Big C said:

---

The off-season when we eventually hired Spav, I was hoping we would go after Marion, but I knew that Wilcox would consider him too "risky".

---

It's hard to go against the norm, but it's surprising, in a way, that more defensive oriented coaches haven't tried it. It's likely going to benefit your defense. Not a big surprise that the UNLV head coach has a defensive background. I'm guessing he knew that doing the same old thing wasn't going to cut it at UNLV.

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I don't think Mendoza would be a good fit for an option offense. We'd probably have to use Rogers and lose Mendoza after the season.

---

We would have to lose both and find two new ones if we wanted to run the option. Mendoza is more mobile than Rogers. Option is not an option without a wholesale change.

---

It would absolutely be wholesale changes. Which, I would argue, is a reasonable course of action given an inability to reach their goals for 60+ years, the vast majority spent doing what everyone else is doing.
There is another reason why the time is right, and it's part of the reason that the teams I mentioned are doing so well: pretty much everyone is running the spread, and defenses are built to stop the spread, so it's a comparative advantage to do something else. The inverse of how BYU was winning championships and setting records in the 80s - when many of the top teams were running the option or, at the least, pro style, smash mouth offenses. Defenses built to stop the 240 pound sledgehammer lead blocking fullbacks and star tailbacks were not as equipped to stop BYU, which was the precursor to the Air Raid and everything we've got going on today.
And you've got the recruiting advantage of competing with fewer schools for the talent that fits your system.
It's correct that we may lose out on top, prototypical receiving prospects. But how many are we getting, anyways? And how much NIL money are we spending there? Not spending that money there is an advantage.
It's not as clear cut with QBs. Yes, if it's a true Army under center flexbone type of option, you will not get them. But most QBs are running the ball a bit out of the spread in HS. Certainly the UNLV or Vandy or Liberty versions - and maybe Navy (which may be the sweetest of the bunch, as it is a bit of a delaware wing-t offense hybrid) would not be QB recruit preclusive.

---

I'm fine with having it your way, but the bottom line is, that offense will get trashed (much like most offenses) with a lousy offensive line. It will absolutely work with a dominant offensive line, but I don't see that anything you are presenting is making it easier to achieve that.

---

Actually, that's exactly what I'm presenting. That's sort of the whole point of the option in general - if you can't block them, don't. Option them instead. Army and Navy do not have the most gifted lines in the country and have no way possible to recruit them. The option allows you to get great line play without elite recruiting (which, in the end, is also what you are advocating for). So, yes, improving offensive line play is pretty much the entire theory and historical background of the option offense in general.
I realize it failed at Oregon State. That's Oregon State in the 90s, when most everyone else was either running the option or some form of power running scheme. Oregon State was also a historically inept program in a recruiting backwoods.
Want to know another historically inept program in a recruiting backwoods who implemented an option scheme during the same era? Kansas State. They were in worse shape with less tradition. And it turned them into a perennial conference champ contender and for a time even a national championship game threat.
And to be clear, the schemes I am suggesting are not going backwards. Army is the only one that really resembles something from the past. The rest are combining old and new schemes into something new. It's a chance to be innovative and at the forefront, rather than being a follower. Wouldn't that be nice??

---

This was the philosophy of hiring Sonny Dykes: running a different type of offense and recruiting for the system. We had one decent year and that was because we had a great QB that had been recruited by the prior coach.

---

1st, Goff is a double legacy who grew up a Cal fan and was coming to Cal no matter what, but he signed with Dykes. Kline was the top QB inherited from Tedford.

2nd, we had a Top 10 offense, #1 in the PAC-12, the following year with Davis Webb. 28 first downs per game, third most in the country. Plus a great recruiting class. There was nothing really wrong with the offense in 2016. It was not "just Goff."

The defense was bad, though the 2015 and 2016 classes brought in by Kaufman were excellent and with DeReuyter coaching them up became Top 10.

