Cal averaged 233 yards/gm. passing and that would have ranked them 3rd in the conference last year.

Also, the 5th place finish Cal had passing in 2017 must have had more to do with the personnel that Wilcox and Baldwin inherited from Dykes/Spavitol. Let's not forget that the entire football team mortgaged it's roster in order to create a prolific passing game under Dykes. At one point Cal had twice as many WRs under scholarship than LBs. Many LBs left the program. The opposite has happened under Wilcox. So I doubt the 5th place finish for passing offense in 2017 was Baldwin, especially since Baldwin could not repeat it and instead Cal plummeted to last in the conference in his remaining years at Cal.

Before I move on to other points regarding Musgrave, let me add that the 2021 stats are not only better than Baldwin, they are better than half the teams in the conference in most categories (scoring and passing offense being the exception). It seems that scoring is more tied to passing efficiency than any other metric. What is passing efficiency? It is a combination of accuracy, yardage, TDs and TOs. For Cal/Garbers, none of those should have resulted in an 8th place scoring offense except accuracy. Garbers completion percentage was only 9th in the conference while TDs were 7th, yard/gm.=6th and ints. 2nd.

It was plain to see over Garbers career at Cal that, regardless of the OC and the play call, Garbers had a problem with consistency. In general he was a great QB for Cal, and had some truly clutch performances. He also would suddenly go cold (see WSU and UCLA 2021). In the Nevada game he was both hot and cold depending on the half. Garbers would miss wide open guys or simply fail to throw to the right receiver during long spans of games, causing consecutive 4 and outs and allowing teams to jump us for 2 or 3 scores in short spans. This happened in losses to Nevada, TCU, WSU and UCLA. And it happened even with good protection. Our STs probably deserve more blame for those losses (UCLA excepted) but it is not the OC that caused those losses. The play calls were correct, the execution failed at times.

If the OC was the problem we would have much more glaring statistical evidence for 2021, like we did under Baldwin 2017-2019. BTW, before I move on, let me further add that Baldwin is having an absolutely miserable time at Cal Poly, particularly on offense. Overall he is 2-12 and the 2 wins were the 2 times his team scored over 24 points. He has scored more than 30 points 1 time and has never scored as many as 35. He has scored 14 points or less more than half the time and has scored more than 20 points only 6 times.

Now let's look at recruiting. The following is a similar breakdown of impact high 3* and 4*s by position and by year on offense. The 2020 class is broken down by calender year because Musgrave wasn't hired until 1/3/20. Since Baldwin announced intention to leave Cal 12/10/19, any recruit committing between those dates is not included in this comparison. Similarly any commit from the 2017 class who committed prior to Baldwin's hiring is not included. The result is that all commits listed through 2020 are Baldwin's recruits. Everything after is Musgrave.

2017
No entries

2018
Will Craig 4* OT
Nikko Remigio high 4* WR
Christopher Brown (now Brooks) hi 3* RB

2019
McKade Mettauer hi 3* OG
Trevon Clark JC Trans = hi 3* WR
Kekoa Crawford Michigan Trans = 4* WR

2020
Jeremiah Hunter Hi 3* WR
Chris Street Hi 3* RB
Everett Johnson Hi 3* OT

2021
Michael Sturdivante 4* WR
Jermaine Terry 4* TE
Mavin Anderson 4* WR
Kai Millner 4* QB
Bastian Swinney Hi 3* OT

2022
Jayden Ott 4* RB
Trent Ramsey Hi 3* OT
Ashton Hayes Hi 3* RB
Jackson Brown Hi 3* OT
Sioape Vatikani Hi 3* IOL
Javen Plummer Hi 3* WR
Jack Plummer Purdue Trans = Hi 3* QB

2023 SO FAR
Nyziah Hunter Hi 3* WR

IN SUMMERY
In the 3 classes that Baldwin had, he had a total of 3 4* recruits and one 4* transfer, that included one OT and 2 WRs. His total haul was 9 players, 3 in each class and there 0 QBs and 0 TEs. He had 4 WRs, 3 OL (1 IOL and 2 OT) and 2 RBs. Only 3 of his recruits are still on the team and only 1 is projected as a starter.

In slightly less time 2.5 class cycles Musgrave has hauled in 5 4* recruits, including one each at WR, QB, RB and TE and an additional WR. 3 of those 5 are projected as starters this year and 4 are expected to make an impact. His total haul is 13, including 4 WR, 4 OL (3 OT and 1 IOL), 2 RB, 2 QB and 1 TE. Of the 13, at least 8 are projected in the 2 deep.

I think I can rest my case that, at the very least, Musgrave is a significant step up from Beau Baldwin at Cal. But before you dismiss this as a low standard, let me remind you of the context for this.

The context is that we all agreed that the Wilcox defense was so consistently good that all Cal would need to do was develop an average offense. It was said here consistently that if even we were just no longer the worst offense, we could compete for a conference title. Well, in one full season and one covid marred season, Musgrave has got us mostly there. We are only slightly less than average statistically as an offense. And we are well above the cellar as conference offenses go. And we have recruited the pieces to get the rest of the way. BTW, because of the Arizona game, it can be argued that Musgrave has not had a single season not marred by covid. Certainly Cal would have gone to a bowl without that BS (stands for Berkeley Stuff) last year.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly said by Cal commits that a big part of it was/is Musgrave's NFL experience. Do you think Garbers is impressing the folks at NBC on Thursday night had he spent his last 2 seasons at Cal under Baldwin? I don't think so. He's doing well because he was prepared to do well and he should get most of the credit for it. But Musgrave had something to do with that too.

Lastly, my biggest question is why it is, despite these facts, Musgrave is treated about the same or worse than Baldwin. If you want to criticize Musgrave, that is fine and I may do so myself at times. But don't make it sound like he's just another Baldwin because clearly he's not.

I would really like to see Cal spend some of the new money they have for coaching and go out and get a top notch OL coach. And if they have to get a new OC to do that, I am okay with that. But remember, we can and have done a lot worse than Musgrave. And I'd hate to go back to that before seeing what he can do. Wilcox can and has improved as he gets further into his HC career. Musgrave is an example of that.

Good job comparing the stats. I agree with you that no one should say that Musgrave and Baldwin are identical. Yet because many of the personnel were the same, and we failed to improve, the comparisons are unavoidable. The lack of turnovers, and if I recall, also leading or near the top in fewest penalties, are real tributes to fundamental coaching. At the same time, I hope you noticed that the staff hadn't prepared a number two QB when Garbers was out.

And here we are, still looking for an offense.

heartofthebear said:

---

When Wilcox was hired in late 2016, Cal had been all offense and little defense under Sonny Dykes. Wilcox, having been primarily a defense guy, including several high profile DC jobs inside the conference and a stint under JT at Cal prior to that. So, Cal did a flip and became much better on D, almost immediately. The hope was that young superstar Beau Baldwin would take care of the offense. But that didn't happen and Baldwin found another position at Cal Poly after the 2019. Bill Musgrave was then hired with mixed reviews and concerns from this board. Criticisms seemed largely based on the idea that Musgrave is old and washed up. The fear that Musgrave was a symptom of the fact that Wilcox cannot get the offense right and would just be another Baldwin drove a lot of the rhetoric to the point that actual facts did not matter. He was accused of conservative play calling, something you have to do when the offense is not fully installed and/or the OL is struggling. Even so, few bothered to specify what sort of play calling would have been more successful under the circumstance.

The purpose of this report is to provide data in support of a more reasoned narrative. It largely focuses on showing that, at a minimum, Musgrave is significantly better than Baldwin. Keep in mind that, when Baldwin was on his way out, the Cal defense had so firmly established itself that the belief was that we didn't even a great offense of OC. We just needed to be mediocre and no longer miserable like we were under Baldwin. So another goal is to show that, while I agree that Musgrave is not the greatest OC, he is at least good enough to accomplish the mediocrity necessary to accomplish winning seasons, assuming the defense continues to be one of the best in the conference. To be more specific, Musgrave needs to be better in the second half of games.

Here is the breakdown of the Cal offense under Baldwin and Musgrave (rankings are conference rankings):

UNDER BEAU BALDWIN
2017

• Scoring Offense=10th
• Rushing Offense=10th
• Passing Offense=5th
• Total Offense=11th
• Pass Efficiency=11th
• Turnovers=4th

2018

• Scoring Offense=12th
• Rushing Offense=6th @ 157.3/gm.
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=12th
• Turnovers=12th

2019

• Scoring Offense=12th
• Rushing Offense=8th
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=12th
• Turnovers=3 way for 3rd

UNDER BILL MUSGRAVE
2020

• Scoring Offense=11th
• Rushing Offense=11th
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=10th
• Turnovers=3 way tie for 2nd

2021

• Scoring Offense=8th
• Rushing Offense=6th @ 164.25/gm.
• Passing Offense=6th
• Total Offense= tied for 6th
• Pass Efficiency=9th
• Turnovers=2nd

Note: In the 2 years under Musgrave, Cal has committed less turnovers than any other team in the conference, committing an astoundingly low of 15 over 16 games, which is less than 1/game. Of any single metric, this is the most dramatic shift over the years under Baldwin, even though turnovers were also Baldwin's best metric, finishing 3rd and 4th in 2 of his 3 seasons as OC. The other year he finished last, however.

In Musgrave's only full year at Cal-2021, he was superior to any of Baldwin's metrics over his 3 year tenure. And that include's the horrid stats Cal were virtually forced to produce vs. Arizona. Other than that game, Cal averaged 233 yards/gm. passing and that would have ranked them 3rd in the conference last year.

Also, the 5th place finish Cal had passing in 2017 must have had more to do with the personnel that Wilcox and Baldwin inherited from Dykes/Spavitol. Let's not forget that the entire football team mortgaged it's roster in order to create a prolific passing game under Dykes. At one point Cal had twice as many WRs under scholarship than LBs. Many LBs left the program. The opposite has happened under Wilcox. So I doubt the 5th place finish for passing offense in 2017 was Baldwin, especially since Baldwin could not repeat it and instead Cal plummeted to last in the conference in his remaining years at Cal.

Before I move on to other points regarding Musgrave, let me add that the 2021 stats are not only better than Baldwin, they are better than half the teams in the conference in most categories (scoring and passing offense being the exception). It seems that scoring is more tied to passing efficiency than any other metric. What is passing efficiency? It is a combination of accuracy, yardage, TDs and TOs. For Cal/Garbers, none of those should have resulted in an 8th place scoring offense except accuracy. Garbers completion percentage was only 9th in the conference while TDs were 7th, yard/gm.=6th and ints. 2nd.

It was plain to see over Garbers career at Cal that, regardless of the OC and the play call, Garbers had a problem with consistency. In general he was a great QB for Cal, and had some truly clutch performances. He also would suddenly go cold (see WSU and UCLA 2021). In the Nevada game he was both hot and cold depending on the half. Garbers would miss wide open guys or simply fail to throw to the right receiver during long spans of games, causing consecutive 4 and outs and allowing teams to jump us for 2 or 3 scores in short spans. This happened in losses to Nevada, TCU, WSU and UCLA. And it happened even with good protection. Our STs probably deserve more blame for those losses (UCLA excepted) but it is not the OC that caused those losses. The play calls were correct, the execution failed at times.

