Musgrave hurt himself right off the bat by saying it would take a QB two seasons to learn his offense. In college ball, two years is too long given the relatively short time a player has to play in college.

A big question which nobody has answered is what Plummer will do if he is harassed in the pocket a lot. What is the plan? Just throw the ball on the ground. It really is going to be interesting to see if he can run at all.

Finally, I don't get how Musgrave is so old. I think he played QB at Oregon during roughy the same time that Troy Taylor was quarterbacking Cal. Nobody calls Taylor old.

My impression of Musgrave is that he is a dour kinda guy with almost zero enthusiasm. Coaching an offense requires, I believe, a total upbeat kind of manner, the opposite of Musgrave seems to ;project, at least when he is answering questions. Someone like Troy Taylor would be much better, but Wilcox couldn't above by Taylor's creativity. And Taylor is not going to leave Sac. St. to be second fiddle elsewhere as an OC. But if Wilcox ever really falters, just watch Cal scoop him up. Taylor loves Cal and Berkeley with all his heart. In addition to starting for Cal for four years and leading Cal's passing records before Goff came along, he was a coach here for three years and a Cal announcer for two or three years. He would never leave Cal even for more money., though he would make a ton here if he ever were named head coach He is all Cal, true and blue, FOREVER and will stay forever if he is ever named Cal's head coach. Taylor is 15 - 1 over his two years at Sac. St., which is in the toughest FCX conference in the country. He is going a great job and gave Cal scare last season.

Made a mistake. Taylor is 15 - 1 in the Big Sky Conference over his two years at Sac. St, the best FCS conference, and thus that is not his overall record in FCS.

Former Bear McCallan Castles is a talented 6'5" TE for the Aggies with over 350 yards receiving last year.

Gobears49 said:

---

Musgrave hurt himself right off the bat by saying it would take a QB two seasons to learn his offense. In college ball, two years is too long given the relatively short time a player has to play in college.

A big question which nobody has answered is what Plummer will do if he is harassed in the pocket a lot. What is the plan? Just throw the ball on the ground. It really is going to be interesting to see if he can run at all.

Finally, I don't get how Musgrave is so old. I think he played QB at Oregon during roughy the same time that Troy Taylor was quarterbacking Cal. Nobody calls Taylor old.

My impression of Musgrave is that he is a dour kinda guy with almost zero enthusiasm. Coaching an offense requires, I believe, a total upbeat kind of manner, the opposite of Musgrave seems to ;project, at least when he is answering questions. Someone like Troy Taylor would be much better, but Wilcox couldn't above by Taylor's creativity. And Taylor is not going to leave Sac. St. to be second fiddle elsewhere as an OC. But if Wilcox ever really falters, just watch Cal scoop him up. Taylor loves Cal and Berkeley with all his heart. In addition to starting for Cal for four years and leading Cal's passing records before Goff came along, he was a coach here for three years and a Cal announcer for two or three years. He would never leave Cal even for more money., though he would make a ton here if he ever were named head coach He is all Cal, true and blue, FOREVER and will stay forever if he is ever named Cal's head coach. Taylor is 15 - 1 over his two years at Sac. St., which is in the toughest FCX conference in the country. He is going a great job and gave Cal scare last season.

---

I am totally fine with OCs that are cerebral chess masters that call brilliant games from the press box. College HCs and DCs are on the sidelines and need to be a more enthusiastic. Baldwin is a better HC than OC. That is why Pete Carroll was good and I thought Mariucci could be great. I like Taylor and it would be fun to have him but I think Pawlawski has the brains and charisma to be a great Cal HC, too bad he didn't take that path.

heartofthebear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

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.

---

I don't find your disagreements with my points offensive. But I do not need protecting from disappointment. I have been a Cal fan for a long, long time. I can handle disappointment when it comes to Cal football. I too have been to pratices both in Spring and this Fall. We each see what we see. I do not see a great team, but I do see one with some potential. A lot of things will need to come together at once for a breakthrough season but 6 wins overall is not IMO a major breakthrough.

Nor do I need to be told how to enjoy my Cal football experience.I'm simply pointing out that fans tend to confuse desire and expectation. It is obvious why folks "expect" 6 wins. It is because they desire to go to a bowl. But that is not based on fact and the evaluation of coaches loses credibility when that evaluation is based partly on desire. 8 of our opponents have significantly improved this season and 2 of them (USC and Furd) may go from the bottom to the top this season. We have improved also, but that does not mean our record will. We got lucky with Furd, OSU and USC last season and unlucky with Nevada, Arizona and WSU. I think it flips this year (UNLV instead of Nevada) but the end result is still 5-7. Of course wins are better and more fun. I am glad for you that what this team does is good enough for you. I enjoy the process of watching the team develop and being supportive of the program. But I do have certain expectations for the paid professional staff. I have lots of critiques of other staff members but your post was titled "In defense of Bill Musgrave". So I offered my opinion.

