Cal89;842232723 said:

---

Apologies if a nerve was struck. Not the intent, at least from me, and I'd guess others too.

KA21 is looking to be a star in the NFL alright. His contributions last year were notable and certainly aided Maynard. KA21 caught 61 passes for 737 yards last year. That's about 12.1 yards per reception.

This year, Harper had very comparable numbers: 70 receptions for 852 yards for around 12.2 yards per catch. They both caught a little over 6 balls a game, on average.

One might say that KA21 saved Maynard's butt with a few great catches last year. That's certainly true. I recall several even more miraculous catches this year by Lawler and Harris, aiding Goff's numbers too.

Keenan is not the x factor here. Of note, Treggs too has contributions up there with KA21: 77 catches for 751 yards. Each Harper and Treggs had more catches and yards than KA21 last year. One could argue that having two go to receivers is more desirable than just one... Along those lines, spreading it out, each game we average over 10 guys with receptions. As a QB, that must be a good feeling to have so many receivers that the D thinks might get the next pass... That wasn't the case last year.

Also, with respect to 2012, Harper and Treggs were not not big contributors, combined 62 receptions. That's a little over 2 catches for each a game, on average. KA21 was the man, and opposing D's knew it.

The intent here is not to pile on Goff or any player for that matter. In this discussion, in trying to find positives in this season, something we should not have to look hard for, it was said that we have a good passing game. With the QB being a major component of the passing game, our starter's performance was then germane...

Reasons (stats) were provided showing that our passing game compared to conference foes is not good, and near the bottom. In relation to last year, starting QB's compared, our current starting QB performed a little worse than a guy who is generally despised around here.

With respect to "everyone on here should know that higher volume makes your rate stats go down", I like to know more about that. Seriously, I had not heard that before. If there is a article or study, please direct me. It does not seem commonsensical to me...

Within a game, I've seen it go both ways. Goff started on fire against Stanford. Wow, our best opening drive of the season, I feel. Very impressive. He connected on his first 5 passes, culminating with a TD. He finished with around 52% as I recall... The week before in CO, he started 2 for 5 (40%), and finished with 51%. Within games, I'd imagine that completion rates go either way...

As for the season, I'd be inclined to think that the more passes made leads to improved effectiveness in the passing game, not the opposite. It all equates to increased reps, improving, getting more in sync with receivers, learning from past mistakes, etc...

I find the TFS suspect. I think many of us have concerns about such play calling in the Pac-12. It's mind-numbing at times to watch...

Yes, Goff throws a beautiful fade, one of the best I've ever seen. His deep balls unfortunately have a fade look to them though. The comparison to Maynard is a solid one, as validated by looking at their performance metrics.

While Maynard had some poor games, we remember those, he had some very good ones too. At tOSU, over 70%. UCLA, 83%, 4 TD's, 1 INT. In 2011, his last 3 games were quite good: OSU 68%; Stanford 69%, 173 QBR, 2 TD's, 0 INT's (bettered Luck); ASU 73%, 162 QBR.

Whether it's the inadequacies of the TFS, QB effectiveness, poor coaching, all of these and other factors, our passing game is not good.

---

Nice response, and well-put. I understand you are not trying to pile on Goff. My perspective is that I just don't want him to be the baby thrown out with Dykes' bathwater.

I phrased my contention on the negative correlation between rate stats and volume with far too much certainty. I really thought I had read things to that effect, but I could not find anything to corroborate it when I looked. It always made sense to me that it would work this way, with the defense putting more emphasis on stopping a given strategy the more often it is used. However, I acknowledge that there could also be a practice effect, as you point out.

I would say in addition to great catches, KA21 was very good at getting open and running after the catch. You point out that Harper and Treggs have comparable stats, but then I could also argue that they benefited from having Goff throwing to them instead of Maynard. This argument would actually be bolstered by their lesser stats of last year. (Or maybe they have become much better with experience.) Spreading the ball around can keep the defense guessing, making it easier to play quarterback, but then isn't it partly the quarterback's job to throw to different receivers? I think most of these arguments can cut both ways.

