chazzed said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

The first few seasons were fine but everything since 2020 has been as enjoyable as watching a dumpster fire.

---

Wilcox/Baldwin producing some of the worst offenses in the country and finishing last or second to last in the PAC-12 North? Remember the Cheezit Bowl? Wilcox's very best year was so bad on offense it got the OC fired.

---

They did lead Cal to an 8-5 record and third place in the Pac-12 North in 2019. But yeah, that has been the unsatisfying peak of the Wilcox era.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

chazzed said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

The first few seasons were fine but everything since 2020 has been as enjoyable as watching a dumpster fire.

---

Wilcox/Baldwin producing some of the worst offenses in the country and finishing last or second to last in the PAC-12 North? Remember the Cheezit Bowl? Wilcox's very best year was so bad on offense it got the OC fired.

---

They did lead Cal to an 8-5 record and third place in the Pac-12 North in 2019. But yeah, that has been the unsatisfying peak of the Wilcox era.

---

The bottom of the top half of just half of the conference is quite a mouthful.

---

chazzed said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

The first few seasons were fine but everything since 2020 has been as enjoyable as watching a dumpster fire.

---

Wilcox/Baldwin producing some of the worst offenses in the country and finishing last or second to last in the PAC-12 North? Remember the Cheezit Bowl? Wilcox's very best year was so bad on offense it got the OC fired.

---

They did lead Cal to an 8-5 record and third place in the Pac-12 North in 2019. But yeah, that has been the unsatisfying peak of the Wilcox era.

---

sycasey said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

chazzed said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

The first few seasons were fine but everything since 2020 has been as enjoyable as watching a dumpster fire.

---

Wilcox/Baldwin producing some of the worst offenses in the country and finishing last or second to last in the PAC-12 North? Remember the Cheezit Bowl? Wilcox's very best year was so bad on offense it got the OC fired.

---

They did lead Cal to an 8-5 record and third place in the Pac-12 North in 2019. But yeah, that has been the unsatisfying peak of the Wilcox era.

---

The bottom of the top half of just half of the conference is quite a mouthful.

---

It was also still a losing conference record.

That said, I do give a bit of a mulligan for that, because I think the record would have been better if Garbers hadn't been injured against ASU.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

oski003 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

Can you please post a link to that clip?

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

chazzed said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

The first few seasons were fine but everything since 2020 has been as enjoyable as watching a dumpster fire.

---

Wilcox/Baldwin producing some of the worst offenses in the country and finishing last or second to last in the PAC-12 North? Remember the Cheezit Bowl? Wilcox's very best year was so bad on offense it got the OC fired.

---

They did lead Cal to an 8-5 record and third place in the Pac-12 North in 2019. But yeah, that has been the unsatisfying peak of the Wilcox era.

---

The bottom of the top half of just half of the conference is quite a mouthful.

---

It was also still a losing conference record.

That said, I do give a bit of a mulligan for that, because I think the record would have been better if Garbers hadn't been injured against ASU.

---

He had two more years of Garbers as an upperclassman and went 6-10. Then got a 6 year guaranteed extension.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

Sue me.

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

Sue me.

---

I didn't realize we had preteens posting here. Welcome, little buddy.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

Sue me.

---

You have repeated this here at least 5 times. I am glad I finally listened to it firsthand. It isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

---

"...not as bad..." First, it was his tone as much as the words. Second, "not as bad" is your interpretation of the meaning. In any event, there are few coaches who would use those words and fewer still of winning coaches.

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

I cannot argue with the conclusion that it is difficult to win if consistently 1. We don't score at least 28 points and 2. We can't hold the other team to 21 points

---

The problem is it is outdated static thinking instead of dynamic thinking. The final object is to have more points than your opponent, period. In alternating possession games you do that by maximizing your points per possession while minimizing your opponent's points per possession. The number of possessions you each have each game can vary wildly depending on a number of factors but especially pace. For teams that play fast (especially) those totals are meaningless.

