beeasyed;842310977 said:

---

While that is true, it's hard to accurately divide the blame between the implosion of the season, vs. staff's recruiting abilities(or lack thereof). of course--that assumes the implosion isn't 100% the fault of the staff to begin with. i don't think most self-respecting blue chips would want to play for a team that fired its winningest HC then went 1-11 under the new staff.




I have no problem with your recommendation. But you know damn well that if he just stuck to one-liners and the usual coachspeak, another group of posters will then complain that "one year and he already sounds like JT."

Like I mentioned--doesn't matter what he says. So I guess you rather not have any interviews at all then?

---

I'd prefer coach speak to drivel like comparing to the A's, 3rd best recruiting class, we're going to surprise some people. I like coach interviews for injury and strategy questions. I'd like Sonny to answer questions about the OL stance for example.

Looperbear;842310976 said:

---

Then he should STFU and focus on coaching instead of wasting energy coming up with stupid analogies.

---

Yes. Maybe he should stop doing all press conferences too

beeasyed;842310977 said:

---

While that is true, it's hard to accurately divide the blame between the implosion of the season, vs. staff's recruiting abilities(or lack thereof). of course--that assumes the implosion isn't 100% the fault of the staff to begin with. i don't think most self-respecting blue chips would want to play for a team that fired its [COLOR="Red"]losingest[/COLOR]HC then went 1-11 under the new staff.




I have no problem with your recommendation. But you know damn well that if he just stuck to one-liners and the usual coachspeak, another group of posters will then complain that "one year and he already sounds like JT."

Like I mentioned--doesn't matter what he says. So I guess you rather not have any interviews at all then?

---

Doesn't seem as impressive now.

:tedford

Bobodeluxe;842311018 said:

---

Doesn't seem as impressive now.

:tedford

---

you can alter the word, point still stands. we fired an experienced coach on the decline, for a supposed upgrade, only to go 1-11. now try to get blue chip recruits to look past that.

beeasyed;842311020 said:

---

you can alter the word, point still stands. we fired an experienced coach on the decline, for a supposed upgrade, only to go 1-11. now try to get blue chip recruits to look past that.

---

That is EXACTLY why, if we are going to turn this thing around, we are going to need to [U]start[/U] winning with lower ranked recruits and through our system and making great use of the talent we DO have. That is why the "moneyball" analogy is apropos.

Once (if) we start winning, the blue chip players will come. Chip Kelly at Oregon and Harbaugh at Stanford, two Pac-12 programs with a history similar to Cal's, are good examples of programs/guys that turned it around with a system first, and THEN saw the talent come---vaulting them into perennial BCS appearances.

Of course many are doubting whether Sonny and his/Franklin's system can pull it off at this point, but I would be MUCH more upset if Sonny were saying "we just don't have the horses" or "we need to get better recruits" (which is what some coaches do say). He has laid out a plausible plan for improvement and a reason to have hope for this season. Unlike what some posters assert, he [U]does[/U] have to say something, because speaking to the press and promoting the program is part of his job, and frankly, what he said is about the best that can be honestly said after last season.

Damn, I hope we start winning.

:gobears:

Looperbear;842310991 said:

---

Any lack of talent last year was on his predecessor. Not entirely true this year. Ex: JT came in here and saw a lack of talent, particularly team speed. Look at his first class, it was full of JUCOs and he kept the desirable talent that had been left to him in part by showing he was more competent than his predecessor.

---

This staff seems to be bringing in a lot of JCs too. 4 last year and 6 this year. They are attempting to address the two big weaknesses left from Tedford--CB and OL (the later is tough to do with JCs).

Tedford's first (2002) class had zero JC's. He won in 2002 using Holmoe's very talented team (many who went on to the NFL), including a senior QB who was the last to come to Cal from high school and get drafted. Joe Igber was a great senior RB. Maybe weak on speed, as you point out, but Holmoe did leave Tedford a lot of great linemen for which there is no quick fix.