If the OC was the problem we would have much more glaring statistical evidence for 2021, like we did under Baldwin 2017-2019. BTW, before I move on, let me further add that Baldwin is having an absolutely miserable time at Cal Poly, particularly on offense. Overall he is 2-12 and the 2 wins were the 2 times his team scored over 24 points. He has scored more than 30 points 1 time and has never scored as many as 35. He has scored 14 points or less more than half the time and has scored more than 20 points only 6 times.

Now let's look at recruiting. The following is a similar breakdown of impact high 3* and 4*s by position and by year on offense. The 2020 class is broken down by calender year because Musgrave wasn't hired until 1/3/20. Since Baldwin announced intention to leave Cal 12/10/19, any recruit committing between those dates is not included in this comparison. Similarly any commit from the 2017 class who committed prior to Baldwin's hiring is not included. The result is that all commits listed through 2020 are Baldwin's recruits. Everything after is Musgrave.

2017
No entries

2018
Will Craig 4* OT
Nikko Remigio high 4* WR
Christopher Brown (now Brooks) hi 3* RB

2019
McKade Mettauer hi 3* OG
Trevon Clark JC Trans = hi 3* WR
Kekoa Crawford Michigan Trans = 4* WR

2020
Jeremiah Hunter Hi 3* WR
Chris Street Hi 3* RB
Everett Johnson Hi 3* OT

2021
Michael Sturdivante 4* WR
Jermaine Terry 4* TE
Mavin Anderson 4* WR
Kai Millner 4* QB
Bastian Swinney Hi 3* OT

2022
Jayden Ott 4* RB
Trent Ramsey Hi 3* OT
Ashton Hayes Hi 3* RB
Jackson Brown Hi 3* OT
Sioape Vatikani Hi 3* IOL
Javen Plummer Hi 3* WR
Jack Plummer Purdue Trans = Hi 3* QB

2023 SO FAR
Nyziah Hunter Hi 3* WR

IN SUMMERY
In the 3 classes that Baldwin had, he had a total of 3 4* recruits and one 4* transfer, that included one OT and 2 WRs. His total haul was 9 players, 3 in each class and there 0 QBs and 0 TEs. He had 4 WRs, 3 OL (1 IOL and 2 OT) and 2 RBs. Only 3 of his recruits are still on the team and only 1 is projected as a starter.

In slightly less time 2.5 class cycles Musgrave has hauled in 5 4* recruits, including one each at WR, QB, RB and TE and an additional WR. 3 of those 5 are projected as starters this year and 4 are expected to make an impact. His total haul is 13, including 4 WR, 4 OL (3 OT and 1 IOL), 2 RB, 2 QB and 1 TE. Of the 13, at least 8 are projected in the 2 deep.

I think I can rest my case that, at the very least, Musgrave is a significant step up from Beau Baldwin at Cal. But before you dismiss this as a low standard, let me remind you of the context for this.

The context is that we all agreed that the Wilcox defense was so consistently good that all Cal would need to do was develop an average offense. It was said here consistently that if even we were just no longer the worst offense, we could compete for a conference title. Well, in one full season and one covid marred season, Musgrave has got us mostly there. We are only slightly less than average statistically as an offense. And we are well above the cellar as conference offenses go. And we have recruited the pieces to get the rest of the way. BTW, because of the Arizona game, it can be argued that Musgrave has not had a single season not marred by covid. Certainly Cal would have gone to a bowl without that BS (stands for Berkeley Stuff) last year.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly said by Cal commits that a big part of it was/is Musgrave's NFL experience. Do you think Garbers is impressing the folks at NBC on Thursday night had he spent his last 2 seasons at Cal under Baldwin? I don't think so. He's doing well because he was prepared to do well and he should get most of the credit for it. But Musgrave had something to do with that too.

Lastly, my biggest question is why it is, despite these facts, Musgrave is treated about the same or worse than Baldwin. If you want to criticize Musgrave, that is fine and I may do so myself at times. But don't make it sound like he's just another Baldwin because clearly he's not.

I would really like to see Cal spend some of the new money they have for coaching and go out and get a top notch OL coach. And if they have to get a new OC to do that, I am okay with that. But remember, we can and have done a lot worse than Musgrave. And I'd hate to go back to that before seeing what he can do. Wilcox can and has improved as he gets further into his HC career. Musgrave is an example of that.

---

Thanks for your detailed analysis. At least it makes me feel that Musgrave is at least better than BB.

However I am still far from convinced that Musgrave is the answer. I have been disappointed with the vanilla play calling.

I am also disappointed in his uninspired use of the big TE's. One example was last year's UO game. cal got down to very close to the goal line and couldn't push the ball in. (Surprise Surprise).

I was especially disappointed in the plays called by musgrave - especially one play in particular. musgrave called a short sideline pass to a small receiver at the goal line.

The pass was complete to the receiver standing at the LOS and about a foot from the goal line unfortunately the receiver was caught at the LOS and stopped for no gain and more importantly No score.

I thought that the perfect play would have been the same pass but to a big TE. A big TE has much greater height and body mass than the small receiver. His larger body mass would have given him much greater momentum to push the opposing tackler back even a foot or two and his greater height would have allowed him to score even if all that he had done was to fall forward.

I hope that I will be proven wrong and that musgrave will prove to be a better than average OC in the long run BEGINNING WITH THIS YEAR.

Thank you heartofthebear for your substantive analysis. Well-written, measured, non-hysterical...Musgrave inherited an under-talented roster impacted w/COB Covid restrictions. 2022 will be the real test for him. No more excuses. He seems to have a Pac12 level QB with talented RB's/WR's. OL seems a mess which could derail our Program's success.

The one criticism of Musgrave that I do accept is his inability to recruit a High School QB...

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

When Wilcox was hired in late 2016, Cal had been all offense and little defense under Sonny Dykes. Wilcox, having been primarily a defense guy, including several high profile DC jobs inside the conference and a stint under JT at Cal prior to that. So, Cal did a flip and became much better on D, almost immediately. The hope was that young superstar Beau Baldwin would take care of the offense. But that didn't happen and Baldwin found another position at Cal Poly after the 2019. Bill Musgrave was then hired with mixed reviews and concerns from this board. Criticisms seemed largely based on the idea that Musgrave is old and washed up. The fear that Musgrave was a symptom of the fact that Wilcox cannot get the offense right and would just be another Baldwin drove a lot of the rhetoric to the point that actual facts did not matter. He was accused of conservative play calling, something you have to do when the offense is not fully installed and/or the OL is struggling. Even so, few bothered to specify what sort of play calling would have been more successful under the circumstance.

The purpose of this report is to provide data in support of a more reasoned narrative. It largely focuses on showing that, at a minimum, Musgrave is significantly better than Baldwin. Keep in mind that, when Baldwin was on his way out, the Cal defense had so firmly established itself that the belief was that we didn't even a great offense of OC. We just needed to be mediocre and no longer miserable like we were under Baldwin. So another goal is to show that, while I agree that Musgrave is not the greatest OC, he is at least good enough to accomplish the mediocrity necessary to accomplish winning seasons, assuming the defense continues to be one of the best in the conference. To be more specific, Musgrave needs to be better in the second half of games.

Here is the breakdown of the Cal offense under Baldwin and Musgrave (rankings are conference rankings):

UNDER BEAU BALDWIN
2017

• Scoring Offense=10th
• Rushing Offense=10th
• Passing Offense=5th
• Total Offense=11th
• Pass Efficiency=11th
• Turnovers=4th

2018

• Scoring Offense=12th
• Rushing Offense=6th @ 157.3/gm.
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=12th
• Turnovers=12th

2019

• Scoring Offense=12th
• Rushing Offense=8th
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=12th
• Turnovers=3 way for 3rd

UNDER BILL MUSGRAVE
2020

• Scoring Offense=11th
• Rushing Offense=11th
• Passing Offense=12th
• Total Offense=12th
• Pass Efficiency=10th
• Turnovers=3 way tie for 2nd

2021

• Scoring Offense=8th
• Rushing Offense=6th @ 164.25/gm.
• Passing Offense=6th
• Total Offense= tied for 6th
• Pass Efficiency=9th
• Turnovers=2nd

Note: In the 2 years under Musgrave, Cal has committed less turnovers than any other team in the conference, committing an astoundingly low of 15 over 16 games, which is less than 1/game. Of any single metric, this is the most dramatic shift over the years under Baldwin, even though turnovers were also Baldwin's best metric, finishing 3rd and 4th in 2 of his 3 seasons as OC. The other year he finished last, however.

In Musgrave's only full year at Cal-2021, he was superior to any of Baldwin's metrics over his 3 year tenure. And that include's the horrid stats Cal were virtually forced to produce vs. Arizona. Other than that game, Cal averaged 233 yards/gm. passing and that would have ranked them 3rd in the conference last year.

Also, the 5th place finish Cal had passing in 2017 must have had more to do with the personnel that Wilcox and Baldwin inherited from Dykes/Spavitol. Let's not forget that the entire football team mortgaged it's roster in order to create a prolific passing game under Dykes. At one point Cal had twice as many WRs under scholarship than LBs. Many LBs left the program. The opposite has happened under Wilcox. So I doubt the 5th place finish for passing offense in 2017 was Baldwin, especially since Baldwin could not repeat it and instead Cal plummeted to last in the conference in his remaining years at Cal.

Before I move on to other points regarding Musgrave, let me add that the 2021 stats are not only better than Baldwin, they are better than half the teams in the conference in most categories (scoring and passing offense being the exception). It seems that scoring is more tied to passing efficiency than any other metric. What is passing efficiency? It is a combination of accuracy, yardage, TDs and TOs. For Cal/Garbers, none of those should have resulted in an 8th place scoring offense except accuracy. Garbers completion percentage was only 9th in the conference while TDs were 7th, yard/gm.=6th and ints. 2nd.

It was plain to see over Garbers career at Cal that, regardless of the OC and the play call, Garbers had a problem with consistency. In general he was a great QB for Cal, and had some truly clutch performances. He also would suddenly go cold (see WSU and UCLA 2021). In the Nevada game he was both hot and cold depending on the half. Garbers would miss wide open guys or simply fail to throw to the right receiver during long spans of games, causing consecutive 4 and outs and allowing teams to jump us for 2 or 3 scores in short spans. This happened in losses to Nevada, TCU, WSU and UCLA. And it happened even with good protection. Our STs probably deserve more blame for those losses (UCLA excepted) but it is not the OC that caused those losses. The play calls were correct, the execution failed at times.

If the OC was the problem we would have much more glaring statistical evidence for 2021, like we did under Baldwin 2017-2019. BTW, before I move on, let me further add that Baldwin is having an absolutely miserable time at Cal Poly, particularly on offense. Overall he is 2-12 and the 2 wins were the 2 times his team scored over 24 points. He has scored more than 30 points 1 time and has never scored as many as 35. He has scored 14 points or less more than half the time and has scored more than 20 points only 6 times.

Now let's look at recruiting. The following is a similar breakdown of impact high 3* and 4*s by position and by year on offense. The 2020 class is broken down by calender year because Musgrave wasn't hired until 1/3/20. Since Baldwin announced intention to leave Cal 12/10/19, any recruit committing between those dates is not included in this comparison. Similarly any commit from the 2017 class who committed prior to Baldwin's hiring is not included. The result is that all commits listed through 2020 are Baldwin's recruits. Everything after is Musgrave.