More importantly, thinking that any total is "enough" before the game is over can lead to bad in-game decisions. That is what Wilcox seemed to be saying after yet another loss. His offense had achieved the 4 TDs and his defense had held the other team to 3 TDs so the defense just needs to continue to hold them to 3 TDs for the rest of the game. It explains his repeatedly going into stall mode on offense with 4th quarter leads. His offense had done "enough" his defense just needs to "continue to do its job." His actions are consistent with that erroneous thinking. It explains why he would continue to do it even when it continued to produce losses. It is the way he misunderstands the game and why he consistently loses more games than he wins, even games his team is winning going into the 4th quarter. His actions and results are consistent with that actually being the way he thinks about the game.

---

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

I cannot argue with the conclusion that it is difficult to win if consistently 1. We don't score at least 28 points and 2. We can't hold the other team to 21 points

---

The problem is it is outdated static thinking instead of dynamic thinking. The final object is to have more points than your opponent, period. In alternating possession games you do that by maximizing your points per possession while minimizing your opponent's points per possession. The number of possessions you each have each game can vary wildly depending on a number of factors but especially pace. For teams that play fast (especially) those totals are meaningless.

More importantly, thinking that any total is "enough" before the game is over can lead to bad in-game decisions. That is what Wilcox seemed to be saying after yet another loss. His offense had achieved the 4 TDs and his defense had held the other team to 3 TDs so the defense just needs to continue to hold them to 3 TDs for the rest of the game. It explains his repeatedly going into stall mode on offense with 4th quarter leads. His offense had done "enough" his defense just needs to "continue to do its job." His actions are consistent with that erroneous thinking. It explains why he would continue to do it even when it continued to produce losses. It is the way he misunderstands the game and why he consistently loses more games than he wins, even games his team is winning going into the 4th quarter. His actions and results are consistent with that actually being the way he thinks about the game.

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

I don't enjoy watching JW direct losses. But, he lost me when he said that he'd be satisfied to score one td per quarter and hold the opposition to a total of three. JW is not a competitive person. I'm thinking that he thinks he's done his job when he puts the players in a positionto win.

---

This is NOT what he said. He never said "satisfied."

The context is they were talking about the Syracuse game, and how they didn't score enough points (we scored 25 points) and that we gave up too many points (we gave up 33). And what he says and this is not a direct quote but it's from memory, "In college football, generally speaking, the goal is you gotta score four touchdowns on offense. On defense, you gotta hold them to three touchdowns or less. Then it's field position, penalties, turnovers. It's very difficult to win if you give up 4 or 5 touchdowns on defense or if you don't score four touchdowns on offense."

What he is saying is that scoring 4 touchdowns and giving up fewer than four touchdowns is the minimum goal because if you fail at either, it's very hard to win. It's
not that his goal is to score four touchdowns and then he's content, but that is the minimum total you need to win.

---

I cannot argue with the conclusion that it is difficult to win if consistently 1. We don't score at least 28 points and 2. We can't hold the other team to 21 points

---

The problem is it is outdated static thinking instead of dynamic thinking. The final object is to have more points than your opponent, period. In alternating possession games you do that by maximizing your points per possession while minimizing your opponent's points per possession. The number of possessions you each have each game can vary wildly depending on a number of factors but especially pace. For teams that play fast (especially) those totals are meaningless.

More importantly, thinking that any total is "enough" before the game is over can lead to bad in-game decisions. That is what Wilcox seemed to be saying after yet another loss. His offense had achieved the 4 TDs and his defense had held the other team to 3 TDs so the defense just needs to continue to hold them to 3 TDs for the rest of the game. It explains his repeatedly going into stall mode on offense with 4th quarter leads. His offense had done "enough" his defense just needs to "continue to do its job." His actions are consistent with that erroneous thinking. It explains why he would continue to do it even when it continued to produce losses. It is the way he misunderstands the game and why he consistently loses more games than he wins, even games his team is winning going into the 4th quarter. His actions and results are consistent with that actually being the way he thinks about the game.

