https://twitter.com/calcoachdykes/status/434418833479049216. No comment

oskidunker;842282519 said:

---

. No comment

---

Linked

MoragaBear;842282527 said:

---

I like the fact that he can get a little feisty sometimes about things like this stupid, self-serving rule change proposal.

---

I wish he'd get more feisty about how stupid-bad our defense was.

matteye;842282529 said:

---

I wish he'd get more feisty about how stupid-bad our defense was.

---

matteye;842282529 said:

---

I wish he'd get more feisty about how stupid-bad our defense was.

---

what else do you want him to do? if he weren't "feisty" about it, Buh would still be our DC

MoragaBear;842282527 said:

---

I like the fact that he can get a little feisty sometimes about things like this stupid, self-serving rule change proposal.

---

His tweat sounds more bitter than feisty to me, but it's just my opinion.

HungryCalBear;842282539 said:

---

His tweat sounds more bitter than feisty to me, but it's just my opinion.

---

I agree. I also like the rule change.

MoragaBear;842282527 said:

---

I like the fact that he can get a little feisty sometimes about things like this stupid, self-serving rule change proposal.

---

Sorry guys, this worries me. Are the excuses for offensive failure starting ALREADY?

We scored 10 against UCLA and 13 against Stanfurd WITH the hurry-up offense.

Seems to me Sonny should worry more about fundamentals, avoiding stupid penalties and play calling than rule changes he has no control over.

Oh, yeah...WINNING A FOOTBALL GAME (FBS) would be good as well.

How about a rule change for injury timeouts - 2 per half then delay of game, and the "injured" player has to sit out the series or a minimum amount of time - for his "safety", of course. Surely the NCAA will institute whatever rules are necessary to protect player safety ... right?

GoBearsBert;842282544 said:

---

Sorry guys, this worries me. Are the excuses for offensive failure starting ALREADY?

We scored 10 against UCLA and 13 against Stanfurd WITH the hurry-up offense.

Seems to me Sonny should worry more about fundamentals, avoiding stupid penalties and play calling than rule changes he has no control over.

Oh, yeah...WINNING A FOOTBALL GAME (FBS) would be good as well.

---

i dont quite get where his tweet can be construed as an excuse. the rule also still has to be approved later, so if hes garnering some support against the rule, its probably a good thing. these days tweets can cause a lot of controversy. if he did that, itd be a win for us. to a mild extent hes playing politics, of course as a hurry-up team we dont want to have to look at the clock to see if we lined up too fast and snapped it a couple seconds too fast. its one more thing for our qb to have to worry about.

GoBearsBert;842282544 said:

---

Sorry guys, this worries me. Are the excuses for offensive failure starting ALREADY?

We scored 10 against UCLA and 13 against Stanfurd WITH the hurry-up offense.

Seems to me Sonny should worry more about fundamentals, avoiding stupid penalties and play calling than rule changes he has no control over.

Oh, yeah...WINNING A FOOTBALL GAME (FBS) would be good as well.

---

I think we will be solid on D with Art K. running the show now. What I am worried about is why our offense was so inefficient. Was it because Cochran and Adcock were injured? It came down to two players? Otherwise, the offense wasn't as decimated as the defense, so there were not as many excuses for the offense's poor performance (and it was poor - an exercise in moving the ball back and forth between the red zones and not converting on 3rd down). I really hope tTFS has figured out a few things for Year 2 of the Bear Raid.

KoreAmBear;842282552 said:

---

I think we will be solid on D with Art K. running the show now. What I am worried about is why our offense was so inefficient. Was it because Cochran and Adcock were injured? It came down to two players? Otherwise, the offense wasn't as decimated as the defense, so there were not as many excuses for the offense's poor performance (and it was poor - an exercise in moving the ball back and forth between the red zones and not converting on 3rd down). I really hope tTFS has figured out a few things for Year 2 of the Bear Raid.

---

+1

I don't really feel like I've seen the "Bear Raid" yet. And I doubt having to wait until there are 29 seconds on the clock will affect us much.

I count there were more than 5 plays all season where we snapped the ball prior to 29 seconds on the clock.

Our last coach didn't tweet but when he did it was about Whitney Houston and Garth Brooks.

KoreAmBear;842282552 said:

---

I think we will be solid on D with Art K. running the show now. What I am worried about is why our offense was so inefficient. Was it because Cochran and Adcock were injured? It came down to two players? Otherwise, the offense wasn't as decimated as the defense, so there were not as many excuses for the offense's poor performance (and it was poor - an exercise in moving the ball back and forth between the red zones and not converting on 3rd down). I really hope tTFS has figured out a few things for Year 2 of the Bear Raid.