2017
No entries

2018
Will Craig 4* OT
Nikko Remigio high 4* WR
Christopher Brown (now Brooks) hi 3* RB

2019
McKade Mettauer hi 3* OG
Trevon Clark JC Trans = hi 3* WR
Kekoa Crawford Michigan Trans = 4* WR

2020
Jeremiah Hunter Hi 3* WR
Chris Street Hi 3* RB
Everett Johnson Hi 3* OT

2021
Michael Sturdivante 4* WR
Jermaine Terry 4* TE
Mavin Anderson 4* WR
Kai Millner 4* QB
Bastian Swinney Hi 3* OT

2022
Jayden Ott 4* RB
Trent Ramsey Hi 3* OT
Ashton Hayes Hi 3* RB
Jackson Brown Hi 3* OT
Sioape Vatikani Hi 3* IOL
Javen Plummer Hi 3* WR
Jack Plummer Purdue Trans = Hi 3* QB

2023 SO FAR
Nyziah Hunter Hi 3* WR

IN SUMMERY
In the 3 classes that Baldwin had, he had a total of 3 4* recruits and one 4* transfer, that included one OT and 2 WRs. His total haul was 9 players, 3 in each class and there 0 QBs and 0 TEs. He had 4 WRs, 3 OL (1 IOL and 2 OT) and 2 RBs. Only 3 of his recruits are still on the team and only 1 is projected as a starter.

In slightly less time 2.5 class cycles Musgrave has hauled in 5 4* recruits, including one each at WR, QB, RB and TE and an additional WR. 3 of those 5 are projected as starters this year and 4 are expected to make an impact. His total haul is 13, including 4 WR, 4 OL (3 OT and 1 IOL), 2 RB, 2 QB and 1 TE. Of the 13, at least 8 are projected in the 2 deep.

I think I can rest my case that, at the very least, Musgrave is a significant step up from Beau Baldwin at Cal. But before you dismiss this as a low standard, let me remind you of the context for this.

The context is that we all agreed that the Wilcox defense was so consistently good that all Cal would need to do was develop an average offense. It was said here consistently that if even we were just no longer the worst offense, we could compete for a conference title. Well, in one full season and one covid marred season, Musgrave has got us mostly there. We are only slightly less than average statistically as an offense. And we are well above the cellar as conference offenses go. And we have recruited the pieces to get the rest of the way. BTW, because of the Arizona game, it can be argued that Musgrave has not had a single season not marred by covid. Certainly Cal would have gone to a bowl without that BS (stands for Berkeley Stuff) last year.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly said by Cal commits that a big part of it was/is Musgrave's NFL experience. Do you think Garbers is impressing the folks at NBC on Thursday night had he spent his last 2 seasons at Cal under Baldwin? I don't think so. He's doing well because he was prepared to do well and he should get most of the credit for it. But Musgrave had something to do with that too.

Lastly, my biggest question is why it is, despite these facts, Musgrave is treated about the same or worse than Baldwin. If you want to criticize Musgrave, that is fine and I may do so myself at times. But don't make it sound like he's just another Baldwin because clearly he's not.

I would really like to see Cal spend some of the new money they have for coaching and go out and get a top notch OL coach. And if they have to get a new OC to do that, I am okay with that. But remember, we can and have done a lot worse than Musgrave. And I'd hate to go back to that before seeing what he can do. Wilcox can and has improved as he gets further into his HC career. Musgrave is an example of that.

---

Thanks for your detailed analysis. At least it makes me feel that Musgrave is at least better than BB.

However I am still far from convinced that Musgrave is the answer. I have been disappointed with the vanilla play calling.

I am also disappointed in his uninspired use of the big TE's. One example was last year's UO game. cal got down to very close to the goal line and couldn't push the ball in. (Surprise Surprise).

I was especially disappointed in the plays called by musgrave - especially one play in particular. musgrave called a short sideline pass to a small receiver at the goal line.

The pass was complete to the receiver standing at the LOS and about a foot from the goal line unfortunately the receiver was caught at the LOS and stopped for no gain and more importantly No score.

I thought that the perfect play would have been the same pass but to a big TE. A big TE has much greater height and body mass than the small receiver. His larger body mass would have given him much greater momentum to push the opposing tackler back even a foot or two and his greater height would have allowed him to score even if all that he had done was to fall forward.

I hope that I will be proven wrong and that musgrave will prove to be a better than average OC in the long run BEGINNING WITH THIS YEAR.

---

I appreciate this because you actually specify what the problem was with the play. But, there is a phenomenon of fan observation which is the reason why every fan of every team thinks the officials are against them. Or, a better example is how we don't remember all of the nice drivers around us on the road. We only remember the A-hole ones who nearly caused an accident. Negative events have more valance to our memory banks and so I would just ask you to make an attempt to chart all of the good play calls Musgrave makes as well. But I agree, I think Musgrave has some growth to do in the redzone. Apparently it has been an emphasis during camp so at least they are trying. I should be honest and say that, despite my post, I am not optimistic about Cal going to a bowl this year. I do think they will be better than last year, but, unfortunately I think they will be the best 5-7 team in the nation. Even 5 wins may be a stretch. Look for my season outlook post coming up sometime before the season kicks off. I would have posted it today but I am reviewing articles covering the fall camps of the other pac-12 teams for injuries and emerging stars. The news from those articles indicates to me that teams like Arizona and Colorado are not automatic wins, which will make it hard for Cal to reach even 5 wins. Colorado will be much improved and we will have to play them in Boulder, where teams in general, and Cal specifically, have had trouble winning, even when the Buffs are not very good.

One critique I have of Musgrave is that it took him way too long to tailor the offense to Garbers' strengths and mitigate his weaknesses.

I felt like he kept trying to keep Garbers in the pocket and to toss the deep sideline ball. That failed to use his best attribute (his legs) and forced him into his weakness (the long sideline ball). I get that covid was a weird year, but that should have been obvious after reviewing his tape during the Baldwin years and having two springs and 4 covid games, yet he still installed a 2021 offense that the most important player couldn't run effectively.

XXXBEAR said:

---

Good job comparing the stats. I agree with you that no one should say that Musgrave and Baldwin are identical. Yet because many of the personnel were the same, and we failed to improve, the comparisons are unavoidable. The lack of turnovers, and if I recall, also leading or near the top in fewest penalties, are real tributes to fundamental coaching. At the same time, I hope you noticed that the staff hadn't prepared a number two QB when Garbers was out.

And here we are, still looking for an offense. ???

---

They prepared Glover. Glover didn't perform well because much of the OL was out too. No OC can prepare a new OL with little advance warning. Remember that the Berkeley stuff came with little warning and Cal had to scramble to even get a traveling squad together. They almost had to forfeit the game. Keep in mind that much of that roster are Baldwin's recruits, or lack there-of. So there was virtually no depth. Cal didn't really have a true 2nd string QB to prepare because none had been recruited and developed under Baldwin. Cal had Millner as a true frosh. I saw Millner practice and Millner was no better than Glover at that time. Without saying Millner is a bust, I'll say that, even after improvement, Mendoza, who is a walk-on, is probably as good as he is. So what was Musgrave supposed to do?

heartofthebear, thank you for crunching the numbers and sharing. I just checked and can confirm the scoring, in conference games. I share, with PPG revealed.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average scored 26.4 PPG, 10th

2018 - 20.3 PPG, 12th

2019 - 18.1 PPG, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 21 PPG, worst in Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 20.3, 11th

2021 - 21.6, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit under 21 PPG, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: Point-wise in conference games, there's basically been no difference in production between Baldwin and Musgrave, with Cal scoring just a tad more under Baldwin. However, the scoring trend went the wrong way when BB ran the offense. Musgrave has only two completed seasons, but at least he's trending the right way. Having a senior QB last year was certainly a plus though…

Many/most feel yards per play is the most telling offensive metric, here is Cal's against Pac-12 teams.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average had 4.96 yds/play, 12th

2018 - 4.94, 11th

2019 - 4.85, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 4.92 yds/play, the worst in the Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 4.47, 12th

2021 - 5.56, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 5 yds/play, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: As with scoring, BB's offenses trended the wrong way with respect to yds/play. Under Musgrave, this metric jumped over 1 yard in year two. That said, 2020's 4.47 is a darn easy comp. Over a decade plus, Pac-12 teams with sub 4.5 yds/play can be counted on one hand.

For reference, our offense, PPG w/in conference, before these two OCs...

SD/TF

2013 - 19.4, 12th

2014 - 37.6, 2nd

2015 - 31.7, 6th

2016 - 33.8, 3rd

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 30 PPG, about 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Cal's yds /play...

SD/TF

2013 - 4.95, 11th

2014 - 6.14, 3rd

2015 - 6.66, 3rd

2016 - 5.72, 7th

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 5.97 yds/play, 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Commentary: Over four years, the SD/TF offense was quite average with respect to points and yards per play, 6th best in our conference. Contrary to what some of us think, it was not exactly a prolific offense, but we'd love to see such production in 2022.

In defense of BB at Cal Poly (unofficial 10th UC?), Cal Poly ran the veer for years, and has been in the process of changing personnel and their offense. They were also hit by Covid. This year should hold higher expectations for BB.

Here's what it boils down to: What are we going to do this season? Musgrave can remake his reputation and reestablish his credibility. Or not. This is why we play the games. Our offense needs to be at least average and we need to win.

Great job on the comparison with factual support. Very helpful. Two big factors militating toward this being a break-out year: (1) The COVID virus seemed to negatively impact the Bears more so than our fellow-competitors. Hopefully we have a level playing field this year; and (2) The emotional upswell and momentum winning can instill in young college players. We are certainly due for a season where the breaks go our way. Possible eight win season but probable six to seven wins.

heartofthebear said:

---

XXXBEAR said:

---

Good job comparing the stats. I agree with you that no one should say that Musgrave and Baldwin are identical. Yet because many of the personnel were the same, and we failed to improve, the comparisons are unavoidable. The lack of turnovers, and if I recall, also leading or near the top in fewest penalties, are real tributes to fundamental coaching. At the same time, I hope you noticed that the staff hadn't prepared a number two QB when Garbers was out.

And here we are, still looking for an offense. ???

---

They prepared Glover. Glover didn't perform well because much of the OL was out too. No OC can prepare a new OL with little advance warning. Remember that the Berkeley stuff came with little warning and Cal had to scramble to even get a traveling squad together. They almost had to forfeit the game. Keep in mind that much of that roster are Baldwin's recruits, or lack there-of. So there was virtually no depth. Cal didn't really have a true 2nd string QB to prepare because none had been recruited and developed under Baldwin. Cal had Millner as a true frosh. I saw Millner practice and Millner was no better than Glover at that time. Without saying Millner is a bust, I'll say that, even after improvement, Mendoza, who is a walk-on, is probably as good as he is. So what was Musgrave supposed to do?

---

The only thing he had left - shotgun...with no gun. Just run the damn thing.

The Cal offense in conference games was awful mostly. Bottom 3rd in nearly every category. They were 8th in points at 21.6. Amazingly there were 4 teams (UW, CU, UA and Stanford) worse. The numbers are not defensible IMO. We have heard over and over about the reasons (excuses). But as a longtime NFL OC you have to do better than he did. He is not just some inexperienced guy.

Cal was a bottom feeder in 1st downs, 3rd down conversions, red zone TD %. There are always reasons. Covid, injuries, inexperience etc. This team has some talent. Not USC level talent but not pedestrian either. Time to push the offense into the upper half.