I am a frequent poster on the Insider Board and have posted my beliefs regarding Musgrave many times. Including immediately after his hire. I believe his style of play is not well suited to a program that has historically found it difficult to recruit the level of talent needed to play his preferred style/scheme.--why? Clearly his scheme was lights out in the big game last year. He has not proven to be a good recruiter and what the offense has achieved under his stewardship has not helped. IMO it was believed his NFL resume would be found attractive to HS players and he would be able to recruit off that. Has not manifested itself yet.--Players continually mention, in interviews, that his NFL ties were a major fact in their decision to come to Cal. This is a crucial season.

IMO Cal has a few coaches that do not meet the criteria I pose for success as a COLLEGE coach. You have to recruit in college. In the NFL you can just coach. I am quite sure Musgrave (and Chryst) are very good technical coaches.--Regardless of what goes on in the NFL, you have to recruit. Plenty of coaches have come from the NFL and recruited in college. I think he is recruiting but clearly you think otherwise. The ceiling on many of the Cal players is simply not high enough and there is only so far good coaching can take you with the talent level in place. But they have not proven to be good recruiters as of yet and the program is in a very precarious place right now given the realignment taking place. And Cal is on the outside in regards to many of the reports.

So winning takes on a greater importance. It become essential that the program win a bit more and play at least like a mid tier program. The offense has been the biggest reason the program has not won more games under WIlcox. Baldwin was miserable as well, but Musgrave has not yet shown to be a significant upgrade.--My whole entire post was to show that Musgrave is a significant improvement over Baldwin. Either you didn't read/comprehend it or you just don't agree. In Baldwin's 3 years, as the talent from the Dykes years dissipated and Baldwin failed to recruit, his performance went down, although he did have a nice bowl season in 2019. Musgrave has improved over time, has recruited 4 and hi 3 star talent across the board and has put the performance offense into the mid tier of pac-12. He eliminated turnovers and put Garbers just behind Thompson-Robinson in the pac-12 for total offense. That is a significant improvement in a pretty short time with covid running against him and Baldwin leaving the OL shelf bare (other than OT Craig). Basically my sense of it is that, if you cannot see a significant difference between the 2 you are focusing mostly on the win/loss record. It is a very common phenomenon in sports that the record is one of the last things to improve when a team is going through a rebuild--which is essentially where Cal has been after the Musgrave hire. And my concern is that we will replace him only to have to wait another 2 or 3 years while yet another culture/rebuild happens before we get the top performance we are looking for. The ranks of successful college football coaches is full of former Cal coaches that got run out because we didn't give them a chance (Gregory DC and Ludwig OC are just a few). So, I don't think Cal fans are particularly credible when it comes to being patient with new coaches. In fact their track record is pretty bad. Baldwin may be the one exception.

And do not feel sorry for me. I enjoy the 3 hour event you describe. The wins a bit more to be sure, but I find my time at the games to be great fun. I love college football. I wish the team would win more. But this board is a way for fans to provide opinion (occasional facts) and voice both their frustrations and joy surrounding the program.

But I am not going to defend Bill Musgrave and what has been to date a subpar performance. Both in results on the field and recruiting off of it. But I will be rooting like crazy that the results take a big turn in 2022 for the better. I would much rather be wrong about Musgrave and have the team win, than any I told you so moment.

---

---

So Musgrave is a slight improvement over Baldwin. I can buy that. Good I do not buy. I do believe some patience is required when rebuilding a program. And my patience is running thin. Not as much with Musgrave as with Justin Wilcox. I think he is a principled man and good DC. But the program remains similar to what the Dykes program was at the end. A below average program that loses more than they win and has yet to play even .500 in conference play. And there is little dispute among most folks that follow this that the P12 has been the worst P5 program the past several seasons. The big difference on the field between Dykes and Wilcox is one was good on offense and poor on defense and Wilcox is the opposite.

We can quibble over details and I do agree that details matter, but they do keep score. There will be a winner and a loser in every game. I expect 6 wins. The most likely outcome if accurate is 2-1 OOC and again 4-5 within the conference. But apparently that is too high a bar. If that bar is too high they seriously need to think about informing the Big 10 they are no longer interested and just wait for the MWC to ask them to join.