Taking a step back, the disagreement here is whether there was a small positive in Dykes' favor this season or none at all. Nobody seems to think that Dykes' positives, if any, were anywhere close to his negatives.

The Duke!;842232763 said:

---

The mark of a good coach is winning all of the games in which his team has more talent than their opponents, and a good number of the games in which they were fairly similarly matched. And keeping it close and occasionally against teams in which they are really overmatched. Despite our injuries we still had more or comparable talent when compared to some of our opponents.

---

Your last claim is certainly debatable... especially late in the season with us starting our 4th string MLB.

You can blame defensive suckage on injuries, but our offense has stayed fairly healthy all year. O line had some injury issues, but even when protection held up (which it did fairly well towards the end of the season) our offense still couldn't get going.

"That would be significant if their strength of schedule in the first half of the season equaled the sos of the second half, which is not the case. None of those first 5 opponents are ranked in the top 25 (the closest is Nebraska at #32), while the 3 teams to which they lost are all highly ranked (#8, #12, #13)."

You are correct. UCLA was healthy and played an easy schedule and ascended in the rankings, SEC style. They had injuries and then played the meat of their schedule and went 3-3.

If we combine all of these posts, the truth comes out

Gizzly Bear;842232946 said:

---

Nice response, and well-put. I understand you are not trying to pile on Goff. My perspective is that I just don't want him to be the baby thrown out with Dykes' bathwater.

I phrased my contention on the negative correlation between rate stats and volume with far too much certainty. I really thought I had read things to that effect, but I could not find anything to corroborate it when I looked. It always made sense to me that it would work this way, with the defense putting more emphasis on stopping a given strategy the more often it is used. However, I acknowledge that there could also be a practice effect, as you point out.

I would say in addition to great catches, KA21 was very good at getting open and running after the catch. You point out that Harper and Treggs have comparable stats, but then I could also argue that they benefited from having Goff throwing to them instead of Maynard. This argument would actually be bolstered by their lesser stats of last year. (Or maybe they have become much better with experience.) Spreading the ball around can keep the defense guessing, making it easier to play quarterback, but then isn't it partly the quarterback's job to throw to different receivers? I think most of these arguments can cut both ways.

Taking a step back, the disagreement here is whether there was a small positive in Dykes' favor this season or none at all. Nobody seems to think that Dykes' positives, if any, were anywhere close to his negatives.

---

GB, no worries, and thank you.

There is no reason not to believe Goff can be good, very good even. I would have liked to have seen our passing game improve this year, and it did not. That is the forte of this offensive system afterall. As I said elsewhere, even Kline's game regressed, with what little exposure he had. I find that troubling and possibly an indictment of the coaches and / or system they are implementing....

I have grown to be somewhat critical of this staff, as is clearly evident of my recent posts on this forum. I was most certainly not initially, and to the contrary, was defending them after the initial few games, wanting to see more evidence first, namely improvement, or lack of before drawing any conclusions. Not finding anything to be positive about regarding this hire is very demoralizing...

To make one thing clear, and it's probably not necessary, I'm not one to get on players, boo them in games, start threads doing so, etc. Even so at the professional level, but especially these young men, playing for our beloved University. Some of vitriol aimed at the likes of Ayoob, Maynard I found to be very inappropriate...

I was going to comment some more on KA21, Harper, Treggs, but I'm beat. It seems that we are on the same page there too.

CALiforniALUM;842232740 said:

---

Thanks. So the answer is no.