But I can hear and see some of the excuses already forming. The OL has new members and players have shifted positions (Coleman to OT) . The skill players are young and inexperienced. The QB is a transfer and has not had enough time to work with Musgrave. No more excuses.

The offense simply has to be better. I am a long way from being a Musgrave fan. I was deadset against his hiring. But he is here and I want the offense to succeed. I am really hoping the offense takes not just a step forward, but more like a couple of steps. And not small steps.

So for 2022 I am a Musgrave supporter. I have seen some of the practices both Spring and Fall. There are some nice pieces to work with. Can you please get the offense to at least average. That would secure a bowl. If they take a big step and get to upper 3rd a breakthrough season could happen.

DWM81 said:

---

Thank you heartofthebear for your substantive analysis. Well-written, measured, non-hysterical...Musgrave inherited an under-talented roster impacted w/COB Covid restrictions. 2022 will be the real test for him. No more excuses. He seems to have a Pac12 level QB with talented RB's/WR's. OL seems a mess which could derail our Program's success.

The one criticism of Musgrave that I do accept is his inability to recruit a High School QB...

---

He recruited Millner, which was more than even Sonny Dykes did? Dykes had Goff, recruited by JT and a few guys who left the program and then got the transfer from Texas Tech, Davis Webb.

golden sloth said:

---

One critique I have of Musgrave is that it took him way too long to tailor the offense to Garbers' strengths and mitigate his weaknesses.

I felt like he kept trying to keep Garbers in the pocket and to toss the deep sideline ball. That failed to use his best attribute (his legs) and forced him into his weakness (the long sideline ball). I get that covid was a weird year, but that should have been obvious after reviewing his tape during the Baldwin years and having two springs and 4 covid games, yet he still installed a 2021 offense that the most important player couldn't run effectively.

---

I understand, but maybe he felt that Garbers wouldn't translate to the NFL without doing that. These coaches are not just dedicated to the team as a whole, they also are dedicated to the individual player and their NFL aspirations.

Cal89 said:

---

heartofthebear, thank you for crunching the numbers and sharing. I just checked and can confirm the scoring, in conference games. I share, with PPG revealed.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average scored 26.4 PPG, 10th

2018 - 20.3 PPG, 12th

2019 - 18.1 PPG, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 21 PPG, worst in Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 20.3, 11th

2021 - 21.6, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit under 21 PPG, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: Point-wise in conference games, there's basically been no difference in production between Baldwin and Musgrave, with Cal scoring just a tad more under Baldwin. However, the scoring trend went the wrong way when BB ran the offense. Musgrave has only two completed seasons, but at least he's trending the right way. Having a senior QB last year was certainly a plus though…

Many/most feel yards per play is the most telling offensive metric, here is Cal's against Pac-12 teams.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average had 4.96 yds/play, 12th

2018 - 4.94, 11th

2019 - 4.85, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 4.92 yds/play, the worst in the Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 4.47, 12th

2021 - 5.56, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 5 yds/play, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: As with scoring, BB's offenses trended the wrong way with respect to yds/play. Under Musgrave, this metric jumped over 1 yard in year two. That said, 2020's 4.47 is a darn easy comp. Over a decade plus, Pac-12 teams with sub 4.5 yds/play can be counted on one hand.

For reference, our offense, PPG w/in conference, before these two OCs...

SD/TF

2013 - 19.4, 12th

2014 - 37.6, 2nd

2015 - 31.7, 6th

2016 - 33.8, 3rd

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 30 PPG, about 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Cal's yds /play...

SD/TF

2013 - 4.95, 11th

2014 - 6.14, 3rd

2015 - 6.66, 3rd

2016 - 5.72, 7th

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 5.97 yds/play, 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Commentary: Over four years, the SD/TF offense was quite average with respect to points and yards per play, 6th best in our conference. Contrary to what some of us think, it was not exactly a prolific offense, but we'd love to see such production in 2022.

---

That's great, but as long as you are going to take 2020 stats seriously you've lost me. It's very hard to install an offense under such circumstances.

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

One critique I have of Musgrave is that it took him way too long to tailor the offense to Garbers' strengths and mitigate his weaknesses.

I felt like he kept trying to keep Garbers in the pocket and to toss the deep sideline ball. That failed to use his best attribute (his legs) and forced him into his weakness (the long sideline ball). I get that covid was a weird year, but that should have been obvious after reviewing his tape during the Baldwin years and having two springs and 4 covid games, yet he still installed a 2021 offense that the most important player couldn't run effectively.

---

I understand, but maybe he felt that Garbers wouldn't translate to the NFL without doing that. These coaches are not just dedicated to the team as a whole, they also are dedicated to the individual player and their NFL aspirations.

---

I often wondered if Garbers' lock on starting had a politics with a small p element to it. Was there the hope that his little brother would follow him? Was the family influential in some way? His private coaching? If so, would that have dissuaded qb candidates? I know, I know. A coach would be crazy not to start the best guy, but I've seen it before and so have you.

On the other hand, who had Musgrave produced to warrant the enrollment of a 4* qb anyway? Throw in the disruption, particularly, of the Cal fb team over the last twp years by the COVID scare and you have a lot of unknowns on which to base misgivings.

Now, he has a prototype qb with experience, an arm and a quick release/decisiveness. RB's check. Receivers check. OL still a quandry. We can't seem to recruit enough guys with wheelhouses and coordination. Coleman check. Vatikani I think check. But, we need to reel back in at least a couple of the guys who seemed to have been coming our way and then went elsewhere.

Once again, the OL will tell the tale. Still 8-4 this year.

Big C said:

---

Here's what it boils down to: What are we going to do this season? Musgrave can remake his reputation and reestablish his credibility. Or not. This is why we play the games. Our offense needs to be at least average and we need to win.

---

Why is Musgrave alone responsible for winning?
I expect the offense to be at least average, but I don't think we will go to a bowl.
I see Cal maxing out at 5 wins, not because of the offense, but because of injuries on the DL and an OL that is a work in progress. Add to that the fact that our schedule does not support 6 wins and that we have a roster with very little game experience compared to our opponents and it's going to be a challenge this season.

UC Davis (22nd ranked FCS team in the nation--18 returning starters, including some All-Americans)
UNLV--this team is loaded with experience and adds to that some top quality transfers. They are extremely underrated and have a very prolific offense. It's the defense that's been their problem but, like I said experience benefits them.
@Notre Dame--ranked in the top 25 and we play there. Historically ND is always great on the lines, something Cal won't match.
Arizona--Like UNLV, this team will be much improved, has a roster that is equal to Cal's in talent and has a knack for beating Cal, even in Berkeley.
@WSU--Most sports media project a Cal loss in this game. However I think Cal will win this game, barring injury issues.
@Colorado--Much improved and we play in Boulder. We've lost in Boulder to lesser Colorado teams as have many other good teams. Texas A&M, the team that beat Alabama, almost lost to Colorado in Boulder, and that was last year, when the Buffs were much worse. Yes we have a bye first, but so does Colorado.
Washington--again much improved and, like ND, really great on both lines. We will have trouble winning the LOS, making it hard to win. Also, it seems they've improved their QB situation with the transfer Penix.
Oregon--Anybody penciling in a win here--that means you David Wilner--is either fool hardy or trying to get attention or both. It might not even be closed. Oregon's second team is far more talented than Cal's first team.
@USC-Yet another highly improved team and we're playing in LA. I just don't see it and, like Oregon, their second team could probably blow us out.
@Oregon St.-- OSU was beatable because they had a bad defense. This year the defense is improved. Also OSU has a radical home/away split. They are much tougher to beat in Corvallis. So I wouldn't project a win just because we beat them last year in Berkeley. Heck we probably lose to OSU last year had it been in Corvallis. Many have OSU as a dark horse to win the north division.
Furd--Of all of the teams that will significantly improve this season, none will do so more than Furd. Furd was ravished by injuries the last couple of years. All of those guys are back, especially on defense and at QB, making Furd my darkhorse candidate to win the north. Plus, they have probably the best OL in the conference. Otherwise Cal does match up well and this game should be close, but I'm not counting on a win here.
UCLA-- It wouldn't surprise me if this team surprised and won the south, even though they have Utah and USC. This team is very talented, experienced and Chip Kelly has our number.

Find me 6 wins out of this. I can find maybe 4. Arizona, WSU, UNLV and UC Davis. If we beat Colorado we will get to 5 wins. That is my prediction (5-7), which is rather optimistic if you ask me. I suppose we have a shot against a team like Washington or OSU if they get hit with injuries in key places. But 6 or 7 should be viewed as a ceiling not a floor for 2022. And, if they get to 7 wins, plus a bowl win and the offense is solid, I hope we can stop worrying about Musgrave.

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Here's what it boils down to: What are we going to do this season? Musgrave can remake his reputation and reestablish his credibility. Or not. This is why we play the games. Our offense needs to be at least average and we need to win.

---

Why is Musgrave alone responsible for winning?
I expect the offense to be at least average, but I don't think we will go to a bowl.
I see Cal maxing out at 5 wins, not because of the offense, but because of injuries on the DL and an OL that is a work in progress. Add to that the fact that our schedule does not support 6 wins and that we have a roster with very little game experience compared to our opponents and it's going to be a challenge this season.

UC Davis (22nd ranked FCS team in the nation--18 returning starters, including some All-Americans)
UNLV--this team is loaded with experience and adds to that some top quality transfers. They are extremely underrated and have a very prolific offense. It's the defense that's been their problem but, like I said experience benefits them.
@Notre Dame--ranked in the top 25 and we play there. Historically ND is always great on the lines, something Cal won't match.
Arizona--Like UNLV, this team will be much improved, has a roster that is equal to Cal's in talent and has a knack for beating Cal, even in Berkeley.
@WSU--Most sports media project a Cal loss in this game. However I think Cal will win this game, barring injury issues.
@Colorado--Much improved and we play in Boulder. We've lost in Boulder to lesser Colorado teams as have many other good teams. Texas A&M, the team that beat Alabama, almost lost to Colorado in Boulder, and that was last year, when the Buffs were much worse. Yes we have a bye first, but so does Colorado.
Washington--again much improved and, like ND, really great on both lines. We will have trouble winning the LOS, making it hard to win. Also, it seems they've improved their QB situation with the transfer Penix.
Oregon--Anybody penciling in a win here--that means you David Wilner--is either fool hardy or trying to get attention or both. It might not even be closed. Oregon's second team is far more talented than Cal's first team.
@USC-Yet another highly improved team and we're playing in LA. I just don't see it and, like Oregon, their second team could probably blow us out.
@Oregon St.-- OSU was beatable because they had a bad defense. This year the defense is improved. Also OSU has a radical home/away split. They are much tougher to beat in Corvallis. So I wouldn't project a win just because we beat them last year in Berkeley. Heck we probably lose to OSU last year had it been in Corvallis. Many have OSU as a dark horse to win the north division.
Furd--Of all of the teams that will significantly improve this season, none will do so more than Furd. Furd was ravished by injuries the last couple of years. All of those guys are back, especially on defense and at QB, making Furd my darkhorse candidate to win the north. Plus, they have probably the best OL in the conference. Otherwise Cal does match up well and this game should be close, but I'm not counting on a win here.
UCLA-- It wouldn't surprise me if this team surprised and won the south, even though they have Utah and USC. This team is very talented, experienced and Chip Kelly has our number.

