On the athleticism of Cal:
"They are the best-looking football team that I have seen in this conference, period. [Oregon head coach] Chip Kelly told me he thought they were as well, after we played [Oregon] last week, because he knew we were playing [Cal] this week. They probably have the best talent, top to bottom."
So why are we 2-4 in the conference?

Ask the coach

Maybe "best looking" meant the uniforms with the white helmets?

Best looking. Hardly any of our players require contacts.

When a coach says that a team has the most "athleticism," but that athleticism is not matched in terms of Ws and Ls, I think that's coachspeak for saying a team is not particularly well coached. Could be wrong.

Funny - I sat with my brother and other UCLA alums last week and they all said we looked like the absolute worst team in the conference.

Well you know, they live in Pullman, which is like somewhere in Jefferson, I think. They Don't have TVs there.

I gotta imagine this is either Wulff/Kelly taking potshots at Tedford or just outright hyperbole. There is no way we're the most talented team in the conference. Certainly I think we've underachieved this year and that we have some good players, but I get the feeling most of our WOW-type talent is young and/or still redshirting.

TheSouseFamily;616914 said:

---

Funny - I sat with my brother and other UCLA alums last week and they all said we looked like the absolute worst team in the conference.

---

Well, we did have white helmets and blue pants that day, so we might have been the worst-looking.

GB54;616849 said:

---

Ask the coach

---

Don't think he has earned the title coach. mr tedford is good enough.

sycasey;617069 said:

---

Well, we did have white helmets and blue pants that day, so we might have been the worst-looking.

---

The all yellow look is awful too.

All navy blue - like yesterday is our best uniform set, by far.

SoCalBear323;616856 said:

---

Best looking. Hardly any of our players require contacts.

---

It has to be this.

If only the Pac's refs were so gifted.

dchu101;617067 said:

---

I gotta imagine this is either Wulff/Kelly taking potshots at Tedford or just outright hyperbole. There is no way we're the most talented team in the conference. Certainly I think we've underachieved this year and that we have some good players, but I get the feeling most of our WOW-type talent is young and/or still redshirting.

---

No I don't think they are joking. Wulff is the last person to have standing to be joking because he's gonna get blown out soon. Inexperience or not, guys like Whiteside, McCain, Kendricks, Holt, Guyton, Owusu, Payne, etc. --they are physical and athletic. Our talent should have at least gotten us wins v. UW, $C and UCLA. Really, Oregon should have been our only loss in my mind.

IHouseBear;616841 said:

---

On [] Cal:
"They are the best-looking football team that I have seen in this conference, period.

---

I too prefer the all blue.

KoreAmBear;617124 said:

---

No I don't think they are joking. Wulff is the last person to have standing to be joking because he's gonna get blown out soon. Inexperience or not, guys like Whiteside, McCain, Kendricks, Holt, Guyton, Owusu, Payne, etc. --they are physical and athletic. Our talent should have at least gotten us wins v. UW, $C and UCLA. Really, Oregon should have been our only loss in my mind.

---

I'll absolutely agree on UCLA. I don't think we're clearly more talented than UW or SC. I think your expectations with who we have on the roster are outsized, especially considering we lost our two best defensive players last year and don't have a guy now who's likely to go in the first two rounds. Among the guys you mentioned, other than Kendricks and Holt, I don't see upperclassmen difference makers. Guyton and Owusu are solid, but they're not Jordan or Alualu. Payne isn't even starting anymore. I mean, Camporeale was a starting OLB to begin the season and I'm pretty sure Davis was backing him up.

Reading it a different way, I think Wulff and Kelly might be saying that Cal will be scary in the near future when the talent develops, much like ASU last season. But I think it's craziness to say our current top 22 and two deep rank anywhere above middle of the conference.

paul916;616910 said:

---

When a coach says that a team has the most "athleticism," but that athleticism is not matched in terms of Ws and Ls, I think that's coachspeak for saying a team is not particularly well coached. Could be wrong.