---

You act like Cal had no talent and Sonny had nothing to work with. By his own admission he indicated that Cal had talent and that his offensive system was so easy to comprehend that it would take a matter of weeks to install. Was he blowing smoke? Your constant chirping about youth and injuries is just another excuse that people have grown tired of. Dykes had 9 months to get his **** together and get this team ready (backups included) and he failed (worse season in the history of Cal), end of discussion and now his ass is on the hot seat. Injuries are part of football as well as youth and you deal with them. Both Florida and Georgia Southern are down to their 3rd and 2nd string QBs who are RS freshmen. How many reps do you think they got and how long were they in their offensive systems vs. Goff as the 1st string QB and having the same system in high school before they got to start this year? Here's what I know, neither Florida or Georgia Southern are crying about injuries, the youth of their QBs or their offensive schemes. Maybe it's on their coach who didn't get the job done or in Georgia Southern's case maybe the coach did what he was paid to do and got the QB coached up and ready to play as well as the rest of his team as they are winning. You can make all the excuses you want for Sonny & Co. who at this point look like a freakin train wreck, but in 9 months if his ass doesn't have this team ready to play the 2014 season and win, he is freakin out of here and Cal gets to start over. Based on his post game press conference it doesn't look like or sound like he is up to the monumental task ahead. Excuses like coaching, injuries and youth only smell right for a few moths before they start to stink like ****. Cal doesn't need more excuses, Cal needs someone to do what he said he was going to do and win football games and elevate the football program to where it should be after spending 1/2 to 3/4 of a billion dollars on shiny new upgrades and facilities, otherwise what was the point of spending all that money?

OaktownBear;842232787 said:

---

I'm not trying to rate Goff. I 'm talking about our passing game as a whole and arguing against the yardage record being a positive in context. I was impresses with Goff in game 1. He didn't improve during the season which I put on the coaches. I expect him to be signicantly better than Maynard during his career if he gets any kind of coaching.

Point is, our passing offense in total was not improved over last year or even over almost all the primary QBs of the last 12 years. Pointing to yardage passing that you get by running more passing plays is ridiculous. Bottom line is we had the worst yards per play in at least 12 years.

---

Got it, thanks. The debate about if there is a "positive" seems to me to center on the definition of the word. Without taking a position on that, I would say it's very hard to make an argument in Dykes' favor that does not rely on mitigating circumstances or us being financially hamstrung.

General Patton

OaktownBear;842232586 said:

---

That is as logical as touting your offensive system by hiring an offensive line coach who was fired from Henderson State and then claiming your system enabled him to get a job in the Pac-12.

---

That would be funny if it weren't true and if it didn't happen at Cal during a 1-11 season. What a farce the coaching staff is.

BearNIt;842233048 said:

---

You act like Cal had no talent and Sonny had nothing to work with. By his own admission he indicated that Cal had talent and that his offensive system was so easy to comprehend that it would take a matter of weeks to install. Was he blowing smoke? ... Cal doesn't need more excuses, Cal needs someone to do what he said he was going to do and win football games and elevate the football program to where it should be after spending 1/2 to 3/4 of a billion dollars on shiny new upgrades and facilities, otherwise what was the point of spending all that money??

---

Big projects like this keep Assistant ADs, Associate ADs, Senior Ass ADs, Senior Associate Assistant ADs, thier staffs, assistants, university consultants, and others quite busy, provides raises, fills resumes, pads the pension, provides ammo for raises, etc. I guess part of this is hyperboile, and part not.

But isn't it ironic that the number one public institution in the land dropped its academics just as it was raising $$$$ to renovate bball and fball facilities?

fine, let's say all of the problems people suggested are really all that bad. injuries, youth, etc.

but why hasn't there been any semblance of improvement over the season? why had it regressed? why do we not even look competitive in any of the games we played throughout all 4 quarters? that can't be explained away.

movielover;842233737 said:

---

But isn't it ironic that the number one public institution in the land dropped its academics just as it was raising $$$$ to renovate bball and fball facilities?

---

depends on your definition of irony?
they're completely separate events. also, the APR is a 3-yr graduated avg, so that decline had been in motion long before any SAHPC or renovation talks were in place

beeasyed;842233764 said:

---

fine, let's say all of the problems people suggested are really all that bad. injuries, youth, etc.

but why hasn't there been any semblance of improvement over the season? why had it regressed? why do we not even look competitive in any of the games we played throughout all 4 quarters? that can't be explained away.

---

I can just take an educated guess. All of those injuries didn't start on Day 1. They likely gradually snowballed thoughout the season, and at the same time Sonny probably lost some of the juniors and seniors, and the players who identify with the previous coaching staff. Malcontents took advantage of the turnover, whether there are 2 or 10, and that can affect some players on the margin.

