KenBurnski said:
Was Hunter the player that had suffered drop issues early on? He looks fantastic.
Don't remember the drops but yes he's showing he's got hands, could fill in nicely for the Hunter who's now gone.
KenBurnski said:
Was Hunter the player that had suffered drop issues early on? He looks fantastic.
Good enough for today anyway01Bear said:Joegeo said:
Nice aggressiveness from Wilcox in the second half
Agreed, but the offensive playcalling is still not good. Fortunately, the other team is a FCS team.
Strykur said:Good enough for today anyway01Bear said:Joegeo said:
Nice aggressiveness from Wilcox in the second half
Agreed, but the offensive playcalling is still not good. Fortunately, the other team is a FCS team.
That gets us 2+ more wins last yearTouchedTheAxeIn82 said:
Has anyone mentioned that we have a kicker that consistently kicks it into the end zone, *and* looks to be an accurate FG kicker? One bright spot.
golden sloth said:calumnus said:socaltownie said:I would look at the relative recruiting budgets. We haven't done well with OL in a decade pluscalumnus said:ThaCaliEnigma said:
Wilcox is a mediocre coach, but no coach will succeed without the school's support. I honestly don't know why the school wanted to remain a power 4 school. This school spent a ton of money on facilities but won't go all in on trying to become a football powerhouse. It's pure insanity.
What specifically do you think the school could be doing so that Wilcox wins more games?
We had Top 10 offenses under Dykes. They gave our QBs plenty of time and our RBs had high per carry averages.
It isn't the recruiting budget.
Wilcox has had bad recruiters as OL and DL coaches mostly guys from Oregon (until Bloesch at OL last year).
Goff did not have plenty of time under dykes.
After the next TDgolden sloth said:
When do we pull the starters?
cubzwin said:
typical to only show vanilla plays in opener against weak opponent. expect more against aubie
Strykur said:
Man Rogers ain't it
bearister said:golden sloth said:calumnus said:socaltownie said:I would look at the relative recruiting budgets. We haven't done well with OL in a decade pluscalumnus said:ThaCaliEnigma said:
Wilcox is a mediocre coach, but no coach will succeed without the school's support. I honestly don't know why the school wanted to remain a power 4 school. This school spent a ton of money on facilities but won't go all in on trying to become a football powerhouse. It's pure insanity.
What specifically do you think the school could be doing so that Wilcox wins more games?
We had Top 10 offenses under Dykes. They gave our QBs plenty of time and our RBs had high per carry averages.
It isn't the recruiting budget.
Wilcox has had bad recruiters as OL and DL coaches mostly guys from Oregon (until Bloesch at OL last year).
Goff did not have plenty of time under dykes.
1.5 to 2 seconds and sacked on every other play. It helped to make him a good pro. He didn't have the USC QB "What do you mean I don't get 8 seconds" Syndrome.
Going conservative at this pointBadNewsBear1 said:
We have quick smaller RBs, no road graters on the OL, yet we continually run up the middle. Brilliant!
ncbears said:
Mendoza back in
Strykur said:Going conservative at this pointBadNewsBear1 said:
We have quick smaller RBs, no road graters on the OL, yet we continually run up the middle. Brilliant!
john.olsonjr said:
It's not his per se, as he's not the OC. And, he's not calling plays. To be sure, he has veto or overruling power I would imagine, so I put it on the OC. Under SPAV we put up yards and points… twice We did that to a certain extent under Tedford's regime as well, though it fell off with his later OCs, and if memory serves, at least at the beginning he played a much more integral role on O.