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".

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.

BearlyCareAnymore 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??

---

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).

---

I honestly think we are mostly in agreement. Of course there are other factors to consider aside from scheme. And while it's possible for a quick fix, one of the potential downsides to hiring an option coach is that it does traditionally take some time and patience to implement. I say traditionally because actually all of the teams I mentioned had great success immediately (Navy, UNLV, Vandy are all in their first year with their respective schemes I believe and Liberty their second, though they were undefeated in their first year) except for Army which was more of the slow burn, this turned around in year 3 type of deal.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

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.

---

Yup, exactly. You do it because you get those three years and then you've got the system implemented and a real program with an identity. If Cal were ever to become a real national player, that's how it would happen. I mean, think about Nebraska back in the day. They never had any real business being a National power. Yet they had great coaching (a sophisticated option run game) and were ahead of the game in terms of weightlifting and training. And yes, after a while, everyone was trying to copy them. But they couldn't. Nebraska had the expertise and the masters in house. Some of the greatest college football teams of all time into the 90s. I realize I'm going on a tangent, but them severing ties with that system in the early 00s because they were tired of 9 or 10 win seasons (LOL) is low key one of the worst decisions in college football history. Because once it's gone, it's gone. And I think we would all be happy with a cool 30-40 run of winning big, anyways.

And I guess I would fall back on saying - none of this is gimmicky or preclusive of other things that people are saying, like that the coaches should be able to identify and develop lesser talent. These schemes are just good, solid football that provide an identity, and through that identity make it easier to identify scheme fits.

Golden One said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

CNHTH said:

---

The casual fans who've never played the sport will never get it…
There's a reason that Baldwin looked like Musgrave looked like Spavital looks like Bloesch.
And that reason is that Wilmoe is a stubborn micro manager who is trying to play old school football where you pound the ball and drain the clock and switch to a prevent defense once you get a lead.
The problem is belligerently switching to running the ball to drain clock and going to prevent doesn't work. RPOs and spreads are specifically designed to be efficient against zone coverage but suffer against man a blitzing.
Wilmoe never learns. He micromanaged each of his coordinators to switch to this philosophy.
It doesn't work. It is a **** philosophy especially when you have a team with a weak oline and a defense whose strength is in man coverage plus pressure.
He is stubborn and doesn't self reflect which is why this is deja vu for the last 8 years.
The only solution is to fire him.
He's not changing and he never will.
He's an unoriginal ******* with an unoriginal system.
He's never been a good recruiter: he rode on tosh's coattails for that and he's never been a good play caller which is why he didn't last more than a year at most in each of his stops.
We need to cut ties.
No more explanations.
Dude is the worst coach in d1 right now and quite possibly of any coach since 2000 at any school.
Nobody has done less with the same talent, facilities, etc

---

Interested in this

"The problem is belligerently switching to running the ball to drain clock and going to prevent doesn't work. RPOs and spreads are specifically designed to be efficient against zone coverage but suffer against man a blitzing."

Could you elaborate? I do think that Wilcox wants us offensively to "be like Oregon" which is what he knows. I am curious as to why/what works there and can't work at Cal with the lesser level recruits we are going to have. Clearly Ducks have faced blizting teams in the Big 10 but I would think a good bet for them to run the table to the Playoffs (and national champ game?)

---

How in the WORLD is Oregon's offense "what he knows"?

---

It's not obvious that Wilcox knows anything about offense.

---

He has NEVER coached at Oregon and it's been 25 years since he graduated.

BearlyCareAnymore 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??

---

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).

---

I think one mismatch (but I say this with a more San Diego/Inland Empire/OC focus so may not be true in Sacto/NorCal) is that the HS programs in the southland are so spread and RPO centric. They really are ALL about athletes and often have relatively undersized lines. A few exceptions (Oceanside being a local one) but then the issue is the academics - I mean I LOVE the pirates but the kids coming out of there have all the disadvantages that come from an underresourced, lower socio economic environment. So I GET why Cal might have a hard time with the HS pipeline being Wisconsin.

I will say Marrion will very likely get much better job offers + salary than Cal so I think you got to be more realistic. Like what is the argument to go to Cal over Oklahoma for instance.

Joegeo said:

---

I will say Marrion will very likely get much better job offers + salary than Cal so I think you got to be more realistic. Like what is the argument to go to Cal over Oklahoma for instance.

---

If that happens, it provides more support for getting on this general trend before it's too late.

The Navy system is really different and exciting and would be a great fit as well. It's a wing-t hybrid, but not the old high school "buck sweep right, waggle left" thing that so many people know and…hate. It seems more akin to the original Delaware wing-t, which was really a unique and exciting offense. Yes, it had the Buck sweep. But it really was an early offense that was often spread (from under center), a ton of motion and formation variety and misdirection, and yes, some option.

Like Marion, Cronic is a guy who "came up" doing this himself. He wasn't someone else's assistant emulating some other system. This is his system, he's got the answers, and he's the master. That's what Cal should be seeking.