There are probably 20-40 players who also have new academic pressures that they never really signed up for, and some of those may have decided early on to transfer to a less rigorous school.

FWIW, in today's Chronicle SD estimated that he'll have 20 scholarhips available for next year. I cross checked that with the current roster, which has 11 Seniors... so if my math is right, that might mean there will be 9 transfers / leave the team for various reasons.

FWIW, I think I counted 45 freshman ... yikes. I wonder if this is typical for Pac-12 schools?

movielover;842233786 said:

---

I can just take an educated guess. All of those injuries didn't start on Day 1. They likely gradually snowballed thoughout the season, and at the same time Sonny probably lost some of the juniors and seniors, and the players who identify with the previous coaching staff. Malcontents took advantage of the turnover, whether there are 2 or 10, and that can affect some players on the margin.

There are probably 20-40 players who also have new academic pressures that they never really signed up for, and some of those may have decided early on to transfer to a less rigorous school.

FWIW, in today's Chronicle SD estimated that he'll have 20 scholarhips available for next year. I cross checked that with the current roster, which has 11 Seniors... so if my math is right, that might mean there will be 9 transfers / leave the team for various reasons.

FWIW, I think I counted 45 freshman ... yikes. I wonder if this is typical for Pac-12 schools?

---

You keep citing that apparently a good third to half of our team are struggling academically. How does that jive with our improved academic results from the most recent period?

Also, in your scholly count did you already account for the scholarship players that left this season? McCain, King, Wilkerson transferring early, any medical retirements, etc.?

oski003;842232643 said:

---

Ucla was 5-0 before injuries on OL forced them to play frosh. 3-3 after. Jack and Vanderdoes are top recruits. So was McCarthy. We wanted all three. Not arguing Dykes is a good coach but you aren't painting the entire UCLA picture accurately.

---

Because they didn't go 1-11. The original post asked its question, I answered by saying Mora situation was somewhat akin (I didn't say exactly), and some guys goes off on me with totally baseless facts. Point being if you look at the recruiting numbers for the two teams, they are not all that different. We also got some guys UCLA wanted. And those oline guys that went down, they were all seniors right? Maybe Mora had more to work with because he had guys that stayed in school or didn't have to be booted for engaging in offensive behavior.

wifeisafurd;842233805 said:

---

Because they didn't go 1-11. The original post asked its question, I answered by saying Mora situation was somewhat akin (I didn't say exactly), and some guys goes off on me with totally baseless facts. Point being if you look at the recruiting numbers for the two teams, they are not all that different. We also got some guys UCLA wanted. And those oline guys that went down, they were all seniors right? Maybe Mora had more to work with because he had guys that stayed in school or didn't have to be booted for engaging in offensive behavior.

---

wiaf, I think if you look past the rankings, you'll see see we messed up recruiting at a few key positions. that and injury depth issues probably amplified the coaching issues...

Golden One;842232479 said:

---

Practices don't count, only performance on the field does. And by that measure we didn't improve one bit from the opening loss to Northwestern to the blowout in the Big Game. In fact we got worst. Much worst.

---

C'mon, GO, from everything I heard the team had some REALLY GOOD practices this year. Pretty much every week.

I think good practices count. Why else would Sonny keep bring them up?

Name me a Coach in recent history who went winless against all upper division opponents and still kept his job.

NewYorkCityBear;842234208 said:

---

Name me a Coach in recent history who went winless against all upper division opponents and still kept his job.

---

Name me a coach in recent memory who won with:

1) Taking over a 3-win team
2) Taking over after mediorce recruiting years
3) Started a freshman QB
4) Started 3 freshmen OLinemen
5) Started a 4th string MLB
6) Had upwards of 13 major injuries
7) Had to motivate, cajole, organize and push approximately half the team to study at a top university, when they were recruited and mentored under a more lax regime.

movielover;842232304 said:

---

[Editorial Note: I am not Sonny, his wife, or Kline's Troll Father.]

If you can name one who has had an improvement with a team in Diapers, let us know. I'm serious. Team, year, coach, improvement achieved.