Tedford's second class (2003) had 28 players, 9 of which were JC (so this staff has actually brought in more over the first two classes). It was a great class featuring JC players like Rodgers (4 stars), Riddle (4 stars), Tago (4 stars), Arrington (2 stars), Cross (4 stars), even Maningo (NR). Rodgers played, and ended up winning the starting job, and Arrington backed up Echemandu, but most of the 2003 team were still players brought in by Holmoe. Reggie Robertson beat USC.

It was really in 2004, Tedford's third year, that you really see the fruits of his recruiting, even the JC recruits, on the field (helped greatly by our upward trajectory and the very fortunate find of Rogers). We were lead by JC players Rodgers and Arrington. Still, much of the team (especially the great OL) were seniors and redshirt juniors brought in by Holmoe.

Holmoe's teams were actually very talented. They lost because he was that lousy of a coach. Tedford was a competent coach, so he won with Holmoe's good talent and almost got to the BCS with great talent. His teams lost when he no longer had good talent, especially at the critical positions of QB, OL and CB. It was that same lack of talent at critical positions that he left to Dykes.

This staff is attempting to address the areas of need. If we start winning, it will help bring in better talent. That means we have to start winning now, with lesser ranked talent. Hence the "moneyball" analogy is apropos. He may not get there, but that IS the road map for getting there.

calumnus;842311123 said:

---

This staff seems to be bringing in a lot of JCs too. 4 last year and 6 this year. They are attempting to address the two big weaknesses left from Tedford--CB and OL (the later is tough to do with JCs).

Tedford's first (2002) class had zero JC's. He won in 2002 using Holmoe's very talented team (many who went on to the NFL), including a senior QB who was the last to come to Cal from high school and get drafted. Joe Igber was a great senior RB. Maybe weak on speed, as you point out, but Holmoe did leave Tedford a lot of great linemen for which there is no quick fix.

Tedford's second class (2003) had 28 players, 9 of which were JC (so this staff has actually brought in more over the first two classes). It was a great class featuring JC players like Rodgers (4 stars), Riddle (4 stars), Tago (4 stars), Arrington (2 stars), Cross (4 stars), even Maningo (NR). Rodgers played, and ended up winning the starting job, and Arrington backed up Echemandu, but most of the 2003 team were still players brought in by Holmoe. Reggie Robertson beat USC.

It was really in 2004, Tedford's third year, that you really see the fruits of his recruiting, even the JC recruits, on the field (helped greatly by our upward trajectory and the very fortunate find of Rogers). We were lead by JC players Rodgers and Arrington. Still, much of the team (especially the great OL) were seniors and redshirt juniors brought in by Holmoe.

Holmoe's teams were actually very talented. They lost because he was that lousy of a coach. Tedford was a competent coach, so he won with Holmoe's good talent and almost got to the BCS with great talent. His teams lost when he no longer had good talent, especially at the critical positions of QB, OL and CB. It was that same lack of talent at critical positions that he left to Dykes.

This staff is attempting to address the areas of need. If we start winning, it will help bring in better talent. That means we have to start winning now, with lesser ranked talent. Hence the "moneyball" analogy is apropos. He may not get there, but that IS the road map for getting there.

---

Don't let the facts get in the way of hating Dykes.

Looperbear;842310991 said:

---

Any lack of talent last year was on his predecessor. Not entirely true this year. Ex: JT came in here and saw a lack of talent, particularly team speed. Look at his first class, it was full of JUCOs and he kept the desirable talent that had been left to him in part by showing he was more competent than his predecessor.

---

So now you're saying the SO recruited last year should lead us to glory?

slider643;842311131 said:

---

So now you're saying the SO recruited last year should lead us to glory?

---

no, because SD has already downplayed expectations in the presser. stuff like how the OL is still very weak, can't get snapping right, the team doesn't know how to run after the football, doesn't know how to tackle, uncertain DB depth, learning to play fast vs. being fast, buying in, etc. etc.

that's all good and well. just remember at the end of the day who is responsible for managing all of that.

calumnus;842311123 said:

---

This staff seems to be bringing in a lot of JCs too. 4 last year and 6 this year. They are attempting to address the two big weaknesses left from Tedford--CB and OL (the later is tough to do with JCs).