Dykes himself was a bad fit for Cal. However, Sandy's idea of getting a innovator (relative, Air Raid was not new at that point) on offense was a good one. If paired with a good DC you have a winner.

I do think you cannot have your OC overly wedded to a system. College personnel vary from year to year. Recruit to your system but play to your strengths. Mouse Davis needed to adapt the Run n Shoot to include our best player, TE David Lewis. We went spread in 2006 with Nate Longshore, Marshawn Lynch, great TEs, a great OL, great FB and Desean Jackson and the Hawk. We should have been runnng outside power, mixed in with playaction bombs to Desean Jackson.

But in addition to being an offensive minded guy, we need a guy that is a great fit, who understands Cal in addition to being smart and creative. For me, the most logical source of smart people who understand and love Cal is Cal alums. However, it doesn't have to be. I am really impressed with Brennan Marion in his videos and his "Go Go Offense" which in his first year has UNLV with the #4 offense in the country. And kept it there when his QB1 left for more money. He is making $300k at UNLV.

Here is my dream. Rivera takes over while we pay off Wilcox and he hires Marion as OC with Marion the heir apparent. Or something, anything to get us out of this rut.

---

You make great points (as usual) but I want to take exception with a few things:

1. I don't think the main problem with the run and shoot was the diminished role of David Lewis but the fact that after Gale Gilbert suffered a broken leg we no longer had anyone who could QB it. J. Torchio was not the answer. Good guy, good legacy, but not a run and shoot QB.

2. Yes, Goff technically signed with Dykes, but he committed to Tedford and agreed to keep that commitment after the coaching change. JT deserves credit despite Goff being a double legacy. (Nothing can be taken for granted as we've lost many legacies over the years, including

3. Sonny was a horrible fit culturally. He realized it soon after coming. I don't the offense was a great as we seem to remember. At times we rolled up yards (particularly against the weaker teams) but there were other times we rolled up the yards, marched downfield to or near the 30 yardline but couldn't score against good defenses. In Sonny's last year (with Webb) we lost to SC 24-45, Washington 27-66, WSU 21-56, and Stanford 31-45 in consecutive weeks. It was effective at time, but still a gimmick. You mention it wore out our defenses, but, frankly, I think our current defense is worn out by the beginning of the 4th quarter.

I do agree that JT going spread and getting away from what he knew best was a problem. The playbook (and the poster size play card) was too big.

I would love to see Rivera and Marion. Longshot for sure, but a Bear can dream.

kad02002 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I don't think Mendoza would be a good fit for an option offense. We'd probably have to use Rogers and lose Mendoza after the season.

---

We would have to lose both and find two new ones if we wanted to run the option. Mendoza is more mobile than Rogers. Option is not an option without a wholesale change.

---

It would absolutely be wholesale changes. Which, I would argue, is a reasonable course of action given an inability to reach their goals for 60+ years, the vast majority spent doing what everyone else is doing.
There is another reason why the time is right, and it's part of the reason that the teams I mentioned are doing so well: pretty much everyone is running the spread, and defenses are built to stop the spread, so it's a comparative advantage to do something else. The inverse of how BYU was winning championships and setting records in the 80s - when many of the top teams were running the option or, at the least, pro style, smash mouth offenses. Defenses built to stop the 240 pound sledgehammer lead blocking fullbacks and star tailbacks were not as equipped to stop BYU, which was the precursor to the Air Raid and everything we've got going on today.
And you've got the recruiting advantage of competing with fewer schools for the talent that fits your system.
It's correct that we may lose out on top, prototypical receiving prospects. But how many are we getting, anyways? And how much NIL money are we spending there? Not spending that money there is an advantage.
It's not as clear cut with QBs. Yes, if it's a true Army under center flexbone type of option, you will not get them. But most QBs are running the ball a bit out of the spread in HS. Certainly the UNLV or Vandy or Liberty versions - and maybe Navy (which may be the sweetest of the bunch, as it is a bit of a delaware wing-t offense hybrid) would not be QB recruit preclusive.