The Bears had numerous Freshmen starting at key positions, not All Americans or even 2nd string players.

OLine - 3 Freshmen

QB - Freshman, and backup a Frosh

MLB - a 4th string Frosh?

These are just 3 examples. I know there are issues with defensive coaching, and the transition was hard for those recruited by long-term position coaches.

Go ahead. Whack away.

P.S. Yes, there needs to be a big step up this next year, not Rose Bowl, but marked, visible improvement.

---

You failed to mention the 2 Sophs that were also on the OLine.

movielover;842234229 said:

---

Name me a coach in recent memory who won with:

1) Taking over a 3-win team
2) Taking over after mediorce recruiting years
3) Started a freshman QB
4) Started 3 freshmen OLinemen
5) Started a 4th string MLB
6) Had upwards of 13 major injuries
7) Had to motivate, cajole, organize and push approximately half the team to study at a top university, when they were recruited and mentored under a more lax regime.

---

I read your post the first time. You make a lot of great excuses. Since apparently we're repeating our questions, name me a Coach in recent history who went WINLESS AGAINST ALL UPPER DIVISION OPPONENTS and still kept his job. Your excuses might mean something if they actually won one of those, but it doesn't excuse complete disaster. The buck has to stop somewhere, and it seems to have run right past Dykes. I agree that it's unreasonable to expect a winning season given all that you enumerate. It is equally unreasonable to ignore how historically bad this team was under Dykes. Even if he shouldn't be fired, virtually every other coach to lose all their upper division games gets fired.

Excuses, or facts?

If this is year 5, 4, or 3, yes, he gets fired. He inherited a disaster, and then another disaster was placed on top of it.

Many folks on here have an axe to grind, and are rightly peeved at a record of futility and a BG blowout. But the minute I started looking a bit deeper, I see Stanford playing a near all-senior frontline, and the Bears have 3 freshmen. On what planet does someone think that is a fair fight? Likewise, I have a friend who was complaining about his alma mater starting one - ONE - redshirt freshman lineman, and he was there because he was good!

I'd expect 3-5 victories next year, less blowouts, and marked improvement. I think that is also fair.

If Dykes records 0 victories against FBS teams his 3rd year, shoot him back to LAT with a sling shot. No objects here, none, zero, zip.

movielover;842234277 said:

---

Excuses, or facts?

---

Excuses, because your cited facts are disproportionate to the results.

All your excuses justify a 4, maybe 3, win season this first year with "only" 4-5 blowout losses to high-ranked teams. Given the circumstances you mention, many of us would take a 3 or 4 win season with a wait-and-see approach. Your excuses completely lack the explanatory power to justify a 1-win season (that one win being a squeaker at home vs a lousy team with a losing record in the FCS Big Sky Conference) and 8 blowout losses (incl. to the likes of Colorado and WSU). Your cited "facts" are not proportional to the historically low performance; hence, they degrade from the status of mitigating fact(ors) to that of overblown excuses.

movielover;842234277 said:

---

Excuses, or facts?

If this is year 5, 4, or 3, yes, he gets fired. He inherited a disaster, and then another disaster was placed on top of it.

Many folks on here have an axe to grind, and are rightly peeved at a record of futility and a BG blowout. But the minute I started looking a bit deeper, I see Stanford playing a near all-senior frontline, and the Bears have 3 freshmen. On what planet does someone think that is a fair fight? Likewise, I have a friend who was complaining about his alma mater starting one - ONE - redshirt freshman lineman, and he was there because he was good!

I'd expect 3-5 victories next year, less blowouts, and marked improvement. I think that is also fair.

If Dykes records 0 victories against FBS teams his 3rd year, shoot him back to LAT with a sling shot. No objects here, none, zero, zip.

---

So 3 wins is ok next year. So you think he should stay if after 2 years he has a total of 2 FBS wins. But hey, if he has no FBS wins in his third year, you are willing to fire him. Great.

Real high standard you got there.

movielover;842234277 said:

---

If Dykes records 0 victories against FBS teams his 3rd year, shoot him back to LAT with a sling shot. No objects here, none, zero, zip.

