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.