---

Wulff seems like kind of a jackass and it's possible he is still harboring hard feelings for the 66 point ass beating that Best and Co. put on him a few years back. Wulff is also on a real hot seat as in he is 95% likely to be canned after this year... I'm pretty sure he is also praising Cal's players to make the loss look less like it's his fault... and if that means calling tedford a poor coach, that makes wulff look better in his own mind.

And we do have great athleticism at all the skill positions (I'd really like to believe the CB's are getting burned because they are young), but where schools like UW and USC are better is in the trenches... and of course USC has great skill players too.

Stanford has incredible OL play, which is just as important as Luck to their gameplan. I wonder if playing a 4-3 against them to get some more beef out there would make any bit of positive difference.

ColoradoBear1;617165 said:

---

Wulff seems like kind of a jackass and it's possible he is still harboring hard feelings for the 66 point ass beating that Best and Co. put on him a few years back. Wulff is also on a real hot seat as in he is 95% likely to be canned after this year... I'm pretty sure he is also praising Cal's players to make the loss look less like it's his fault... and if that means calling tedford a poor coach, that makes wulff look better in his own mind.

And we do have great athleticism at all the skill positions (I'd really like to believe the CB's are getting burned because they are young), but where schools like UW and USC are better is in the trenches... and of course USC has great skill players too.

Stanford has incredible OL play, which is just as important as Luck to their gameplan. I wonder if playing a 4-3 against them to get some more beef out there would make any bit of positive difference.

---

Problem with Stanford is they have a petty darn good (i.e. conference leading) defense now too.

CalReason;617200 said:

---

exhibit A in why never to take anything a coach says seriously...ever...

---

Normally, I'd ignore Wulff saying this. Every coach says this after they get spanked.

But, assuming he's not lying about what he says Chip Kelly said...wtffff. How bizarre is that. And when did that convo take place? During the handshake?

Kelly: Great game coach, good luck,
Wulff: Thanks, coach, you too.
Kelly: You got Cal next week?
Wulff: Yep.
Kelly: Good luck. They're the most talented team in the conference, to to bottom.

What a bizarre thing.

I heard a Kelly interview recently on a Husky station where they asked about his apparent friendship with Sark. He said that the conference has had all the head coaches doing publicity stuff together the past couple of summers and that everyone seems to be getting along really great... he cracked that they were like a boy band where they're all best pals. In particular he mentioned enjoying Riley Wulff and Sark. It's an entertaining listen, the coach interaction stuff starts at 14:30

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/player/index.html?mid=21556913&station=KJR-AM&program_id=softy.xml&program_name=podcast

dchu101;617152 said:

---

ut I think it's craziness to say our current top 22 and two deep rank anywhere above middle of the conference.

---

Agreed. My view on Tedford is over his career at Cal, he has been an above average recruiter or manager of recruiters, and an average game day coach (or manager thereof). The repeated delays in facilities construction eventually took away his one reliable strength and so now he's a .500 sort of guy. With visibility on the facilities issue more or less fixed, recruiting picked back up last year and would probably continue to do so absent the fact that in a year or so Tedford will enter his lame duck phase, again leading to recruiting issues.

IHouseBear;616841 said:

---

On the athleticism of Cal:
"They are the best-looking football team that I have seen in this conference, period. [Oregon head coach] Chip Kelly told me he thought they were as well, after we played [Oregon] last week, because he knew we were playing [Cal] this week. They probably have the best talent, top to bottom."
So why are we 2-4 in the conference?

---

Do you have a link? I thought Wufff and Kelly were talking about the defense only.

JSML;617333 said:

---

Do you have a link? I thought Wufff and Kelly were talking about the defense only.

---

It was from the calbears.com home page. It is now the second article; "Cal Rolls Past Washington State, 30-7". Go to quotes and then down to WASHINGTON STATE HEAD COACH PAUL WULFF.