---

and this is your problem. you'd be willing to endure until a 3rd year of 0 victories against FBS schools to fire him.

excuses, low expectations--one and the same.

HKBear97;842232482 said:

---

Great example! And then look at this year where WSU is bowl eligible. There is a staff that has led to improvement.

What we've seen at Cal this year is not improvement.

---

Well, we are hoping for equivalent improvement next year, but the operative word is HOPING. After last year, there was no guarantee Leach would pull it off either.

CALiforniALUM;842232740 said:

---

Thanks. So the answer is no.

---

Hey, dykes could have started a more experienced QB but chose the true frosh.

movielover;842232304 said:

---

[Editorial Note: I am not Sonny, his wife, or Kline's Troll Father.]

If you can name one who has had an improvement with a team in Diapers, let us know. I'm serious. Team, year, coach, improvement achieved.

The Bears had numerous Freshmen starting at key positions, not All Americans or even 2nd string players.

OLine - 3 Freshmen

QB - Freshman, and backup a Frosh

MLB - a 4th string Frosh?

These are just 3 examples. I know there are issues with defensive coaching, and the transition was hard for those recruited by long-term position coaches.

Go ahead. Whack away.

P.S. Yes, there needs to be a big step up this next year, not Rose Bowl, but marked, visible improvement.

---

Sark, and he's not event that good of a coach.

There are lots of first year guys who make moves, injuries are a crutch/excuse, Dykes is your Dan Hawkins. You'll be better next year, mostly because you cant get worse, you may even show larked improvement in year three.

Dykes however is in over his head, is too stubborn to admit his short comings, and long term is going to leave you n a bad place. SOme one copped the excuse about how good UCLA's recruiting was under the Weasel, it's not like Cal has sucked at recruiting, you guys pulled monster classes under Tedfurd injuries/age/talent is not a useable excuse for what happened this year something went very wrong.

-The humble opinion of a man who has seen bottom and looked up at it.

For perspective your known recruiting ranks:
2009 - #6 in the pac12
2010 - #3
2011 - #3
2012 - # 6
2013 - # 5
That even with your attrition does not spell 0 and what ever in Conf.

twister;842235126 said:

---

Sark, and he's not event that good of a coach.

There are lots of first year guys who make moves, injuries are a crutch/excuse, Dykes is your Dan Hawkins. You'll be better next year, mostly because you cant get worse, you may even show larked improvement in year three.

Dykes however is in over his head, is too stubborn to admit his short comings, and long term is going to leave you n a bad place. SOme one copped the excuse about how good UCLA's recruiting was under the Weasel, it's not like Cal has sucked at recruiting, you guys pulled monster classes under Tedfurd injuries/age/talent is not a useable excuse for what happened this year something went very wrong.

-The humble opinion of a man who has seen bottom and looked up at it.

For perspective your known recruiting ranks:
2009 - #6 in the pac12
2010 - #3
2011 - #3
2012 - # 6
2013 - # 5
That even with your attrition does not spell 0 and what ever in Conf.

---

Good stuff twister.

Looks like you guys made a solid hire over there. Improvement not just in the win column, but also in some key areas that caught my eye. Average PPG, up like 9 points! And, the protection afforded the QB, an unreal turnaround. Your true freshman QB, not sure if you know this, but of all QB's in the conference with at least 100 attempts, he's sacked the least often. And the D also improved PPG allowed by 7. Very encouraging for the future...

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;842234388 said:

---

Excuses, because your cited facts are disproportionate to the results.

All your excuses justify a 4, maybe 3, win season this first year with "only" 4-5 blowout losses to high-ranked teams. Given the circumstances you mention, many of us would take a 3 or 4 win season with a wait-and-see approach. Your excuses completely lack the explanatory power to justify a 1-win season (that one win being a squeaker at home vs a lousy team with a losing record in the FCS Big Sky Conference) and 8 blowout losses (incl. to the likes of Colorado and WSU). Your cited "facts" are not proportional to the historically low performance; hence, they degrade from the status of mitigating fact(ors) to that of overblown excuses.