If the scoreboard does not matter and to you apparently it does not, then why even have them. Lets just play 2 hand touch and have a juice box at the end and give out participation ribbons. The score has to matter. So heading into year 6 we should expect a 4 win season in the worst P5 conference in the country?

I find it interesting that you suggest the Cal rebuild started after the Musgrave hire. Sure they had to rebuild the offense, but the rebuild has been ongoing since the last few seasons under Tedford. 2009 was the last winning conference season. Perhaps the program cannot be rebuilt. At least to a winning conference record standard.

This is my expectation. Bowls virtually every single year. They take approximately half the college teams each year for a bowl. A 6-6 record is all that is required. I can understand and excuse an occasional miss, but this program should be a bowl program virtually every year IMO. Not Rose Bowl, just any bowl.

The offense has been the primary culprit under JW for the poor records. They have routinely been bottom half. Some seasons as poor as 11th or 12th in a 12 team league. So sure Chase Garbers finished 2nd in total offense. They were 8th in PPG, 9th in First downs, 9th in 3rd down % and 11th in red zone TD %. Good OCs often earn their keep by scoring and extending drives. This team is bottom 3rd in 3 crucial categories. But hey Musgrave is an upgrade over Baldwin. Wow. You point to the Stanford game as a game where Musgrave showed his muster. Stanford was LAST in total defense. They allowed 33ppg in conference and 462 ypg in conference. They stopped literally nobody.

Over the years we have seen a great number of good Cal offenses. Yet somehow expecting this program to produce a team with even an average offense (28ppg is about the national average) is simply a mountain too tough to climb and further patience is required while your NFL experienced level OC finds his sea legs. But Musgrave is not the problem. It is McClure, AT, Toler and Chrsyt. No doubt the futility is a group effort, but seriously year 6 cannot be a repeat of the previous 5 seasons on offense. If not this season when should we expect the team to be average on offense?

We do not agree on several things and that is fine. But if 6 wins is not a reasonable expectation in year 6 when exactly should 6 be a reasonable expectation?

---

On Musgrave being only a slight improvement:

• Musgrave went from a passing offense that was last in the conference to 6th in the conference last year. That is a 50% jump from bottom to top of the conference.
• Same thing with total offense and rushing offense was also 6th in conference. Basically average instead of bottom of the conference, which is what you are wanting.
• 2nd Best rushing offense (yards/game) at Cal since the pac-12 was formed, including some JT years. Basically the 2nd best since Javid Best.
• One of the best in the nation in preventing turnovers
• One of only three teams nationally that had more than 1 receiver in the top 25 nationally for yards/reception. Neither WSU nor SMU had any, dispelling the myth of conservative play calling.
• 400% increase in recruiting hi 3* or 4* OTs in 67% of the time.
• 100% increase in recruiting 4* WRs out of HS in 67% of the time
• 33% increase in recruiting hi 3* and 4* WRs overall in 67% of the time
• 200% increase in recruiting hi 3* and 4* RBs in 67% of the time
• Recruited 2 hi 3 or 4 star QBs when Baldwin recruited none in 67% of the time
• Recrutied 1 4* TE when Baldwin recruited no hi 3 or 4* TEs

On the fact that winning matters:

• I care about winning too but it's just not all I care about and I don't always judge coaches based on that alone, especially when they haven't even had 2 full seasons here.

On your expectation of 6 wins:

• Like I said, many fans have trouble distinguishing between what they desire and what is to be expected. Obviously we all want at least 6 wins. But Cal doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'm sure every pac-12 team has fans that demand at least 6 wins every year, even at Colorado. Is that reasonable for them? Should the Colorado coaches be fired because they can't get 6 wins at Colorado? They keep firing and hiring guys at WSU like WSU should be better than they are. I don't expect Cal to be better than the roster is relative to their opponents--that includes experience level (Cal is down this year compared to their opponents), recruiting talent (Cal is down compared to many of their opponents) and health (Cal has already had 3 injuries on the DL). I expect better recruiting and the recruiting has improved a great deal under Musgrave as mentioned, but Cal is being hit hard with circumstances beyond their control this season and I suspect it will hurt Cal in recruiting. That should not be on the coaches.

On the offense being the primary culprit:

• I agree but, had the Cal D not blown the 2nd half of the TCU game, Cal goes to a bowl. So it's not just the offense.

On the Big Game:

• Stanford stopped Oregon, the division winner.
• Since points matter, Cal scored more points against Furd than any other team except Notre Dame and Utah, both of which were highly ranked at the time.