I have to think Wulff means our D passes the "eye" test and the rest of his comment is meant to deflect criticism upon himself. Look back at the games where we get blown out and you'll see similar types of comments about the other team.

Why he dragged Kelly in I don't know. I do remember the article about most of the Pac coaches getting together in NY for publicity and that some are actually friends and there doesn't seem to be much bad blood. Maybe they're trying to just say nice things about each other.

JSML;617333 said:

---

Do you have a link? I thought Wufff and Kelly were talking about the defense only.

---

If you go to videos at http://www.wsucougars.com/ there's an interview from yesterday.

Wulff goes on to say that Cal has "the best front 7 (defense) we've faced all year" and remarks how our defense is "ranked 1st or 2nd in terms of yards."

I couldn't find the actual post-game but it seems like he's talking about our defense.

During the lsu oregon game, I remember noticing how physically imposing lsu's secondary looked. Then when watching our first game against fsu, I felt we had that same intimidating appearance in our secondary as well. We're clearly the most physical looking defense pre-snap.

paul916;616910 said:

---

When a coach says that a team has the most "athleticism," but that athleticism is not matched in terms of Ws and Ls, I think that's coachspeak for saying a team is not particularly well coached. Could be wrong.

---

Really? Wulff facing termination and having just lost 30-7 is trying to make a statement about the quality of Cal's coaching?

You're seeing exactly what you want to see.

grandmastapoop;617238 said:

---

Normally, I'd ignore Wulff saying this. Every coach says this after they get spanked.

But, assuming he's not lying about what he says Chip Kelly said...wtffff. How bizarre is that. And when did that convo take place? During the handshake?

Kelly: Great game coach, good luck,
Wulff: Thanks, coach, you too.
Kelly: You got Cal next week?
Wulff: Yep.
Kelly: Good luck. They're the most talented team in the conference, to to bottom.

What a bizarre thing.

---

Yep, I thought about this and how this convo ever could have taken place. I think Wulff may have made this up and incorporated it into his story, based on previous interactions he's had with Kelly. I mean Kelly, especially Kelly, is the guy who shakes hands and leaves right away. Not that many other coaches do anything more than that either. Usually the coaches talk pre-game for a few minutes. The post-game greeting averages about 3 seconds -- and for good reason.

Cal84;617326 said:

---

Agreed. My view on Tedford is over his career at Cal, he has been an above average recruiter or manager of recruiters, and an average game day coach (or manager thereof). The repeated delays in facilities construction eventually took away his one reliable strength and so now he's a .500 sort of guy. With visibility on the facilities issue more or less fixed, recruiting picked back up last year and would probably continue to do so absent the fact that in a year or so Tedford will enter his lame duck phase, again leading to recruiting issues.

---

I agree overall, but I think that not following up our 2003, 2004 (and 2006) ascent also hurt recruiting. Recruits were drawn to us as an up and coming program which we stopped being. The question is always, will recruiting stay "up" without better on field performance?

I think we need to do a better job of using what we have before we get more.

freshfunk;617490 said:

---

If you go to videos at http://www.wsucougars.com/ there's an interview from yesterday.

Wulff goes on to say that Cal has "the best front 7 (defense) we've faced all year" and remarks how our defense is "ranked 1st or 2nd in terms of yards."

I couldn't find the actual post-game but it seems like he's talking about our defense.

---

In the video, Wulff also said that CAL was very physical and aggressive in their offensive front. He said when CAL doesn't turn the ball over they beat every team they played and when they did, they lost.

The key to success. DON'T TURN THE BALL OVER.

IHouseBear;617911 said:

---

In the video, Wulff also said that CAL was very physical and aggressive in their offensive front. He said when CAL doesn't turn the ball over they beat every team they played and when they did, they lost.

The key to success. DON'T TURN THE BALL OVER.

---

Except when that's not true. We were +2 in the TO battle against UW and still lost.