---

I guess.

I think this is a bit of a misread or at least not complicated enough.

Wilcox believes in game planing the way that Oregon did it especially under Chip. I think it is a mistake but it is more complicated than the above.

If you watched those teams they had a very standard SOP. They would play fast. Like LIGHTENING fast. Get to the line and go.

But once they got a lead of 14 to 21 points they would turtle. It was maddening. As a run focused RPO offensive they wouldn't huddle up but get to the line and then snap it with 2 second left on the play clock. I recall several Oregon drives taking 8 minutes off the clock.

The Wilcox error is not understanding that the ducks could always put their foot back on the peddle. They could sustain drives because Uncle Phil had gotten them a very good RPO line and a stable of the fast athlete kids from Socal. Wilcox doesn't have either and so unlike Ducks 8 minute drives, Cal burns a minute with an incomplete pass and we go 3 and out.

---

socaltownie said:

---

That is what he might have said but not how they played. They often could have scored a other 35 in the late 3rd and 4th. But they didn't. It was about long clock killing drives

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

That is what he might have said but not how they played. They often could have scored a other 35 in the late 3rd and 4th. But they didn't. It was about long clock killing drives

---

He decided to sit on it, thereby making his dream come true.

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

---

---

---

---

---

If you watched those teams they had a very standard SOP. They would play fast. Like LIGHTENING fast. Get to the line and go.

But once they got a lead of 14 to 21 points they would turtle. It was maddening. As a run focused RPO offensive they wouldn't huddle up but get to the line and then snap it with 2 second left on the play clock. I recall several Oregon drives taking 8 minutes off the clock.

The Wilcox error is not understanding that the ducks could always put their foot back on the peddle. They could sustain drives because Uncle Phil had gotten them a very good RPO line and a stable of the fast athlete kids from Socal. Wilcox doesn't have either and so unlike Ducks 8 minute drives, Cal burns a minute with an incomplete pass and we go 3 and out.

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

GMP said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

---

---

---

---

---

If you watched those teams they had a very standard SOP. They would play fast. Like LIGHTENING fast. Get to the line and go.

But once they got a lead of 14 to 21 points they would turtle. It was maddening. As a run focused RPO offensive they wouldn't huddle up but get to the line and then snap it with 2 second left on the play clock. I recall several Oregon drives taking 8 minutes off the clock.

The Wilcox error is not understanding that the ducks could always put their foot back on the peddle. They could sustain drives because Uncle Phil had gotten them a very good RPO line and a stable of the fast athlete kids from Socal. Wilcox doesn't have either and so unlike Ducks 8 minute drives, Cal burns a minute with an incomplete pass and we go 3 and out.

---

I would phrase the bolded part as "they would grind out first downs on the ground and drain the clock". As you noted, Wilcox has trouble doing that because he and his staff haven't recruited the o-line well enough to get 4th quarter first downs on the ground when the opposing defense knows you're going to run. So if you have 3rd and 8, you should have an o-line you can trust to give the QB time to find a receiver past the first down marker without letting the d-line force a strip sack, and without the QB throwing a bad pass under pressure that results in an interception. Not having those things is why Wilcox usually calls a run or screen pass on 3rd and long in those situations.

Of course the real way out of this dilemma is a major o-line upgrade paired with a QB you can trust not to throw an INT in that situation. Sigh. Hopefully the next HC will implement that solution.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Will add a little color here since I've heard a version of this speech several times from JW. The point I believe he is making is the obvious one. That modern football requires a lot more scoring and we need to go all in on offense. Our defense needs to be "good enough" but if we have finite resources (and we do) those need to be dedicated primarily to offense. This is a significant mindset change for a defense first coach and an important one, but it's obviously just reflective of the realities of the modern game. Our largest position group spending for this upcoming season is on the offensive line . . . by a lot. It's the heart and soul of our offense and as we've seen when it struggles nothing else works on offense. I'm encouraged. To use the James Frick quote, "Don't tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I'll tell you what they are."