Find me 6 wins out of this. I can find maybe 4. Arizona, WSU, UNLV and UC Davis. If we beat Colorado we will get to 5 wins. That is my prediction (5-7), which is rather optimistic if you ask me. I suppose we have a shot against a team like Washington or OSU if they get hit with injuries in key places. But 6 or 7 should be viewed as a ceiling not a floor for 2022. And, if they get to 7 wins, plus a bowl win and the offense is solid, I hope we can stop worrying about Musgrave.

---

What injuries on the DL? McKenzie? Wilkins? Johnson, Saunders and Correia are very good players and Roberts is a nice player as well. The DL often will play with just 2 traditional DL and 2 OLB/Edge types. I heard Yogi roth say the other day that Cal has a top 2-3 front 7 in the P12. He said this based on his tour of all the P12 camps.

5 wins with this schedule? The team is young at some spots but there are a lot of returning players here. Just that not all of them played at Cal last season. Plummer is a grad transfer and has started 10+ games for Purdue. Sirmon was UWs leading tackler last season. Isibor has played lots of snaps at UCLA and was expected to start this season for the Bruins. Carlton was a rotational player at Utah. BTW that team played in the Rose Bowl and won the P12. Lovell is a 4th year OL that was a likely starter at ASU. Throw in Johnson and Woodson on defense returning from injury and there is more experience than you think. Johnson is a preseason first team all P12 player and has a 2nd round NFL draft grade entering the season.

The skill spots are young. But frankly this is where most of the high ceiling talent resides. Sturdivant, Anderson, Terry and Ott are 4 star recruits. JMS, Anderson and Ott are among the 5 fastest Bears. Of all the positions in college football RB and WR are perhaps the easiest transitions. I expect some inconsistency but I also expect more big plays.

I am frankly amazed that you rate UW as high as you do. The Husky fans were very disappointed with their line play a season ago. Particularly the OL. UA, Colorado, WSU and OSU have at best similar overall rosters as the Bears. Colorado lost some really good players in the portal. Rice and Blackmon to USC for example. UA may be improved but that team was awful a season ago and the game will be in Berkeley. Much of the hype around WSU is in regards to their transfer QB. Cam Ward is supposed to be a real talent. But the defenses he faced at Incarnate Word are nowhere near what he will face in the P12. I need to see him play before I get on any WSU train.

Is Cal a powerhouse? No, but with 7 home games and what is a very mediocre league overall (Cal does not play Utah) 6 wins simply has to be the minimal expectation IMO. From where I sit Cal must avoid injury to 3 players or the season could change for the worse. Plummer, Coleman and Hearns. You gotta play the games and anything can happen, but 4 wins is a remarkably bleak outlook. Even for Cal.

heartofthebear said:

---

Cal89 said:

---

heartofthebear, thank you for crunching the numbers and sharing. I just checked and can confirm the scoring, in conference games. I share, with PPG revealed.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average scored 26.4 PPG, 10th

2018 - 20.3 PPG, 12th

2019 - 18.1 PPG, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 21 PPG, worst in Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 20.3, 11th

2021 - 21.6, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit under 21 PPG, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: Point-wise in conference games, there's basically been no difference in production between Baldwin and Musgrave, with Cal scoring just a tad more under Baldwin. However, the scoring trend went the wrong way when BB ran the offense. Musgrave has only two completed seasons, but at least he's trending the right way. Having a senior QB last year was certainly a plus though…

Many/most feel yards per play is the most telling offensive metric, here is Cal's against Pac-12 teams.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average had 4.96 yds/play, 12th

2018 - 4.94, 11th

2019 - 4.85, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 4.92 yds/play, the worst in the Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 4.47, 12th

2021 - 5.56, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 5 yds/play, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: As with scoring, BB's offenses trended the wrong way with respect to yds/play. Under Musgrave, this metric jumped over 1 yard in year two. That said, 2020's 4.47 is a darn easy comp. Over a decade plus, Pac-12 teams with sub 4.5 yds/play can be counted on one hand.

For reference, our offense, PPG w/in conference, before these two OCs...

SD/TF

2013 - 19.4, 12th

2014 - 37.6, 2nd

2015 - 31.7, 6th

2016 - 33.8, 3rd

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 30 PPG, about 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Cal's yds /play...

SD/TF

2013 - 4.95, 11th

2014 - 6.14, 3rd

2015 - 6.66, 3rd

2016 - 5.72, 7th

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 5.97 yds/play, 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Commentary: Over four years, the SD/TF offense was quite average with respect to points and yards per play, 6th best in our conference. Contrary to what some of us think, it was not exactly a prolific offense, but we'd love to see such production in 2022.

---

That's great, but as long as you are going to take 2020 stats seriously you've lost me. It's very hard to install an offense under such circumstances.

---

2020, IMO, merits an asterisk mark for sure, more so for Cal than most schools... I had noted such in discussions here before. That said, we were not alone with such "circumstances."

We played just four games in 2020, while breaking-in a new OC (Musgrave). That said, so did ASU, UW and the Cougs... In 2020, during the Covid craziness, ASU's offense led the Pac-12 with a very strong 7.28 yds/play. They did so with a new OC.

I just checked, and my recollection is correct in that UW had a new OC in 2020 also. Lake's first season as HC... During their four Pac-12 games they got more than 6 yds/play, 4th best in the conference.

Heck, even Washington State started 2020 with a new HC and staff. With a new OC, they managed a respectable 5.86 yds/play (7th in Pac-12), a level of offensive effectiveness we had not seen in 7+ years...

PPG, those other conference teams that also struggled with Covid, having played just four games like Cal, scored quite a few more points than us. ASU led the Pac with over 40 PPG. UW had 30+ (5th), the Cougs 27 (10th), a TD more than Cal.

To not take 2020 metrics seriously would be foolish; and sadly to simply excuse or not be as critical, as Cal fans are notorious and often do, remains a detriment. Clearly, when three other conference teams also played just four games and started new OCs, two with new HCs, and our results were by far the worst, merits concern, hard questions and should very much be part of the record for scrutiny...

Musgrave has another veteran QB for this season and there is reason for optimism. Hoping to see the trend continue in the right direction...

6956bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Here's what it boils down to: What are we going to do this season? Musgrave can remake his reputation and reestablish his credibility. Or not. This is why we play the games. Our offense needs to be at least average and we need to win.

---

Why is Musgrave alone responsible for winning?
I expect the offense to be at least average, but I don't think we will go to a bowl.
I see Cal maxing out at 5 wins, not because of the offense, but because of injuries on the DL and an OL that is a work in progress. Add to that the fact that our schedule does not support 6 wins and that we have a roster with very little game experience compared to our opponents and it's going to be a challenge this season.

UC Davis (22nd ranked FCS team in the nation--18 returning starters, including some All-Americans)
UNLV--this team is loaded with experience and adds to that some top quality transfers. They are extremely underrated and have a very prolific offense. It's the defense that's been their problem but, like I said experience benefits them.
@Notre Dame--ranked in the top 25 and we play there. Historically ND is always great on the lines, something Cal won't match.
Arizona--Like UNLV, this team will be much improved, has a roster that is equal to Cal's in talent and has a knack for beating Cal, even in Berkeley.
@WSU--Most sports media project a Cal loss in this game. However I think Cal will win this game, barring injury issues.
@Colorado--Much improved and we play in Boulder. We've lost in Boulder to lesser Colorado teams as have many other good teams. Texas A&M, the team that beat Alabama, almost lost to Colorado in Boulder, and that was last year, when the Buffs were much worse. Yes we have a bye first, but so does Colorado.
Washington--again much improved and, like ND, really great on both lines. We will have trouble winning the LOS, making it hard to win. Also, it seems they've improved their QB situation with the transfer Penix.
Oregon--Anybody penciling in a win here--that means you David Wilner--is either fool hardy or trying to get attention or both. It might not even be closed. Oregon's second team is far more talented than Cal's first team.
@USC-Yet another highly improved team and we're playing in LA. I just don't see it and, like Oregon, their second team could probably blow us out.
@Oregon St.-- OSU was beatable because they had a bad defense. This year the defense is improved. Also OSU has a radical home/away split. They are much tougher to beat in Corvallis. So I wouldn't project a win just because we beat them last year in Berkeley. Heck we probably lose to OSU last year had it been in Corvallis. Many have OSU as a dark horse to win the north division.
Furd--Of all of the teams that will significantly improve this season, none will do so more than Furd. Furd was ravished by injuries the last couple of years. All of those guys are back, especially on defense and at QB, making Furd my darkhorse candidate to win the north. Plus, they have probably the best OL in the conference. Otherwise Cal does match up well and this game should be close, but I'm not counting on a win here.
UCLA-- It wouldn't surprise me if this team surprised and won the south, even though they have Utah and USC. This team is very talented, experienced and Chip Kelly has our number.

Find me 6 wins out of this. I can find maybe 4. Arizona, WSU, UNLV and UC Davis. If we beat Colorado we will get to 5 wins. That is my prediction (5-7), which is rather optimistic if you ask me. I suppose we have a shot against a team like Washington or OSU if they get hit with injuries in key places. But 6 or 7 should be viewed as a ceiling not a floor for 2022. And, if they get to 7 wins, plus a bowl win and the offense is solid, I hope we can stop worrying about Musgrave.

---

What injuries on the DL? McKenzie? Wilkins? Johnson, Saunders and Correia are very good players and Roberts is a nice player as well. The DL often will play with just 2 traditional DL and 2 OLB/Edge types. I heard Yogi roth say the other day that Cal has a top 2-3 front 7 in the P12. He said this based on his tour of all the P12 camps.

5 wins with this schedule? The team is young at some spots but there are a lot of returning players here. Just that not all of them played at Cal last season. Plummer is a grad transfer and has started 10+ games for Purdue. Sirmon was UWs leading tackler last season. Isibor has played lots of snaps at UCLA and was expected to start this season for the Bruins. Carlton was a rotational player at Utah. BTW that team played in the Rose Bowl and won the P12. Lovell is a 4th year OL that was a likely starter at ASU. Throw in Johnson and Woodson on defense returning from injury and there is more experience than you think. Johnson is a preseason first team all P12 player and has a 2nd round NFL draft grade entering the season.

The skill spots are young. But frankly this is where most of the high ceiling talent resides. Sturdivant, Anderson, Terry and Ott are 4 star recruits. JMS, Anderson and Ott are among the 5 fastest Bears. Of all the positions in college football RB and WR are perhaps the easiest transitions. I expect some inconsistency but I also expect more big plays.

I am frankly amazed that you rate UW as high as you do. The Husky fans were very disappointed with their line play a season ago. Particularly the OL. UA, Colorado, WSU and OSU have at best similar overall rosters as the Bears. Colorado lost some really good players in the portal. Rice and Blackmon to USC for example. UA may be improved but that team was awful a season ago and the game will be in Berkeley. Much of the hype around WSU is in regards to their transfer QB. Cam Ward is supposed to be a real talent. But the defenses he faced at Incarnate Word are nowhere near what he will face in the P12. I need to see him play before I get on any WSU train.

Is Cal a powerhouse? No, but with 7 home games and what is a very mediocre league overall (Cal does not play Utah) 6 wins simply has to be the minimal expectation IMO. From where I sit Cal must avoid injury to 3 players or the season could change for the worse. Plummer, Coleman and Hearns. You gotta play the games and anything can happen, but 4 wins is a remarkably bleak outlook. Even for Cal.

---

I appreciate the detail and thoughtfulness of your post.