I think that's really what many other posters of this thread have been seeking, maybe not in those words. Cal needs to find a MASTER of an offensive SYSTEM. Am I completely wed to the option as the only factor? No. But it frustrates me that so many fans (not necessarily in here) are instantly turned off to schemes with option at their core. Especially because those schemes are conducive to winning football, and when defenses are not currently built to defend them.

Big UNLV game going on now vs Boise State! I just turned it on (towards end of second quarter) so I'm not sure how the offense has looked so far.

And then Navy v Notre Dame at 9 am tomorrow should be fun. Obviously Navy will be physically overmatched, but that's where a scheme like their's can be useful.

Well…this ain't goin so well…lol…

kad02002 said:

---

Well…this ain't goin so well…lol…

---

Welp, Touch Down Jesus' school just whipped the strongest Navy in the World.
I't Biblical.

GA Tech just built a lead v Miami and held on, scoring the dagger while running…you guessed it, an option offense.

Honestly, I had no idea that Ga Tech was running an option offense again before today. Not much info about. It's not under center like their old flexbone…definitely a lot of pistol, motion, and misdirection. Seems like their program is still in the building/upswing phase - will be interesting to see where it goes as they obviously have a few similarities to Cal as a strong academic school.

95bears said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

Yes, but I think I'm just extra frustrated because the defense is so well coached year in and year out, and it's just begging for someone to couple it with a complimentary offense. It would fit a boa constrictor offense like a glove. There are masters running these offenses, and Cal would be a step up the totem pole for all of them. But it would take some guts and out of the box thinking, because everyone is more critical of teams who take a chance by going against the grain and doing something outside the norm.

---

You're not wrong. We need something the accentuates our competencies (finding CA and TX skill players) and mitigates our deficiencies (can't find OL in CA and get 4th tier from TX).

---

Got to go to the South (and TX) for linemen. West coast is ok for skill players, but not will players.

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.

---

Unfortunately Roger's won't cut it if Mendoza leaves. IMO Mendoza should wait one more season. He is no Jared Goff nor Aaron Rogers. . (He still has two years of eligibility doesn't he.)

ax, ur commentary is 100% clueless

nando is the only bear in the haas biz school, that degree is worth MILLIONS of DOLARS!!

his dad is a doc in biscayne bay & the fam is not struggling to pay bills, fernando (who luvs/is loyal to his teammates/staff) is literally the last person in the program that might enter the transfer portal

and fyi rogers is outta eligibility after this season

Shocky1 said:

---

ax, ur commentary is 100% clueless

nando is the only bear in the haas biz school, that degree is worth MILLIONS of DOLARS!!

his dad is a doc in biscayne bay & the fam is not struggling to pay bills, fernando (who luvs/is loyal to his teammates/staff) is literally the last person in the program that might enter the transfer portal

and fyi rogers is outta eligibility after this season

---

Yeah, Nando is on track to be our next Goff.
His ball security last was sketchy, but he improved to 4.5 star player IMHO.
Although he is getting saltier with each game, he remains one of the best spokesperson's for Cal, in general, not just football.
The last person we would want to go is Nando.

#LetNandoCook

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

ax, ur commentary is 100% clueless

nando is the only bear in the haas biz school, that degree is worth MILLIONS of DOLARS!!

his dad is a doc in biscayne bay & the fam is not struggling to pay bills, fernando (who luvs/is loyal to his teammates/staff) is literally the last person in the program that might enter the transfer portal

and fyi rogers is outta eligibility after this season

---

Yeah, Nando is on track to be our next Goff.
His ball security last was sketchy, but he improved to 4.5 star player IMHO.
Although he is getting saltier with each game, he remains one of the best spokesperson's for Cal, in general, not just football.
The last person we would want to go is Nando.

#LetNandoCook

---

he certainly looked like Goff today. The big difference being that the rest of Goff's team can bail him out during an off game while the rest of Cal's squad collapses in similar fashion

Rushinbear said:

---

95bears said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

Yes, but I think I'm just extra frustrated because the defense is so well coached year in and year out, and it's just begging for someone to couple it with a complimentary offense. It would fit a boa constrictor offense like a glove. There are masters running these offenses, and Cal would be a step up the totem pole for all of them. But it would take some guts and out of the box thinking, because everyone is more critical of teams who take a chance by going against the grain and doing something outside the norm.

---

You're not wrong. We need something the accentuates our competencies (finding CA and TX skill players) and mitigates our deficiencies (can't find OL in CA and get 4th tier from TX).

---

Got to go to the South (and TX) for linemen. West coast is ok for skill players, but not will players.

---

We are low in the pecking order in Texas, but our entrance into the ACC opens up much of the Southeast especially Georgia, North Carolina and Florida (as well as Texas) if we focus on smart kids who are attracted to our weather and political climate, which is how we pulled 5 stars from Atlanta and North Carolina in the past.

It requires recruiters at OL and DL who can recruit to our target audience.

We also could be killing it for linemen in Hawaii as Hawaii is foolishly wedded to the Run n Shoot. It would help if we do what other West Coast schools (UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Oregon State, Arizona…. ) do and schedule them regularly…

I think it makes sense that UH runs the run and shoot, because that has been their most recent greatest success (June Jones era), and because my impression is that many
of the high schools throw the ball all over (they've certainly produced a disproportionate number of QBs in recent years).