---

I'm fine with having it your way, but the bottom line is, that offense will get trashed (much like most offenses) with a lousy offensive line. It will absolutely work with a dominant offensive line, but I don't see that anything you are presenting is making it easier to achieve that.

---

Actually, that's exactly what I'm presenting. That's sort of the whole point of the option in general - if you can't block them, don't. Option them instead. Army and Navy do not have the most gifted lines in the country and have no way possible to recruit them. The option allows you to get great line play without elite recruiting (which, in the end, is also what you are advocating for). So, yes, improving offensive line play is pretty much the entire theory and historical background of the option offense in general.
I realize it failed at Oregon State. That's Oregon State in the 90s, when most everyone else was either running the option or some form of power running scheme. Oregon State was also a historically inept program in a recruiting backwoods.
Want to know another historically inept program in a recruiting backwoods who implemented an option scheme during the same era? Kansas State. They were in worse shape with less tradition. And it turned them into a perennial conference champ contender and for a time even a national championship game threat.
And to be clear, the schemes I am suggesting are not going backwards. Army is the only one that really resembles something from the past. The rest are combining old and new schemes into something new. It's a chance to be innovative and at the forefront, rather than being a follower. Wouldn't that be nice??

---

You are missing my main point. You aren't going to adopt a scheme that is going to solve the problem. You could invent a scheme that no one has an answer for, but frankly 90% of the time you fall on your face when you try to do that. And the other 10% of the time you have a burst of success and everyone either figures out what you are doing and a way to stop it, or it actually does change the world, in which case a bunch of people adopt it and you are no longer doing something different.

I DO agree with you that Cal needs to take an overall approach here, look at the recruits they can get, and build a program and scheme around those recruits. 100%. I've advocated for that many times. But ultimately that is a portion of the solution and in any scheme you need smart recruiting, good player development, and focus on execution. Everyone thinks that everyone knows how to do those three, but they don't. Snyder wasn't even a good game day coach. Tedford was much better on the strategy side than many gave him credit for, but his overall scheme was mainstream.

You and I have a lot of agreement, but I guess the point I'm reacting to is that Cal fans (as with fans in general) consistently look for an easy button that will fix everything. That is my issue with the "There is going to be realignment in X years and if we don't fix this NOW!!!!!!! we will DIE!!!!!!!!" argument. There is no immediate fix. Every day we look for immediate fixes is another day we don't start down the necessary road to building a healthy program.

It was argued that we didn't have time to fire the existing coach and take a chance on a new coach because of this realignment wall we are going to hit. We needed to bolster everything else. Frankly, a lot of people hoped the ACC would cure our woes and close Pac-12 losses would turn into ACC wins. That was a possiblity, but the other possibility is that he loses all these close games because his flaws lead to close losses and moving to the ACC was only going to mean close losses to worse teams. So far that is what is happening and we another year or two closer to that realignment wall and we still need to fire the coach and take a chance on a new coach. Because, I'm sorry, that needed to happen years ago and it still needs to happen.

We need to do what needs to be done to build a successful program, and if that is going to take 3 years, so be it. If we don't make it in time for the realignment wall, so be it. We did our best. You can't keep doing what will never work with an infinite amount of time because you can't find a solution that you think comes fast enough.

I don't have a fundamental problem with your proposal. But priorities 1-50 have to be hiring a coach who has shown he can recruit wisely and adaptively (not a salesman, but a guy who can identify the right pieces that he can get), a guy that will inspire his staff and players, not just on game day when the lights are on, but everyday at practice, conditioning, etc. because that is when games are won. A guy who will be able to focus on developing skills and execution of those skills. That is 95% of the job.