This is my opportunity to piggyback and emphasize I think Plummer is going to be amazing this season, which will be the key to a surprisingly powerful offense.

I base this mainly on:

a) Plummer's arm strength (sorry for my lack of links, but please see his sideline ropes in his early transfer vids);

b) he seems consistently on target (again, based on the practice vids I've seen); and

c) he seems poised and clear about his objectives in his interviews.

I admit I'm basing my optimism on limited evidence, but part of that comes from having played (and coached) baseball past 50. When you are a coach, you have to be able to evaluate talent quickly.

If Plummer is the revelation I expect him to be, we will certainly -- at a minimum -- have a winning record (not just 4-5 wins.) As I told my nephew, the addition of Plummer is so significant that it gives us a legitimate chance to beat Notre Dame in South Bend.

Baldwin should have been left on the tarmac at the Airport in Eugene after that 2018 game in which he stubbornly continued to use Brandon McIlwain in goal line situations. His turnovers cost us dearly, and yet Baldwin just kept putting him back out there. It was insane!

OsoDorado said:

---

6956bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Here's what it boils down to: What are we going to do this season? Musgrave can remake his reputation and reestablish his credibility. Or not. This is why we play the games. Our offense needs to be at least average and we need to win.

---

Why is Musgrave alone responsible for winning?
I expect the offense to be at least average, but I don't think we will go to a bowl.
I see Cal maxing out at 5 wins, not because of the offense, but because of injuries on the DL and an OL that is a work in progress. Add to that the fact that our schedule does not support 6 wins and that we have a roster with very little game experience compared to our opponents and it's going to be a challenge this season.

UC Davis (22nd ranked FCS team in the nation--18 returning starters, including some All-Americans)
UNLV--this team is loaded with experience and adds to that some top quality transfers. They are extremely underrated and have a very prolific offense. It's the defense that's been their problem but, like I said experience benefits them.
@Notre Dame--ranked in the top 25 and we play there. Historically ND is always great on the lines, something Cal won't match.
Arizona--Like UNLV, this team will be much improved, has a roster that is equal to Cal's in talent and has a knack for beating Cal, even in Berkeley.
@WSU--Most sports media project a Cal loss in this game. However I think Cal will win this game, barring injury issues.
@Colorado--Much improved and we play in Boulder. We've lost in Boulder to lesser Colorado teams as have many other good teams. Texas A&M, the team that beat Alabama, almost lost to Colorado in Boulder, and that was last year, when the Buffs were much worse. Yes we have a bye first, but so does Colorado.
Washington--again much improved and, like ND, really great on both lines. We will have trouble winning the LOS, making it hard to win. Also, it seems they've improved their QB situation with the transfer Penix.
Oregon--Anybody penciling in a win here--that means you David Wilner--is either fool hardy or trying to get attention or both. It might not even be closed. Oregon's second team is far more talented than Cal's first team.
@USC-Yet another highly improved team and we're playing in LA. I just don't see it and, like Oregon, their second team could probably blow us out.
@Oregon St.-- OSU was beatable because they had a bad defense. This year the defense is improved. Also OSU has a radical home/away split. They are much tougher to beat in Corvallis. So I wouldn't project a win just because we beat them last year in Berkeley. Heck we probably lose to OSU last year had it been in Corvallis. Many have OSU as a dark horse to win the north division.
Furd--Of all of the teams that will significantly improve this season, none will do so more than Furd. Furd was ravished by injuries the last couple of years. All of those guys are back, especially on defense and at QB, making Furd my darkhorse candidate to win the north. Plus, they have probably the best OL in the conference. Otherwise Cal does match up well and this game should be close, but I'm not counting on a win here.
UCLA-- It wouldn't surprise me if this team surprised and won the south, even though they have Utah and USC. This team is very talented, experienced and Chip Kelly has our number.

Find me 6 wins out of this. I can find maybe 4. Arizona, WSU, UNLV and UC Davis. If we beat Colorado we will get to 5 wins. That is my prediction (5-7), which is rather optimistic if you ask me. I suppose we have a shot against a team like Washington or OSU if they get hit with injuries in key places. But 6 or 7 should be viewed as a ceiling not a floor for 2022. And, if they get to 7 wins, plus a bowl win and the offense is solid, I hope we can stop worrying about Musgrave.

---

What injuries on the DL? McKenzie? Wilkins? Johnson, Saunders and Correia are very good players and Roberts is a nice player as well. The DL often will play with just 2 traditional DL and 2 OLB/Edge types. I heard Yogi roth say the other day that Cal has a top 2-3 front 7 in the P12. He said this based on his tour of all the P12 camps.

5 wins with this schedule? The team is young at some spots but there are a lot of returning players here. Just that not all of them played at Cal last season. Plummer is a grad transfer and has started 10+ games for Purdue. Sirmon was UWs leading tackler last season. Isibor has played lots of snaps at UCLA and was expected to start this season for the Bruins. Carlton was a rotational player at Utah. BTW that team played in the Rose Bowl and won the P12. Lovell is a 4th year OL that was a likely starter at ASU. Throw in Johnson and Woodson on defense returning from injury and there is more experience than you think. Johnson is a preseason first team all P12 player and has a 2nd round NFL draft grade entering the season.

The skill spots are young. But frankly this is where most of the high ceiling talent resides. Sturdivant, Anderson, Terry and Ott are 4 star recruits. JMS, Anderson and Ott are among the 5 fastest Bears. Of all the positions in college football RB and WR are perhaps the easiest transitions. I expect some inconsistency but I also expect more big plays.

I am frankly amazed that you rate UW as high as you do. The Husky fans were very disappointed with their line play a season ago. Particularly the OL. UA, Colorado, WSU and OSU have at best similar overall rosters as the Bears. Colorado lost some really good players in the portal. Rice and Blackmon to USC for example. UA may be improved but that team was awful a season ago and the game will be in Berkeley. Much of the hype around WSU is in regards to their transfer QB. Cam Ward is supposed to be a real talent. But the defenses he faced at Incarnate Word are nowhere near what he will face in the P12. I need to see him play before I get on any WSU train.

Is Cal a powerhouse? No, but with 7 home games and what is a very mediocre league overall (Cal does not play Utah) 6 wins simply has to be the minimal expectation IMO. From where I sit Cal must avoid injury to 3 players or the season could change for the worse. Plummer, Coleman and Hearns. You gotta play the games and anything can happen, but 4 wins is a remarkably bleak outlook. Even for Cal.

---

I appreciate the detail and thoughtfulness of your post.

This is my opportunity to piggyback and emphasize I think Plummer is going to be amazing this season, which will be the key to a surprisingly powerful offense.

I base this mainly on:

a) Plummer's arm strength (sorry for my lack of links, but please see his sideline ropes in his early transfer vids);

b) he seems consistently on target (again, based on the practice vids I've seen); and

c) he seems poised and clear about his objectives in his interviews.

I admit I'm basing my optimism on limited evidence, but part of that comes from having played (and coached) baseball past 50. When you are a coach, you have to be able to evaluate talent quickly.

If Plummer is the revelation I expect him to be, we will certainly -- at a minimum -- have a winning record (not just 4-5 wins.) As I told my nephew, the addition of Plummer is so significant that it gives us a legitimate chance to beat Notre Dame in South Bend.

---

The ND call is a little ambitious, but he's been in the fire with them and didn't flinch, at least.

Rushinbear said:

---

OsoDorado said:

---

As I told my nephew, the addition of Plummer is so significant that it gives us a legitimate chance to beat Notre Dame in South Bend.

---

The ND call is a little ambitious, but he's been in the fire with them and didn't flinch, at least.

---

Yes, it's a little ambitious to say we have a "legitimate chance" against Notre Dame, but again, that is what the addition of Plummer makes possible.

OsoDorado said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OsoDorado said:

---

As I told my nephew, the addition of Plummer is so significant that it gives us a legitimate chance to beat Notre Dame in South Bend.

---

The ND call is a little ambitious, but he's been in the fire with them and didn't flinch, at least.

---

Yes, it's a little ambitious to say we have a "legitimate chance" against Notre Dame, but again, that is what the addition of Plummer makes possible.

---

ND is a very good team. But they have a rookie QB and we have a very good defense. And they have a rookie head coach who has lost his only game he has coached. We will be in the game with them.

Rushinbear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

One critique I have of Musgrave is that it took him way too long to tailor the offense to Garbers' strengths and mitigate his weaknesses.

I felt like he kept trying to keep Garbers in the pocket and to toss the deep sideline ball. That failed to use his best attribute (his legs) and forced him into his weakness (the long sideline ball). I get that covid was a weird year, but that should have been obvious after reviewing his tape during the Baldwin years and having two springs and 4 covid games, yet he still installed a 2021 offense that the most important player couldn't run effectively.

---

I understand, but maybe he felt that Garbers wouldn't translate to the NFL without doing that. These coaches are not just dedicated to the team as a whole, they also are dedicated to the individual player and their NFL aspirations.

---

I often wondered if Garbers' lock on starting had a politics with a small p element to it. Was there the hope that his little brother would follow him? Was the family influential in some way? His private coaching? If so, would that have dissuaded qb candidates? I know, I know. A coach would be crazy not to start the best guy, but I've seen it before and so have you.

On the other hand, who had Musgrave produced to warrant the enrollment of a 4* qb anyway? Throw in the disruption, particularly, of the Cal fb team over the last twp years by the COVID scare and you have a lot of unknowns on which to base misgivings.

Now, he has a prototype qb with experience, an arm and a quick release/decisiveness. RB's check. Receivers check. OL still a quandry. We can't seem to recruit enough guys with wheelhouses and coordination. Coleman check. Vatikani I think check. But, we need to reel back in at least a couple of the guys who seemed to have been coming our way and then went elsewhere.

Once again, the OL will tell the tale. Still 8-4 this year.

---

These are the same, silly things people said about Zach Maynard (though they were much more vicious to Maynard, for what I believe are obvious reasons). It had nothing to do with their brothers. It had nothing to do with politics. They were each simply the best guy. None of Maynard's backups proved to be P5-level QBs. None of Garbers has, either. Just as with Maynard, Garbers was the best guy and so he played.

6956bear said:

---

The Cal offense in conference games was awful mostly. Bottom 3rd in nearly every category. They were 8th in points at 21.6. Amazingly there were 4 teams (UW, CU, UA and Stanford) worse. The numbers are not defensible IMO. We have heard over and over about the reasons (excuses). But as a longtime NFL OC you have to do better than he did. He is not just some inexperienced guy.

Cal was a bottom feeder in 1st downs, 3rd down conversions, red zone TD %. There are always reasons. Covid, injuries, inexperience etc. This team has some talent. Not USC level talent but not pedestrian either. Time to push the offense into the upper half.

But I can hear and see some of the excuses already forming. The OL has new members and players have shifted positions (Coleman to OT) . The skill players are young and inexperienced. The QB is a transfer and has not had enough time to work with Musgrave. No more excuses.

The offense simply has to be better. I am a long way from being a Musgrave fan. I was deadset against his hiring. But he is here and I want the offense to succeed. I am really hoping the offense takes not just a step forward, but more like a couple of steps. And not small steps.

So for 2022 I am a Musgrave supporter. I have seen some of the practices both Spring and Fall. There are some nice pieces to work with. Can you please get the offense to at least average. That would secure a bowl. If they take a big step and get to upper 3rd a breakthrough season could happen.

