Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

Almost as bad as Tedford taking a knee on 3rd and 9 in the 2009 Big Game. Very similar actually.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

I think some of his decisions have been in nearly every thread after this mess. The more times we see it the merrier. And yes these are the sort of decisions where you can lose the team.

He acted like he was centering the ball for the kicker at the 15 yard line rather than putting the game on an untrustworthy kicker from 40 when you have time and downs to go for the win. It was straight pathetric...even if it would have worked.

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

Almost as bad as Tedford taking a knee on 3rd and 9 in the 2009 Big Game. Very similar actually.

---

As bad as that gutless Tedford call was, at the very least it forced Stanfurd to take a game-typing FG off the table. In this case, a FG still beats us.

TheFiatLux said:

---

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

It's pretty much the #1 thing to talk about IMO. We had Pitt where we wanted them and chose to let them up off the deck. That's not a decision from a coach who is playing to win.

blungld said:

---

He acted like he was centering the ball for the kicker at the 15 yard line rather than putting the game on an untrustworthy kicker from 40 when you have time and downs to go for the win. It was straight pathetric...even if it would have worked.

---

These kids aren't stupid.
They'll have plenty of time to dwell on this gutless play calling flying all the way back from PA.
I wouldn't be surprised if he just lost this Team and the kids give up in some way, shape, or form.

I can't imagine playing for this guy.
I really can't.

And remember, he BLAMED last week's loss on the kids.

DiabloWags said:

---

blungld said:

---

He acted like he was centering the ball for the kicker at the 15 yard line rather than putting the game on an untrustworthy kicker from 40 when you have time and downs to go for the win. It was straight pathetric...even if it would have worked.

---

These kids aren't stupid.
They'll have plenty of time to dwell on this gutless play calling flying all the way back from PA.
I wouldn't be surprised if he just lost this Team and the kids give up in some way, shape, or form.

I can't imagine playing for this guy.
I really can't.

And remember, he BLAMED last week's loss on the kids.

---

If I was a player I would be so mad that the coaches didn't let us try and win the game. They had a QB in the groove and plenty of time and timeouts.

Especially when you factor in that, even had we made the FG, we were leaving plenty of time on the clock for Pitt to come back, we should have been going for another 1st down there (and hopefully a touchdown). Horrible, horrible call.

(as bad a call as the first 2 pt. conversion try, where we use a non-QB to throw a pass, making it automatically low %)

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

If ever there was a time to pile on, its now.

With a mediocre kicker, we would be 5-1. With a medicore coach we would be 6-0.

I said it earlier a couple of times... if Wilcox was too sick to be at the stadium to blunder his way through games, we would be 6-0.

A buddy sent me this tweet

Cal with an extra 7 points per game

2017 8-4
2018 8-4
2019 9-3
2021 10-2
2022 9-3
2023 8-4
2024 6-0

— West Coast Ball Club (@RyanJosephData) October 12, 2024

DiabloWags said:

---

blungld said:

---

He acted like he was centering the ball for the kicker at the 15 yard line rather than putting the game on an untrustworthy kicker from 40 when you have time and downs to go for the win. It was straight pathetric...even if it would have worked.

---

These kids aren't stupid.
They'll have plenty of time to dwell on this gutless play calling flying all the way back from PA.
I wouldn't be surprised if he just lost this Team and the kids give up in some way, shape, or form.

I can't imagine playing for this guy.
I really can't.

And remember, he BLAMED last week's loss on the kids.

---

He also was screaming at the players today.

Never go full 2007.

LunchTime said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

If ever there was a time to pile on, its now.

With a mediocre kicker, we would be 5-1. With a medicore coach we would be 6-0.

---

MAYBE 5-1, because as we saw even if we'd made the kick, Pitt would have had just under two minutes to get into FG range themselves, with a guy that had already hit from 58. That again is down to the coaching strategy. It was too early to take the foot off the gas.

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

If ever there was a time to pile on, its now.

With a mediocre kicker, we would be 5-1. With a medicore coach we would be 6-0.

---

MAYBE 5-1, because as we saw even if we'd made the kick, Pitt would have had just under two minutes to get into FG range themselves, with a guy that had already hit from 58. That again is down to the coaching strategy. It was too early to take the foot off the gas.

---

Game ends when we kick the ball.

First two minute long FG play ever.

Being at the game, I can say I agree with that. That third down call was the worse of the season. Not sure if that is the OC or HC, but it was terrible at that point in the game. I can only assume they were afraid of taking yet another sack and getting out of FG range. The call before that which looked like a designated Mendoza run wasn't much better. Get the ball to Endires.

sycasey said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

It's pretty much the #1 thing to talk about IMO. We had Pitt where we wanted them and chose to let them up off the deck. That's not a decision from a coach who is playing to win.

---

JW is risk averse. That's in his dna. BUT, JUSTIN, EVEN A 36 YD FG HAS RISK.

What he doesn't know or refuses to acknowledge is that being risk averse forces you into a turtle shell, from which you can't do anything. If his assistants don't know this, the players sure do, although they may not be fully aware that they do.

It also tells his players that they're not as good as the other guys and that they can't be trusted to make great plays. "Why play all out if our coach doesn't believe in us."

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that we have a winning season in spite of it (we very well could, considering our remaining schedule). I'm still predicting 7-5.

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

LunchTime said:

---

dha said:

---

Being at the game, I can say I agree with that. That third down call was the worse of the season. Not sure if that is the OC or HC, but it was terrible at that point in the game. I can only assume they were afraid of taking yet another sack and getting out of FG range. The call before that which looked like a designated Mendoza run wasn't much better. Get the ball to Endires.

---

Wilcox said in his presser that those two QB runs "should have" been first downs.

It's the players, he says.

---

He seems to be operating in a world where he has an OL that can open up running lanes when everyone in the world is expecting them to run.

Fantasy world, basically.

I just watched the first half of Wilcox' post-game interview.

1. He blamed penalties and lack of emotional, mental, and physical toughness.
2. He seemed to blame players for 5 minutes ('penalties', dumb penalties, etc.).
3. "If we cut the penalties in half..."

I couldn't watch the whole thing.

movielover said:

---

Is play calling worse than last year?

---

Far worse, except for the bowl game, also called by Bloesch, which was even worse.

Last year we were #48 in scoring, this year we are #98.

This, despite the huge improvement in Fernando's play and the fact he has taken nearly every snap.

We are #121 in Red Zone scoring.

Spavital was meh, Bloesch, with the exception of part of the Miami game (after the first two series until the end of the 3rd quarter), and flashes here and there has been horrible.

You can see through the clouds of dust the makings of a big play, high scoring offense featuring Mendoza throwing to the TEs up the seams, the WRs deep, or the RBs underneath. Mendoza is actually well suited for the Air Raid. Wilcox doesn't like offenses that score fast, but he needs to get over it.

There are so many choices for "worst coaching decision I have ever seen" in that game.

Consider the decision to go for 2 after we went up 6-0. Our kicker has made every XP and we are not an offensive juggernaut, we are #98 in the country in scoring and are the #121 team in the country in Red Zone scoring.

And If you are going to fake it and have the holder throw, why not have the holder for that play be a backup QB and not your Aussie punter?

Similarly, on the second 2 pt try, if you are going to have some razzal dazzle with you bsckup WB getting the ball on the reverse, if you are just going to have him run, shouldn't you just have someone fast get it? Rogers is a passing QB. The play should have had him throw or it should not have had him in there.