---

true frosh qb, ineffective and poorly coached running backs as well, as well as putting our tight end in as running back instead of just using gingold. just about every idea that they had last year contributable to the dumpster fire.

its also about confidence and momentum, the offense didnt look bad early in the year but got worse and worse. the losing just took its toll mentally on our guys i think

CalBearinLA;842282538 said:

---

what else do you want him to do? if he weren't "feisty" about it, Buh would still be our DC

---

Joke. Easy there, bear. Nothing to see here.

KoreAmBear;842282552 said:

---

I think we will be solid on D with Art K. running the show now. What I am worried about is why our offense was so inefficient. Was it because Cochran and Adcock were injured? It came down to two players? Otherwise, the offense wasn't as decimated as the defense, so there were not as many excuses for the offense's poor performance (and it was poor - an exercise in moving the ball back and forth between the red zones and not converting on 3rd down). I really hope tTFS has figured out a few things for Year 2 of the Bear Raid.

---

Zero running game was a big part, but that is a direct result of OL issues obviously. Lasco should have been the guy when he was healthy.

GoBearsBert;842282553 said:

---

I don't really feel like I've seen the "Bear Raid" yet.

---

http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/25/california-golden-bears

To be fair to Dykes, the new rule proposal does point out who's running college football, like his previous post said. But his comparison to the basketball wasn't funny and didn't help him one bit.

Personally I don't have a problem with the new rule change. Someone should also look into requiring an injured player to be out for the whole series. That would make sense.

A related subject: I hate it when Cal hurried back to the line of scrimmage to prevent the defense to substitute, only to pause and looked at the sideline for the new play. To me it's just taking advantage of the rule book and not fundamental football, and adding risk to injury.

Any rule change that improves the safety of the game is a good one. This particular rule will not have an impact on teams because snapping the ball within ten seconds of the end of the previous play is rare.

IMO, it would be a good rule.

71Bear;842282577 said:

---

Any rule change that improves the safety of the game is a good one. This particular rule will not have an impact on teams because snapping the ball within ten seconds of the end of the previous play is rare.

IMO, it would be a good rule.

---

I'm in favor of the safety theory if there is evidence that HUNH style of play does increase injuries.

I have yet to see any data showing this to be the case.

Not to worry, you worriers.
Just sign the petition to rename the Hayward Fault to Dykes Fault.
If the stadium rocks and rolls, it's Dykes Fault.
:sarc:

HungryCalBear;842282576 said:

---

A related subject: I hate it when Cal hurried back to the line of scrimmage to prevent the defense to substitute, only to pause and looked at the sideline for the new play. To me it's just taking advantage of the rule book and not fundamental football, and adding risk to injury.

---

Why is the defense entitled to a substitution if the offense doesn't need one? If the offense can run its whole scheme with the same guys on the field, isn't that a good element of strategy? As things stand, if the offense substitutes the defense can substitute. If the offense looks to the sidelines to get a call, the defense can look to the sidelines to get a call. The argument against hurry-up offenses as they stand now is that the defense doesn't get to do whatever they want if the offense is efficient rolling, which I can't really get behind

SonOfCalVa;842282583 said:

---

Not to worry, you worriers.
Just sign the petition to rename the Hayward Fault to Dykes Fault.
If the stadium rocks and rolls, it's Dykes Fault.
:sarc:

---

Not necessary. The maiden name of Sonny's mother is Hayward.

I haven't either; however, I think that it is a safe assumption that a game with x numbers of plays will result in more injuries than a game with with x-y number of plays. Of course, this runs contrary to my theory that the rule will result in a significantly fewer number of plays. Thus the conundrum......

71Bear;842282577 said:

---

Any rule change that improves the safety of the game is a good one.

---

Two hand touch?

Not a big fan of the tweet.

My initial thought after reading it:

"STFU, walk over to your whiteboard, and go draw up a play that will actually fool a defense next year"

I recall starting each game with only 10:00 minutes for the first quarter and our team spots the opponent 14 points. Who agreed to THAT rule change. That may have had something to do with the anemic offense. Also, once the wheels fall off then everything starts to go to hell. Hopefully the team shows good improvement in turning around last year's performances on both sides of the ball.

Maybe you'll like the Oregon OC's tweet better? Their offense was potent enough.

https://twitter.com/coach_frost/status/434455597610569728?screen_name=coach_frost

The play at LT was subpar, as well. Plus, a good part of OL play is working together. They are more of a team within a team than any other unit. When guys go down or are not holding up their end, replacements take time to work their way in, even if they are as talented as the starters.

Sonny is right. Why don't they change the offsides rule for DLs so they can get the jump on OLs who are so much bigger and stronger? These powerful, mean grind it out teams are being unfair and we need to level the playing field.

Ironically, the NCAA proposes to legislate against the direction that the game is developing - passing, speed, open field play, fitness instead of brute strength, safety. The days of bone crushing are over, but you'd never know it by the way they are trying to steer the game.

When hatters want truth, they call on Nick Saban.

:hatters:

What indicates things should not be that way?