---

The third down inefficiency seems to have been compounded by the inexplicable play calls. How often did we see third and short, then a low percentage 30 yard fade? And that just meant the defense had to get back on the field unnecessarily. My guess is that Musgrave wanted to leverage the very few situations where our offense could have an explosive play. But a 10% chance of a success on a big play when we could run a play that would succeed over 50% of the time to move the sticks -- is not worth it.

KoreAmBear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

The Cal offense in conference games was awful mostly. Bottom 3rd in nearly every category. They were 8th in points at 21.6. Amazingly there were 4 teams (UW, CU, UA and Stanford) worse. The numbers are not defensible IMO. We have heard over and over about the reasons (excuses). But as a longtime NFL OC you have to do better than he did. He is not just some inexperienced guy.

Cal was a bottom feeder in 1st downs, 3rd down conversions, red zone TD %. There are always reasons. Covid, injuries, inexperience etc. This team has some talent. Not USC level talent but not pedestrian either. Time to push the offense into the upper half.

But I can hear and see some of the excuses already forming. The OL has new members and players have shifted positions (Coleman to OT) . The skill players are young and inexperienced. The QB is a transfer and has not had enough time to work with Musgrave. No more excuses.

The offense simply has to be better. I am a long way from being a Musgrave fan. I was deadset against his hiring. But he is here and I want the offense to succeed. I am really hoping the offense takes not just a step forward, but more like a couple of steps. And not small steps.

So for 2022 I am a Musgrave supporter. I have seen some of the practices both Spring and Fall. There are some nice pieces to work with. Can you please get the offense to at least average. That would secure a bowl. If they take a big step and get to upper 3rd a breakthrough season could happen.

---

The third down inefficiency seems to have been compounded by the inexplicable play calls. How often did we see third and short, then a low percentage 30 yard fade? And that just meant the defense had to get back on the field unnecessarily. My guess is that Musgrave wanted to leverage the very few situations where our offense could have an explosive play. But a 10% chance of a success on a big play when we could run a play that would succeed over 50% of the time to move the sticks -- is not worth it.

---

Thanks for the specifics and legitimate criticism. This is all I ask when we are engaging in critiques of coaches/players.

heartofthebear asked: "Why is Musgrave alone responsible for winning?"

He's not, of course. It's just that I trust our defense will be better than average and no offense under Wilcox, so far, has been as much as even average. So the offensive side needs to at least pull their weight. Not just Musgrave, but the other offensive coaches and players, plus Wilcox, who has the final responsibility.

I've seen enough of Wilcox's teams to be pretty sure that the defense will be solid. Even last season, when it started out surprisingly spotty, it was good by October-November. They know what they're doing on that side of the ball. Problem at cornerback? True freshman Hearns can actually make plays, so Anusiem to the bench. Boom.

I am worried a little bit about our depth at CB and, to a lesser extent, depth at NG/DT. And 1-2 guys need to step up and be top-shelf pass rushers, but I'm confident that it'll get worked out.

My equation for success this fall is: good-to-very-good defense + decent offense = 7-5 (hopefully even better, but like I've said, my burns from last season still aren't 100% healed)

Just like ucla game in same year. I was embarrassed being at that one.

I like your analysis if every opponent and agree w/it 100%! I'm thinking we might get lucky on a couple and finish 6-6.

heartofthebear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

The Cal offense in conference games was awful mostly. Bottom 3rd in nearly every category. They were 8th in points at 21.6. Amazingly there were 4 teams (UW, CU, UA and Stanford) worse. The numbers are not defensible IMO. We have heard over and over about the reasons (excuses). But as a longtime NFL OC you have to do better than he did. He is not just some inexperienced guy.

Cal was a bottom feeder in 1st downs, 3rd down conversions, red zone TD %. There are always reasons. Covid, injuries, inexperience etc. This team has some talent. Not USC level talent but not pedestrian either. Time to push the offense into the upper half.

But I can hear and see some of the excuses already forming. The OL has new members and players have shifted positions (Coleman to OT) . The skill players are young and inexperienced. The QB is a transfer and has not had enough time to work with Musgrave. No more excuses.

The offense simply has to be better. I am a long way from being a Musgrave fan. I was deadset against his hiring. But he is here and I want the offense to succeed. I am really hoping the offense takes not just a step forward, but more like a couple of steps. And not small steps.

So for 2022 I am a Musgrave supporter. I have seen some of the practices both Spring and Fall. There are some nice pieces to work with. Can you please get the offense to at least average. That would secure a bowl. If they take a big step and get to upper 3rd a breakthrough season could happen.

---

The third down inefficiency seems to have been compounded by the inexplicable play calls. How often did we see third and short, then a low percentage 30 yard fade? And that just meant the defense had to get back on the field unnecessarily. My guess is that Musgrave wanted to leverage the very few situations where our offense could have an explosive play. But a 10% chance of a success on a big play when we could run a play that would succeed over 50% of the time to move the sticks -- is not worth it.

---

Thanks for the specifics and legitimate criticism. This is all I ask when we are engaging in critiques of coaches/players.

---

As I said, the season is a week away, we don't need to be doing this. Your defense of Musgrave relies largely on "PAC-12" ranking which largely reflects the dramatic decrease in offensive productivity by other teams (Stanford, UW, WSU and USC especially) , not an improvement by Cal. That can be seen in our improved PAC-12 ranking while our actual stats decreased. That is why I use national rankings, it gives a far more accurate measure of the absolute strength of the Cal offense. Maintaining a bottom of the PAC-12 ranking as the strength of the PAC-12 declined is not improvement. It is not an accomplishment. It is a failure to take advantage of a huge opportunity. The same we squandered in a weak PAC-10 with Holmoe, whose OCs were similarly vigorously defended.

I have given specific criticism of Musgrave: 1) taking away Garbers' strength by forcing Garbers into being a pocket passer at the same time we had a makeshift OL that could not provide protection (and your hypothesis that was to make Garbers an NFL QB is 30 years old, and ignores that running QBs are the rage in the NFL). Forcing Garbers to take sacks or throw away the ball risked injury and reduced his passing stats, which would made him less of an NFL candidate, not more. 2. Continuing #1 for 9 games over 2 seasons, going 1-7 against FBS teams. 3. Running vanilla offense, including little use of play-action and few runs outside the tackles despite putting TEs on the field. 4. Not incorporating any of Wilcox's best class of multiple 4 star freshmen on offense into the offense. 5. Related to #4 playing an extremely short WR rotation with noticeable fatigue and reduced production in the 4th quarter. 6. Similarly, not getting speedy RBs onto the field. 7. Repeatedly going the length of the field with power running against weak opponents then going spread empty backfield in the red zone. 8. Not using misdirection against aggressive, blitzing defenses (UCLA in particular). 9. Related back to #3 #4 and #5 a lack of using the middle of the field in the passing game, too often having WRs run predictable, easily defended difficult to complete, sideline streaks. 10. As KAB pointed out, repeatedly trying #9 when we are in short yardage and just need a first down (if you want to surprise a team in that situation, fake the run, but then throw off play-action, and not along the sideline where the CB was going to cover no matter what, but deep over the middle where the salties have vacated to provide run support on the run fake). 11. When we do actually run an effective play (long gain on throw to Tonges off play-action) never calling it again, acting like it is a trick play, instead of a staple of your offense.

Again, the new season is almost here, the past doesn't matter if Musgrave can put a productive offense on the field the field this year. That is what we should be focusing on.

Go Bears!

Cal89 said:

---

heartofthebear, thank you for crunching the numbers and sharing. I just checked and can confirm the scoring, in conference games. I share, with PPG revealed.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average scored 26.4 PPG, 10th

2018 - 20.3 PPG, 12th

2019 - 18.1 PPG, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 21 PPG, worst in Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 20.3, 11th

2021 - 21.6, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit under 21 PPG, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: Point-wise in conference games, there's basically been no difference in production between Baldwin and Musgrave, with Cal scoring just a tad more under Baldwin. However, the scoring trend went the wrong way when BB ran the offense. Musgrave has only two completed seasons, but at least he's trending the right way. Having a senior QB last year was certainly a plus though…

Many/most feel yards per play is the most telling offensive metric, here is Cal's against Pac-12 teams.

Beau Baldwin

2017 - Cal on average had 4.96 yds/play, 12th

2018 - 4.94, 11th

2019 - 4.85, 12th

BB era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 4.92 yds/play, the worst in the Pac-12 over those three years.

Bill Musgrave

2020 - 4.47, 12th

2021 - 5.56, 8th

BM era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 5 yds/play, about 10th in Pac-12 over two years.

Commentary: As with scoring, BB's offenses trended the wrong way with respect to yds/play. Under Musgrave, this metric jumped over 1 yard in year two. That said, 2020's 4.47 is a darn easy comp. Over a decade plus, Pac-12 teams with sub 4.5 yds/play can be counted on one hand.

For reference, our offense, PPG w/in conference, before these two OCs...

SD/TF

2013 - 19.4, 12th

2014 - 37.6, 2nd

2015 - 31.7, 6th

2016 - 33.8, 3rd

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged a bit over 30 PPG, about 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Cal's yds /play...

SD/TF

2013 - 4.95, 11th

2014 - 6.14, 3rd

2015 - 6.66, 3rd

2016 - 5.72, 7th

SD/TF era: In conference play, Cal averaged about 5.97 yds/play, 6th best in Pac-12 over those four years.

Commentary: Over four years, the SD/TF offense was quite average with respect to points and yards per play, 6th best in our conference. Contrary to what some of us think, it was not exactly a prolific offense, but we'd love to see such production in 2022.

---

For the most part, Baldwin had Dykes recruits on offense to work with and, up until this year, Musgrave has had Baldwin's lack of recruits on offense to work with. That is why you have to give the guy a chance. You have to give him time to get his recruits and offense on the field before evaluating him, especially after following Baldwin.

6956bear said:

---

The Cal offense in conference games was awful mostly. --Garbers was second behind Thompson-Robinson in total offense in the conference. Bottom 3rd in nearly every category.--8th is not the bottom 3rd. The bottom 3rd is 9-12.They were 8th in points at 21.6.--Would have been higher had they actually fielded an offense vs. Arizona. Amazingly there were 4 teams (UW, CU, UA and Stanford) worse.--Or maybe there were a lot of good defenses in the conference last season. The numbers are not defensible IMO. We have heard over and over about the reasons (excuses)--This is a philosophical comment. When an attorney presents a case, he presents reasons. The jury decides if they are excuses. But the jury has to base that on facts. You have not presented any facts that the reasons are just excuses. Covid had an impact. That's a fact. Baldwin left the cubbard dry at OL and QB. That's a fact. It's very convenient to say facts are excuses when you don't agree with them. But it doesn't strengthen your argument at all. But as a longtime NFL OC you have to do better than he did. He is not just some inexperienced guy.--Yup but despite that you were against him from the start. So no wonder you find fault.

Cal was a bottom feeder in 1st downs--Nope, they were 9th and first downs are not a good metric because it depends on how many possessions you get, field position and plays/score, 3rd down conversions--Nope 9th red zone TD %--Performing better in the redzone has been an emphasis in camp. But that is on the OL, so why no criticism of McClure and, like I said, Baldwin didn't recruit OL. There are always reasons. Covid, injuries, inexperience etc. This team has some talent. Not USC level talent but not pedestrian either. Time to push the offense into the upper half.--We hear this every year. Now is the time, no more excuses. So, it's hard to find statements like this to be a credible look at this year in particular. For example, are Cal's opponents better defensively than last year? If that is the case, is it really the year? Furd, Colorado, Oregon, OSU and USC will all be better defensively this year.

