No way to do a double blind study but I think had JW stayed we lose to SMU

So basically the same players but a different coach makes all the difference in the world I have always believed especially in college football and high school too that coaching is a really important part as getting a team up to play every game is not easy and only a few guys can do it

That was an inspiring win. Credit to the coaches for having a strong game plan and the players ready. But wow - for the OL to allow no sacks against the ACC leader in sacks, for JKS and Raphael to have career high production - the team showed up and was tough and resilient. Go Bears! I

Yeah I was wondering about that myself. Same staff (minus 1) and same personnel

When it was Wilcox, Harsin, Rolo - who made the decision on what play to send in to JKS?

Rolo, Harsin - who made the call?

All I learned about last night's game is that it will not take much in the way of improved coaching and players to have us playing for ACC championships. If SMU is right there...
SMU has some speed we do not and some strength we do not. That's it. I also thought Rolo got a huge leg up (maybe) on all his other competition for the head coaching job. Ron got to see him up close (literally) during a very tight, hard fought game. It appeared he handled it well.

Whatever adjustments they made to the offensive line… JKS rarely felt pressure on his dropbacks if at all. The most notable difference for the game against SMU was the center quarterback exchange. The snaps were on point, and that makes all the difference to the timing of a play.

The thing about the Stanford game is that it seemed from the very first few minutes that it was likely not going to end well, which was odd because it was the Big Game.

Oakbear said:

---

No way to do a double blind study but I think had JW stayed we lose to SMU

---

Ya think?

And probably by 40.


You could see how happy the players were that he was gone.

They played happy for once and it showed on the field as well as the scoreboard.

I was happy for them (they played with joy) for once. And us as fans.

Great win and some good coaching decisions and player motivationbut some things persisted. Runs on 3rd down against stacked box in 4th quarter was waaaay too conservative and rushing 3 on last series almost cost us the game. I could not believe the time they gave Jennings at the end.

in his post game press conference, SMU Coach Rhett Lashlee credited Cal's coaching staff for catching them off guard for showing some different fronts and not playing man defense for most of the game, where he noted Cal is usually 50-60% man.

okaydo said:

---

The thing about the Stanford game is that it seemed from the very first few minutes that it was likely not going to end well, which was odd because it was the Big Game.

---

The kids came out FLATTER than a PANCAKE for a rivalry game.
That's on the head coach.

JW.

Looked like Sonny's offense. Spread out the defense, and utilize your quick reading quarterback to check down quickly. Who would ever have thought that gimmicky thing would work in the pac12, oh right.

As with all things its not A or B, its A AND B.

I do believe this board in general over emphasizes talent. Before you can go too far on the talent argument you have to ask yourself if we are getting the maximum (or close to it) out of the talent we have.

I do not believe that SDSU has a 34-0 talent advantage on us.
I do not believe that Stanford has a 31-10 talent advantage on us.

I also do not believe that our o-line talent is as bad as they have appeared the last few years. I do not believe our oline and running back talent is the bottom 3 in all of FBS football.

Something was hurting our team beyond just our talent level and while yes, we can hope for more talent, more talent alone was not going to fix it.

One of the things that struck me in the game is that things never felt hopeless. In the beginning we had several calls go against us. A clear missed PI in the end zone. A questionable hold call took back a TD and forced us to settle for a field goal. A questionable PI call against us with FAR less contact than the one that was missed goes in their favor on third and long and they immediately get a TD out of it.

That is when I would typically expect Wilcox teams to start folding. But this team didn't. They kept fighting. Even if they had lost the game the entire demeanor of the team and the feeling of the game was so different from a Wilcox coached team.

And that is what I want out of my next head coach. One that can turn the tide when things start going against us. One that knows when to take calculated risks to sway the momentum of the game. One that knows how to use positive momentum to their favor while also preventing us from wallowing in misery.