Now, you can fairly point out that this isn't exactly cutting edge stuff. Nick Saban had this epiphany over a decade ago and he completely revamped his approach from "defense first" to offense first. A really impressive move given that he was winning national championships with what he'd be doing but he saw it wasn't going to work as well going forward as it had in the past and changed his entire approach while sitting on top of the mountain. It's a rare guy who can do that. Around the same time we had a guy here named Sonny Dykes, but instead of de-emphasizing defense he played no defense. And we didn't have the 5* talent up and down the offense to make the defense irrelevant. And of course Chip Kelly was also hitting his stride with a quick strike, offense first approach. Terrible for us. The hiring of Justin Wilcox was in some ways a reaction (or more correctly an over-reaction) to Sonny Dykes. He was brought in as a defense first coach so he wasn't going to show up on day one and say "Surprise. I'm basically Sonny Dykes with a better haircut." Wasn't going to happen.

None of that excuses the bad to terrible offenses we've been rolling out for a number of years and the really, really bad offensive line play. But I'm personally I'm more interested in what we're doing now than on what we did before. Do I believe we now have a philosophy and approach that can work? I think/ hope that we do. But having the right mindset and putting it into effect aren't the same thing. I'm going to want to see the results on the field. But at least we're trying. Fingers crossed.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I don't wish to speak ill of the departed (even if we are only talking professionally and not about mortality) but our S&C program has been a horror show for the past few years. I think we lost a dozen players in a single practice to hamstring injuries during fall camp last year. That just doesn't happen without some serious problems with your conditioning program. I think it is pretty obvious that Brian would have been let go last January had he not gotten ill. But he did and he was retained for whatever reason and another season was lost as a result. We had multiple players in their exit interviews comparing our strength and conditioning program very unfavorably to those at the programs they had left. A change was not just needed, it was desperate.

Early reports on Frank are very positive. But this is one of those areas where I want to see the results on the field. We will know when we know. But at this point it looks like we have made a massive upgrade.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Will add a little color here since I've heard a version of this speech several times from JW. The point I believe he is making is the obvious one. That modern football requires a lot more scoring and we need to go all in on offense. Our defense needs to be "good enough" but if we have finite resources (and we do) those need to be dedicated primarily to offense. This is a significant mindset change for a defense first coach and an important one, but it's obviously just reflective of the realities of the modern game. Our largest position group spending for this upcoming season is on the offensive line . . . by a lot. It's the heart and soul of our offense and as we've seen when it struggles nothing else works on offense. I'm encouraged. To use the James Frick quote, "Don't tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I'll tell you what they are."

Now, you can fairly point out that this isn't exactly cutting edge stuff. Nick Saban had this epiphany over a decade ago and he completely revamped his approach from "defense first" to offense first. A really impressive move given that he was winning national championships with what he'd be doing but he saw it wasn't going to work as well going forward as it had in the past and changed his entire approach while sitting on top of the mountain. It's a rare guy who can do that. Around the same time we had a guy here named Sonny Dykes, but instead of de-emphasizing defense he played no defense. And we didn't have the 5* talent up and down the offense to make the defense irrelevant. And of course Chip Kelly was also hitting his stride with a quick strike, offense first approach. Terrible for us. The hiring of Justin Wilcox was in some ways a reaction (or more correctly an over-reaction) to Sonny Dykes. He was brought in as a defense first coach so he wasn't going to show up on day one and say "Surprise. I'm basically Sonny Dykes with a better haircut." Wasn't going to happen.

None of that excuses the bad to terrible offenses we've been rolling out for a number of years and the really, really bad offensive line play. But I'm personally I'm more interested in what we're doing now than on what we did before. Do I believe we now have a philosophy and approach that can work? I think/ hope that we do. But having the right mindset and putting it into effect aren't the same thing. I'm going to want to see the results on the field. But at least we're trying. Fingers crossed.

---

mbBear said:

---

Do you think O-line recruiting is done, or is there still hope for another transfer before Fall?

---