But I can hear and see some of the excuses already forming.--This is what fans do. They simply can't afford to consider the possibility that their team may fail to make the post season so they marginalize any argument that suggests that by labeling it an excuse. This psychologically protects the fan from facing reality. Then, when reality hits, they can blame officials, coaches, the broadcasters---anything but themselves for having unreasonable expectations to start with. The OL has new members and players have shifted positions (Coleman to OT) . The skill players are young and inexperienced. The QB is a transfer and has not had enough time to work with Musgrave. No more excuses.

The offense simply has to be better--Yet another opinion made in a vacuum. I am a long way from being a Musgrave fan. I was deadset against his hiring. But he is here and I want the offense to succeed. I am really hoping the offense takes not just a step forward, but more like a couple of steps. And not small steps.

So for 2022 I am a Musgrave supporter. I have seen some of the practices both Spring and Fall. There are some nice pieces to work with. Can you please get the offense to at least average. That would secure a bowl. If they take a big step and get to upper 3rd a breakthrough season could happen.

---

As a fan, I sympathize with your feelings. But you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I'll say this in the hopes it provides you some basis for enthusiasm. I have gone to 3 practices, 2 this fall and the spring game. Cal will be an exciting team to watch because they have good players that will emerge this year. You will see that in the secondary and at receiver. Plus Plummer is the real deal. He is better than advertised. He will throw more INTs because he throws early, before the receiver is open. But he will throw more TDs too and he will move the chains. Of course that's assuming the OL allows that. The OL looked good too, but that was because the DL looked bad IMO. So the jury is still out.

I hope you don't find my responses offensive. I am just trying to be honest and protect you from later disappointment. I think the emphasis on winning throws us off. We see things in this team that excite us and we think it will mean more wins. It will mean more exciting football for sure but not necessarily more wins. I have decided that is good enough for me. I feel sorry those that can't enjoy a spectator sport without requiring a certain result. A 3 hour event is just that. It's not the scoreboard at the end. It's the whole 3 hours. Try to enjoy that.

6956bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Here's what it boils down to: What are we going to do this season? Musgrave can remake his reputation and reestablish his credibility. Or not. This is why we play the games. Our offense needs to be at least average and we need to win.

---

Why is Musgrave alone responsible for winning?
I expect the offense to be at least average, but I don't think we will go to a bowl.
I see Cal maxing out at 5 wins, not because of the offense, but because of injuries on the DL and an OL that is a work in progress. Add to that the fact that our schedule does not support 6 wins and that we have a roster with very little game experience compared to our opponents and it's going to be a challenge this season.

UC Davis (22nd ranked FCS team in the nation--18 returning starters, including some All-Americans)
UNLV--this team is loaded with experience and adds to that some top quality transfers. They are extremely underrated and have a very prolific offense. It's the defense that's been their problem but, like I said experience benefits them.
@Notre Dame--ranked in the top 25 and we play there. Historically ND is always great on the lines, something Cal won't match.
Arizona--Like UNLV, this team will be much improved, has a roster that is equal to Cal's in talent and has a knack for beating Cal, even in Berkeley.
@WSU--Most sports media project a Cal loss in this game. However I think Cal will win this game, barring injury issues.
@Colorado--Much improved and we play in Boulder. We've lost in Boulder to lesser Colorado teams as have many other good teams. Texas A&M, the team that beat Alabama, almost lost to Colorado in Boulder, and that was last year, when the Buffs were much worse. Yes we have a bye first, but so does Colorado.
Washington--again much improved and, like ND, really great on both lines. We will have trouble winning the LOS, making it hard to win. Also, it seems they've improved their QB situation with the transfer Penix.
Oregon--Anybody penciling in a win here--that means you David Wilner--is either fool hardy or trying to get attention or both. It might not even be closed. Oregon's second team is far more talented than Cal's first team.
@USC-Yet another highly improved team and we're playing in LA. I just don't see it and, like Oregon, their second team could probably blow us out.
@Oregon St.-- OSU was beatable because they had a bad defense. This year the defense is improved. Also OSU has a radical home/away split. They are much tougher to beat in Corvallis. So I wouldn't project a win just because we beat them last year in Berkeley. Heck we probably lose to OSU last year had it been in Corvallis. Many have OSU as a dark horse to win the north division.
Furd--Of all of the teams that will significantly improve this season, none will do so more than Furd. Furd was ravished by injuries the last couple of years. All of those guys are back, especially on defense and at QB, making Furd my darkhorse candidate to win the north. Plus, they have probably the best OL in the conference. Otherwise Cal does match up well and this game should be close, but I'm not counting on a win here.
UCLA-- It wouldn't surprise me if this team surprised and won the south, even though they have Utah and USC. This team is very talented, experienced and Chip Kelly has our number.

Find me 6 wins out of this. I can find maybe 4. Arizona, WSU, UNLV and UC Davis. If we beat Colorado we will get to 5 wins. That is my prediction (5-7), which is rather optimistic if you ask me. I suppose we have a shot against a team like Washington or OSU if they get hit with injuries in key places. But 6 or 7 should be viewed as a ceiling not a floor for 2022. And, if they get to 7 wins, plus a bowl win and the offense is solid, I hope we can stop worrying about Musgrave.

---

What injuries on the DL? McKenzie? Wilkins?--Yup Johnson, Saunders and Correia--Johnson and Sauders are DE. We need to have more than Correia at NG/NT/DT so that we can keep him fresh and not susceptible to injury. You do realize that we have injuries every year to DL because we are not rotating enough. are very good players and Roberts--Yes Roberts to the one guy that can rotate with Correia but most teams have at least 4 guys rotating on the IDL. Those guys take a beating and need relief and, without Stanley it looks like it will be Gunner Rask. And then we wonder why there is no pass rush. is a nice player as well. The DL often will play with just 2 traditional DL and 2 OLB/Edge types. I heard Yogi roth say the other day that Cal has a top 2-3 front 7 in the P12--Yes every other part of the front 7, the DEs and the whole LB crew are probably a combined top 3, but not the IDL. It is bottom 3. Pre-season media hype of teams financially benefits the pac-12 network by attracting more viewers. It doesn't mean a lot more than that although I do respect Yogi Roth. He said this based on his tour of all the P12 camps.

5 wins with this schedule? The team is young at some spots but there are a lot of returning players here. Just that not all of them played at Cal last season. Plummer is a grad transfer and has started 10+ games for Purdue. Sirmon was UWs leading tackler last season. Isibor has played lots of snaps at UCLA and was expected to start this season for the Bruins. Carlton was a rotational player at Utah. BTW that team played in the Rose Bowl and won the P12. Lovell is a 4th year OL that was a likely starter at ASU. Throw in Johnson and Woodson on defense returning from injury and there is more experience than you think. Johnson is a preseason first team all P12 player and has a 2nd round NFL draft grade entering the season.--I have studied the roster very well. Cal will have an exciting team but that will not necessarily turn into wins this year. Cal has on it's schedule 8 teams that will be vastly improved over last season. They are:
UNLV
ARIZONA
COLORADO
OREGON ST.
OREGON
WASHINGTON
FURD
USC

While Cal will be improved, I don't think they will improve as much as some of these teams. And Cal's weaknesses are the OL and IDL, places where many of these other teams have strengths. You can have a lot of good things going, but if the lines are weak, it won't matter.

The skill spots are young. But frankly this is where most of the high ceiling talent resides. Sturdivant, Anderson, Terry and Ott are 4 star recruits. JMS, Anderson and Ott are among the 5 fastest Bears. Of all the positions in college football RB and WR are perhaps the easiest transitions. I expect some inconsistency but I also expect more big plays.--I agree. Like I said, I have studied the roster. I know who the 4 stars are etc. You are not informing me of anything I haven't already taken into consideration. Every year I get excited about Cal's chances based on Cal's roster. But then I look at our opponents. Cal's hopes, dreams, talents and aspirations do not exist in a vacuum. Every late summer of every year, every football fan of every team wants to have reasons for hope. I am not trying to dash those hopes. But most of the hopes are not based on a reasoned assessment of the opposition their team will face over the course of the season. Psychologically fans protect themselves from such assessments because they don't want to lose hope. That's fine, and I think there are reasons for enthusiasm this season because I think Cal will be more exciting to watch. That doesn't mean they will win more games though. And should they win less than you expect, should that be on the coaches, or on you for expecting more than is reasonable?

I am frankly amazed that you rate UW as high as you do.--Jaxon Kirkland OT is a consensus first team All-American, Julius Buelow is a 4* OT with starting experience. Murao and Hatchett are 4 starts that will compete with Luciano (20 games) for the Center spot. The IOL is particularly strong with Curne and Bainvalu returning for a 3rd season. Fautanu and Kalepo also have starting IOL experience. The Husky fans were very disappointed with their line play a season ago. --And I'm sure they're equally excited about the OL prospects this season. Particularly the OL. UA, Colorado, WSU and OSU have at best similar overall rosters as the Bears.--I agree. To be specific, Cal has a better roster than Colorado or WSU. They have a roster equal to Arizona and they are slightly weaker than OSU. The problem is that Cal plays @Colorado and OSU and that makes all the difference when it comes to those 2 teams. I have Cal beating WSU and the Arizona game will come down to who is in better health for that game. Losing McKenzie is not a good start for Cal in that sense. Colorado lost some really good players in the portal. Rice and Blackmon to USC for example. UA may be improved but that team was awful a season ago and the game will be in Berkeley.--Cal does not benefit from home field advantage playing Arizona in Berkeley. And Arizona has massively over-hauled their roster this year. I expect they will be middle of the pack in the conference this year, ahead of Colorado and ASU in the south. Much of the hype around WSU is in regards to their transfer QB. Cam Ward is supposed to be a real talent. But the defenses he faced at Incarnate Word are nowhere near what he will face in the P12. I need to see him play before I get on any WSU train. WSU is being over-hyped, much like ASU usually is. Cal should beat them soundly, even in Pullman.

Is Cal a powerhouse? No, but with 7 home games and what is a very mediocre league overall--How do you know this? The season hasn't been played yet. (Cal does not play Utah) 6 wins simply has to be the minimal expectation IMO.-Translation: It is painful for you to consider the possibility of another season without a bowl so I am going to assert that 6 wins is a minimum because my philosophy is that what I want must happen otherwise the coaches are at fault. From where I sit Cal must avoid injury to 3 players or the season could change for the worse. Plummer, Coleman and Hearns--I agree about Plummer and Coleman but I disagree about Hearns. I would add B. Johnson and Correia. Basically Cal can't afford to lose any more big men from the DL. You gotta play the games and anything can happen, but 4 wins is a remarkably bleak outlook. Even for Cal.

---

You have a better understanding of Cal's roster and Cal's strengths than most, but, like most fans, you have only focused on our opponents problems and not their strengths. For example, news from Colorado camp is that the staff is doing a good job of developing depth in areas that were weaknesses. It seems that Colorado has a front 7 that rivals Cal. They play at home. Even Texas A&M struggled playing in Boulder. In 2011 Cal went into Boulder as a far superior team and nearly lost. It took some Keenan Allen magic and overtime to win. Cal hasn't won in Boulder since, even when the Buffs have been bad. Again, this is a game that will depend on health. I suspect it will be an extremely low scoring game.