And, frankly, our schedule is easy this year and extremely easy next year. This is the offseason to pull the plug because our team minus the coach is easily better than 9+ opponents on next year's schedule. This team with a change in attitude and focus can have a Tedford like turnaround in one year and since the floor is higher that could mean Top25 or even Top 10. That being done by a first year coach would frankly juice recruiting and support to a huge amount and it doesn't even take a great coach to do it. It takes a merely competent one. The stars aligned for a change this year and we missed it, but the stars really align next year. Don't know when that is going to happen again.

Some people want to say "but maybe Wilcox can do it with the easy schedule". THAT is the risk we can't take right now. But to be clear, next year is a big opportunity, but even if we take advantage of it, with Wilcox or someone else, it's only one year and the long term work needs to be done from there. And, frankly, Wilcox is a poor risk to take advantage of that even if he gets that year. (And he already squandered a huge opportunity this year, so I don't know why he should get another chance).

kad02002 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I don't think Mendoza would be a good fit for an option offense. We'd probably have to use Rogers and lose Mendoza after the season.

---

We would have to lose both and find two new ones if we wanted to run the option. Mendoza is more mobile than Rogers. Option is not an option without a wholesale change.

---

It would absolutely be wholesale changes. Which, I would argue, is a reasonable course of action given an inability to reach their goals for 60+ years, the vast majority spent doing what everyone else is doing.
There is another reason why the time is right, and it's part of the reason that the teams I mentioned are doing so well: pretty much everyone is running the spread, and defenses are built to stop the spread, so it's a comparative advantage to do something else. The inverse of how BYU was winning championships and setting records in the 80s - when many of the top teams were running the option or, at the least, pro style, smash mouth offenses. Defenses built to stop the 240 pound sledgehammer lead blocking fullbacks and star tailbacks were not as equipped to stop BYU, which was the precursor to the Air Raid and everything we've got going on today.
And you've got the recruiting advantage of competing with fewer schools for the talent that fits your system.
It's correct that we may lose out on top, prototypical receiving prospects. But how many are we getting, anyways? And how much NIL money are we spending there? Not spending that money there is an advantage.
It's not as clear cut with QBs. Yes, if it's a true Army under center flexbone type of option, you will not get them. But most QBs are running the ball a bit out of the spread in HS. Certainly the UNLV or Vandy or Liberty versions - and maybe Navy (which may be the sweetest of the bunch, as it is a bit of a delaware wing-t offense hybrid) would not be QB recruit preclusive.

---

I'm fine with having it your way, but the bottom line is, that offense will get trashed (much like most offenses) with a lousy offensive line. It will absolutely work with a dominant offensive line, but I don't see that anything you are presenting is making it easier to achieve that.

---

Actually, that's exactly what I'm presenting. That's sort of the whole point of the option in general - if you can't block them, don't. Option them instead. Army and Navy do not have the most gifted lines in the country and have no way possible to recruit them. The option allows you to get great line play without elite recruiting (which, in the end, is also what you are advocating for). So, yes, improving offensive line play is pretty much the entire theory and historical background of the option offense in general.
I realize it failed at Oregon State. That's Oregon State in the 90s, when most everyone else was either running the option or some form of power running scheme. Oregon State was also a historically inept program in a recruiting backwoods.
Want to know another historically inept program in a recruiting backwoods who implemented an option scheme during the same era? Kansas State. They were in worse shape with less tradition. And it turned them into a perennial conference champ contender and for a time even a national championship game threat.
And to be clear, the schemes I am suggesting are not going backwards. Army is the only one that really resembles something from the past. The rest are combining old and new schemes into something new. It's a chance to be innovative and at the forefront, rather than being a follower. Wouldn't that be nice??

---

This was the philosophy of hiring Sonny Dykes: running a different type of offense and recruiting for the system. We had one decent year and that was because we had a great QB that had been recruited by the prior coach.

---

1st, Goff is a double legacy who grew up a Cal fan and was coming to Cal no matter what, but he signed with Dykes. Kline was the top QB inherited from Tedford.

2nd, we had a Top 10 offense, #1 in the PAC-12, the following year with Davis Webb. 28 first downs per game, third most in the country. Plus a great recruiting class. There was nothing really wrong with the offense in 2016. It was not "just Goff."