However, UH also had some nice success with the flexbone with Paul Johnson at OC about a decade before June Jones.

I'd love to hear the history of the flexbone and run and shoot on the islands, because we know that those two offenses are closely related. Did some of the high schools emulate UH's flexbone and then evolve into the run and shoot? Or is it all unrelated, and Jones had perfect timing to hit the islands when they were already throwing the ball in HS?

I really don't know the answer, at all, I just think it's an interesting coincidence at the least.

(And yes, it would be great if Cal could make more serious pipeline inroads in Polynesia, though the blue bloods already are getting the cream of the crop).

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

ax, ur commentary is 100% clueless

nando is the only bear in the haas biz school, that degree is worth MILLIONS of DOLARS!!

his dad is a doc in biscayne bay & the fam is not struggling to pay bills, fernando (who luvs/is loyal to his teammates/staff) is literally the last person in the program that might enter the transfer portal

and fyi rogers is outta eligibility after this season

---

Yeah, Nando is on track to be our next Goff.
His ball security last was sketchy, but he improved to 4.5 star player IMHO.
Although he is getting saltier with each game, he remains one of the best spokesperson's for Cal, in general, not just football.
The last person we would want to go is Nando.

#LetNandoCook

---

he certainly looked like Goff today. The big difference being that the rest of Goff's team can bail him out during an off game while the rest of Cal's squad collapses in similar fashion

---

Had to think, yeah five INTs, not good, but yeah, when you have a complete team, you skate on past mistakes-sometimes.

UNLV just put on a nice display of a creative option offense stranglehold against a team with greater resources…even without the mastermind of the system.

What could have been…

At least Marion is just up the road in Sacramento.

What do you think of Harsin and Rolovich based on what they did before? Do you think they'll be able to establish an offensive identity (even if it's not the flexbone you want)?

01Bear said:

---

What do you think of Harsin and Rolovich based on what they did before? Do you think they'll be able to establish an offensive identity (even if it's not the flexbone you want)?

---

I'll be honest, I was always aware of how good Boise's offenses were under Petersen/Harsin, but I can't say I know the system well. In my memory, it was sort of built around a hard hitting run game, pro-styly - just did a really good job of it.

I think the optimistic view is that they put out fantastic offenses that built from the run game out (which is zigging *a little bit* where others are zagging right now). If Cal can establish themselves as a balanced but built around the run, hard nosed team, I also think that fits the local high school scene and would create an identity.

The pessimistic point of view is that "pro style" can lead to "grab bag." And that's how many of the Wilcox offenses have looked. Whether that's related to his meddling, I don't know. But I think it's a common issue with defensive head coaches, even in the nfl - they view things through the lens of individual plays that are difficult to scheme against, so they run the offense that way - but offense is an art, and that "defensive minded" approach lacks continuity of the scheme and an identity. So that's kind of the fear, and also for a coach who has been out of the game for a little bit - you've been watching all of these cool plays and concepts over the years and sort of want to run them all, and it can be easy to forget that less is more.

I obviously don't know what the result will be, but even though I was disappointed it wasn't Marion or someone else from this thread, it definitely could work.

All that being said, I LOVE the run and shoot and by extension the Rolovich inclusion. To immediately temper that statement - I realize Cal wont be running the run and shoot. That kind of sucks. But what is the run and shoot, really? It's option football through the air! Very similar idea, really - post snap, you have an idea of where you are going, but you react to the defense and go where they aren't. That's why you can't run too many plays with the run and shoot - you need to get great at the few concepts, and those concepts can go in many different directions each play after the snap.

It's no coincidence that the run and shoot started with the idea of the "run" part being the option and the "shoot" part being option passing. Over the years, I think it became apparent that it is too hard to be simultaneously great at an option run game and an option pass game, so the flexbone went one direction and the run and shoot went the other (as I've noted, you can find some mid-80s New Mexico or NMSU footage of them still trying to do both at the same time).

Anyways, I love the run and shoot. Those Hawaii teams had an identity. It was great. It can happen again. It may not be as zigging as an option offense, but old school Hawaii/June Jones/Mouse Davis run and shoot IS different from today's spread. And it's got more of an identity (it is NOT balanced, which is GOOD - the team can get GREAT at what they do)…even if it's not the magic bullet that I think run based option football can be. So that part would be exciting - but, again, we aren't likely to get a full fledged run and shoot, so this answer is mostly hypothetical.

Edit: I wrote a novel in answering your question. Simple answer: yes, I think it is possible they establish an identity. It would not be as strong as something like the flexbone, but nothing really is. The likely optimistic guess for an identity would be a hard hitting downhill run game (let's just say a Tedford cousin) with the passing game built out from there.

Army about to move to 12-2 with a bowl win. Re: the argument that you need top offensive line recruits to run an option offense - Army's line just won the award for top offensive line in the country. They do not have major recruits (again, this is the point of the option - great line play without needing high end talent). Their QB just scored his 32nd (…!!!!) rushing TD this season.