On the other coaches:

• I am not concerned about any of the offensive coaches other than McClure. I feel that his unit is mostly responsible for the disappointments last season. I think the receivers have met expectations and the RBs have exceeded them. I am on the fence about the QB, especially back-up but Mendoza and Plummer look good enough to compete in the conference and Millner is coming along, although slowly.
• Musgrave is not my Musgrave. I am simply pointed out things that I feel are not being acknowledged on this board. I think Musgrave got unfairly targeted because folks made up a 6 win minimum due to a desire to go to a bowl game, were already impatient with the offense do to Baldwin and saw that the defense was not the problem. That is understandable but also lazy thinking. For example, I had argued before the season last year, as well as this year, that Cal was a 5 or 6 win team. I did not expect that they would get 6 points at home to WSU and have covid blow up once again when they went to Tucson. At the time of the WSU game, I thought the whole group should be fired, and I will never understand what happened to Cal that day, but then they improved quite significantly. For example, I believe that OSU was favored when they came to Berkeley but Cal blew them out, again scoring a lot of points.
• I don't think the coaches are performing at a futile level. I think they are underperforming in spots and need to work out some issues (ie 2nd half, redzone, 3rd downs, short yardage). Some of that is on the OL and, in that sense, I don't know what to expect because I am not sure about the coaching there. I think, otherwise, Cal is ready to make a jump.

Enjoy the games. Bummer about Johnson though. That took a little wind out the sails for me.

---

You keep acting like improving over Baldwin, who produced one of the worst offenses in college football (all ranked in the 100s) over his three years, is good enough. It is like defending Kaufman by saying the defense was better than under Buh (who was at least fired after one year).

Musgrave's performance so far was absolutely bad. He has another shot this year, but if it is the same as last year, that is not even close to being good enough.

---

That is because nobody is willing to say that Musgrave is a significant improvement. That was the reason I posted these additional numbers. To me, the numbers look significant and would to any researcher. I guess folks are just afraid to admit it.

---

Why would we be afraid to admit it? We all want Cal to win. We have no love lost for Baldwin.

With a super-senior laden offense, including a former 4 star QB with 3 years of experience and a career passer rating better than Nate Longshore's, we were #96 in scoring.--That is all true but clearly the OL was a big part of the problem. Red zone/short yardage offense depends on a good OL and that was a big part of the problems scoring. A senior-laden offense or any offense will break down without a good OL. That is what concerns me this year as well. Even Musgrave failed to recruit enough OL until this year. So we really won't see that OL until 2023 and 2024. You keep wanting to use national stats without addressing my critique of them. So #96 means nothing when Troy, Eastern Michigan and Liberty (just throwing them out as examples without knowing how they finished) can play against really bad defenses. Metrics that don't use common opponents are useless, and, as a Cal guy and a data guy, you know that.

If you think that is "significant" great. I am not "afraid to admit it" because I don't care about being "better than Baldwin" the bottom line is it's not nearly good enough. Maybe you are afraid to admit it?

Again, hopefully there is a significant improvement this year, then we can stop discussing whether Musgrave's 2020 and 2021 offenses were anything to celebrate.

---

The big, significant, difference is in recruiting. A lot of the players that you are anxious to see this year are because Musgrave recruited them. But Musgrave hasn't really played his recruits yet. Other than Jeremiah Hunter, who was definitely a plus and E. Johnson/B. Swinney, who were forced into action as freshmen because of injuries on the OL, his guys haven't really taken the field. Oh, Sturdivante played some STs as well. That's why it makes sense to withhold judgement. This year he should have more of his guys on the field. But I am worried that the OL will still hold things back. When the offense in general looks good but one unit struggles, I don't point to the OC, I point to the position coach. For example, Dykes/Franklin had Likens as a WR coach. After he leaft, there was a sharp decline in WR production, even with a group headed to the NFL. Was that a Franklin issue? I don't think so. I would love to see what Musgrave could do with a really great OL coach. McClure is okay but not great. And the OL is clearly the problem to me.

---

I'm not inclined to give the Offensive Coordinator credit or discredit for players recruited outside of the QB position. Do offensive systems attracted players? Sure. However, hometown visits etc. are still about the position group coaches, and the O-Coordinator might be part of sitting in with on-campus visits. But the relative success in the WR group recruiting goes to Toler in my opinion. And therefore I agree with you regarding McClure and offensive linemen...and I don't hold that against Musgrave.
Hindsight not withstanding, I will even admit to thinking Baldwin was the better hire, because I would rather fail with a younger up and comer, more so than a bit of a re-tread; I also liked that he had been a head coach, but whatever. That isn't saying anything about your research...to me, the best Coordinators and position coaches at Cal have been exactly that, "up and coming," and Cal would lose them for good reasons. Some of the younger guys have gone on to achieve incredible status in college and the NFL.
But I am very happy to be wrong, etc. if this is a big break-through year for Musgrave, that in fact he is able to do better work with Plummer than he was with Garbers. I think he could be the second coming of Bill Walsh, but it's not going to matter if McClure doesn't coach up the O-linemen, and/or the system doesn't utilize the strength and weaknesses of the O-line.