---

Go easy on him nasal...he's obviously an amateur apologist. Hasn't honed his chops yet.

OaktownBear;842232586 said:

---

Sorry. It is not. It ain't spin. It's called thinking. By your formulation, it would be a positive if he threw it 1000 times for 3.6 yards an attempt. An inefficient passing game that produces the worst yards per play in over a decade but breaks the season passing yards record by throwing it 100 times more than any other time in history is not a positive.

That is as logical as touting your offensive system by hiring an offensive line coach who was fired from Henderson State and then claiming your system enabled him to get a job in the Pac-12.

---

Hey Oaktown, I don't read BI constantly so I missed your response. A few points:

1) So this is a negative? You really going to be that hard on Goff?

2) You will not allow any "excuses" or context for Dykes' record, why shouldn't the same apply to Goff? Seems inconsistent.

I assume your answer will be a variant of you know better and can think better than me. Could very well be, my friend.

twister;842235126 said:

---

Sark, and he's not event that good of a coach.

There are lots of first year guys who make moves, injuries are a crutch/excuse, Dykes is your Dan Hawkins. You'll be better next year, mostly because you cant get worse, you may even show larked improvement in year three.

Dykes however is in over his head, is too stubborn to admit his short comings, and long term is going to leave you n a bad place. SOme one copped the excuse about how good UCLA's recruiting was under the Weasel, it's not like Cal has sucked at recruiting, you guys pulled monster classes under Tedfurd injuries/age/talent is not a useable excuse for what happened this year something went very wrong.

-The humble opinion of a man who has seen bottom and looked up at it.

For perspective your known recruiting ranks:
2009 - #6 in the pac12
2010 - #3
2011 - #3
2012 - # 6
2013 - # 5
That even with your attrition does not spell 0 and what ever in Conf.

---

Great post. There is definitely talent on the team at a lot of positions, especially on offense, but I think successful recruiting is also about the distribution. We have great depth at WR, but little at OL. The defense seemed to be physically overmatched every single game. They don't pass the eye test. I still agree with you though that we're probably just riding it out with Dykes. Even if he is a good coach, it would be hard for him to right the ship after this kind of meltdown.

JSML;842235277 said:

---

Hey Oaktown, I don't read BI constantly so I missed your response. A few points:

1) So this is a negative? You really going to be that hard on Goff?

2) You will not allow any "excuses" or context for Dykes' record, why shouldn't the same apply to Goff? Seems inconsistent.

I assume your answer will be a variant of you know better and can think better than me. Could very well be, my friend.

---

I can't speak for Oaktown, JSML. But here is my answer to #2:

There are plenty of perfectly fair reasons to explain why he didn't make a bowl this year. But no, there is no excuse or context to justify 1-11 with the talent and facilities he inherited. There is no valid reason to justify the worst season in 128 years of California Golden Bears Football.

This doesn't discount the context. It simply discounts it as a valid reason for the worst season in our program's long history.

The Duke!;842235283 said:

---

I can't speak for Oaktown, JSML. But here is my answer to #2:

There are plenty of perfectly fair reasons to explain why he didn't make a bowl this year. But no, there is no excuse or context to justify 1-11 with the talent and facilities he inherited. There is no valid reason to justify the worst season in 128 years of California Golden Bears Football.

This doesn't discount the context. It simply discounts it as a valid reason for the worst season in rsour program's long history.

---

Typing on phone now so pls excuse the curt replies.

1. and 2. go together. Goff also broke a 128 years Cal record. On the positive side this time.

JSML;842235285 said:

---

Typing on phone now so pls excuse the curt replies.

1. and 2. go together. Goff also broke a 128 years Cal record. On the positive side this time.

---

And that's great. I think Goff has a bright future and I don't mean to ignore our QB improvement from last year.

But I don't root for individual players or individual stats. I root for the entire Cal football team to defeat our opponents. And Sonny coached the absolute worst team in our 128 year history this year. He also suffered the most embarrassing loss in Big Game history. These things are absolutely inexcusable, despite the impressive numbers that our QB put up.