The defense was bad, though the 2015 and 2016 classes brought in by Kaufman were excellent and with DeReuyter coaching them up became Top 10.

Dykes himself was a bad fit for Cal. However, Sandy's idea of getting a innovator (relative, Air Raid was not new at that point) on offense was a good one. If paired with a good DC you have a winner.

I do think you cannot have your OC overly wedded to a system. College personnel vary from year to year. Recruit to your system but play to your strengths. Mouse Davis needed to adapt the Run n Shoot to include our best player, TE David Lewis. We went spread in 2006 with Nate Longshore, Marshawn Lynch, great TEs, a great OL, great FB and Desean Jackson and the Hawk. We should have been runnng outside power, mixed in with playaction bombs to Desean Jackson.

But in addition to being an offensive minded guy, we need a guy that is a great fit, who understands Cal in addition to being smart and creative. For me, the most logical source of smart people who understand and love Cal is Cal alums. However, it doesn't have to be. I am really impressed with Brennan Marion in his videos and his "Go Go Offense" which in his first year has UNLV with the #4 offense in the country. And kept it there when his QB1 left for more money. He is making $300k at UNLV.

Here is my dream. Rivera takes over while we pay off Wilcox and he hires Marion as OC with Marion the heir apparent. Or something, anything to get us out of this rut.

---

Yes, THANK YOU. And I agree, out of my original list, Marion is an obvious and natural fit. Big time local ties including coaching in HS around here. Young. Plus, just marketing - Go Go offense sounds good and it will not immediately raise the eyebrows of those who don't believe in option football.

Think I'm crazy? Just watch which blue blood program poaches him from under our noses. Might be Oklahoma, who knows. And all of the sudden running the option will be normalized again. Why can't Cal get ahead of this and be at the forefront?? I've been shouting it out with the Coastal Carolina/Liberty guys for years, but it stagnated a bit (which should have been an opportunity for Cal to poach someone off of that staff) and now it might be the last chance.

One other point to add to the Dykes conversation - I agree the thought to hire him was logical because he had a real system. However, the Air Raid, spread, and hurry up were already pervasive as of that hire. It wasn't getting ahead of the game or gaining an advantage by being different, even if he was a master at the system.

But the hurry up, spread, passing oriented offenses naturally do not benefit the defense. Did anyone notice how completely exhausted our defense was at the end of these losses, especially against Miami? That's because we don't have the depth that these teams have. And of course it was a bigger issue in the Dykes era.

Hurry up/spread/up tempo will always be better when you have superior talent and depth, because it makes the game longer.

Option/running/ball control offense will always help even the playing field and benefit defenses, especially those with less depth, because it shortens the game.

With Tedford, when did he really have his best success? When he had that pro style running game rolling. He was a master at it and boy did they roll teams. Even with an all time great future Hall of Fame quarterback, they were a running and play action team at their core. Things started to go downhill when he went away from what he knows and incorporated too many spread concepts.

But the probability of finding another Tedford is low. The Shanahan tree guys are all in the NFL. Musgrave was an attempt at it, I think, but the degree of difficulty to execute that offense is high. You really need to hit some home runs with linemen who can do it all and top notch pocket quarterbacks. Everyone in the country is looking for those.

Option allows you to run the hell out of the ball with a tough, gritty, athletic quarterback (easier to find) and potentially undersized yet tough and athletic offensive linemen.

---

My issue with your focus on getting ahead of the game is what do you do when the game catches up?

The A's adopted Moneyball, then everyone adopted Moneyball with more resources and the advantage was gone. The A's kept it going to some extent because they had great baseball personnel and kept re-evaluating the strategy to find new things others were missing.

I'm good with trying something new to get an edge, but you have 3 years tops on that and then you got to get down to the business of doing all the things successful programs do whether they have a new scheme or not. Hey, do both. I'm down with that.