---

I appreciate your outlook and honesty. I've always felt you had a balanced attitude on this board. I had just posted that Musgrave/McClure OL won't really be fully established until 2024, although some are on it now and more will be there next season. In particular, I am thinking about this latest class that gives me hope. At OT I have heard good things about Ramsey and Brown also rated well as an OT. Then the OG we got is already turning heads and might even play this year. The other OLs recruited in the new offensive regime are Swinney and E. Johnson, both of whom came in as OTs and have the size to do so. They are being converted to the interior, especially Swinney, who might be a starter this year. In 2024, these 2 will be seniors, eligibility-wise and the guys from this year will be fully on board. That will probably be the best OL we have had for a while as long as we continue to add personnel this year and next year for depth and barring any attrition involving those players. Unfortunately that year we will be breaking in a new starting QB, unless someone new comes along to take Plummer's job in 2023.

Right now, OT Coleman is the only OL I fully trust, and his build is really better on the interior. Cindric has some pre-season recognition so I'm okay with him and Rohme is said to have worked hard and is vastly improved. But the guards are unproven, which is a problem for an offense that seeks to run the ball and has had problems doing so in the red zone.

I honestly think this season is going to be rather similar to the last, except that the STs should be better and we won't have the covid thing hanging over our heads. I think Cal will be in most games, but, unfortunately, so will their appointments. I see Cal blowing out WSU, despite what folks say and I see Cal getting blown out by UCLA and Oregon. I think the most important and exciting game this year will be vs. Arizona. Don't miss that one.

Edit: I might add that several of our recruits have mentioned Musgrave's NFL ties as a factor for them in coming to Cal. Unfortunately I don't recall who it was but I believe some of our 4*s are included in that.

---

I appreciate the compliment, thank you. My "reactions" are based on having very little emotional investment in my posts, or anyone else's. I am lucky enough to have been exposed to top rated coaches in several sports, and I know what I don't know.
I'm Cal class of '79, so yeah, I have seen a lot...just means I am comfortable admitting that "hope" is why drives me in terms of Cal sports, not critical thinking.

Gobears49 said:

---

Musgrave hurt himself right off the bat by saying it would take a QB two seasons to learn his offense. In college ball, two years is too long given the relatively short time a player has to play in college.

A big question which nobody has answered is what Plummer will do if he is harassed in the pocket a lot. What is the plan? Just throw the ball on the ground. It really is going to be interesting to see if he can run at all.

Finally, I don't get how Musgrave is so old. I think he played QB at Oregon during roughy the same time that Troy Taylor was quarterbacking Cal. Nobody calls Taylor old.

My impression of Musgrave is that he is a dour kinda guy with almost zero enthusiasm. Coaching an offense requires, I believe, a total upbeat kind of manner, the opposite of Musgrave seems to ;project, at least when he is answering questions. Someone like Troy Taylor would be much better, but Wilcox couldn't above by Taylor's creativity. And Taylor is not going to leave Sac. St. to be second fiddle elsewhere as an OC. But if Wilcox ever really falters, just watch Cal scoop him up. Taylor loves Cal and Berkeley with all his heart. In addition to starting for Cal for four years and leading Cal's passing records before Goff came along, he was a coach here for three years and a Cal announcer for two or three years. He would never leave Cal even for more money., though he would make a ton here if he ever were named head coach He is all Cal, true and blue, FOREVER and will stay forever if he is ever named Cal's head coach. Taylor is 15 - 1 over his two years at Sac. St., which is in the toughest FCX conference in the country. He is going a great job and gave Cal scare last season.

---

I'd take Taylor over Musgrave in a heartbeat. I'd take Taylor over Wilcox too. Successful OCs come in all shapes, sizes, personalities, races, ages and energy levels. Musgrave is very strategic and confident. He doesn't feel he has to broadcast his confidence via enthusiasm. The players like him.

movielover said:

---

Former Bear McCallan Castles is a talented 6'5" TE for the Aggies with over 350 yards receiving last year.

---

Yup