Tedford's first (2002) class had zero JC's. He won in 2002 using Holmoe's very talented team (many who went on to the NFL), including a senior QB who was the last to come to Cal from high school and get drafted. Joe Igber was a great senior RB. Maybe weak on speed, as you point out, but Holmoe did leave Tedford a lot of great linemen for which there is no quick fix.

Tedford's second class (2003) had 28 players, 9 of which were JC (so this staff has actually brought in more over the first two classes). It was a great class featuring JC players like Rodgers (4 stars), Riddle (4 stars), Tago (4 stars), Arrington (2 stars), Cross (4 stars), even Maningo (NR). Rodgers played, and ended up winning the starting job, and Arrington backed up Echemandu, but most of the 2003 team were still players brought in by Holmoe. Reggie Robertson beat USC.

It was really in 2004, Tedford's third year, that you really see the fruits of his recruiting, even the JC recruits, on the field (helped greatly by our upward trajectory and the very fortunate find of Rogers). We were lead by JC players Rodgers and Arrington. Still, much of the team (especially the great OL) were seniors and redshirt juniors brought in by Holmoe.

Holmoe's teams were actually very talented. They lost because he was that lousy of a coach. Tedford was a competent coach, so he won with Holmoe's good talent and almost got to the BCS with great talent. His teams lost when he no longer had good talent, especially at the critical positions of QB, OL and CB. It was that same lack of talent at critical positions that he left to Dykes.

This staff is attempting to address the areas of need. If we start winning, it will help bring in better talent. That means we have to start winning now, with lesser ranked talent. Hence the "moneyball" analogy is apropos. He may not get there, but that IS the road map for getting there.

---

The idea that Tedford inherited a "very talented team" is a myth. It relies heavily on the fact that Tedford succeeded to validate it. Since those teams did well, the players on those teams look better. But as we all should know, bad coaches can ruin players. Why isn't the reverse true too? Development matters.

For example, one more year of Holmoe and that 2002 team likely has another godawful year and Boller ends as a colossal bust. Perhaps none of the four guys who ended up getting drafted that year manages to get drafted. No one would ever have mistaken that team for being "very talented."

That 2002 roster had nine players on it who would eventually get drafted. That is the lowest number of drafted players a Tedford team would have on it through his entire tenure. The following year, half the starters on defense would be Tedford recruits. The offense relied completely on guys who virtually no one outside of Cal had heard of before.

Holmoe did not leave Tedford a bare cupboard, but he did not leave him a well-stocked one either. It's the wake of Tedford's eventual failure that sustains this revisionism. Tedford took a broken team that had some good pieces and made a winner out of it.

beeasyed;842311135 said:

---

no, because SD has already downplayed expectations in the presser. stuff like how the OL is still very weak, can't get snapping right, the team doesn't know how to run after the football, doesn't know how to tackle, uncertain DB depth, learning to play fast vs. being fast, buying in, etc. etc.

that's all good and well. just remember at the end of the day who is responsible for managing all of that.

---

Yeah.

82gradDLSdad;842310870 said:

---

Saying we lack talent in this manner is a pretty subtle way of trying to protect your coaching turf. The problem, obviously, is this isn't the NFL where you can blame your GM for not getting you players and this isn't a lower league where there is no recruiting. It's D1 college football where you can go out and recruit talent and then coach them up to win. The bottomline is that Sonny has to win. I only wonder what kind of season he has to have to avoid a really, really hot seat.

---

Yes, all of this.

People who say his comment is meaningless somehow seem to credit it that he didn't mean it when he said it (much like his evaluation of the team's talent level last spring, or his prediction of a "Top-3" class this year). The implication is pretty clear: "I am handicapped by resources. If I succeed, it's only because of superior management. Naturally, if I fail it was excusable since I was handicapped the whole time."

I'd have more tolerance for Dykes if he would exercise more control in his media remarks. Rash predictions and defensive rationalizations are less forgivable in the head coach than in internet posters.

Eeyore;842310874 said:

---

I think you missed the point. Comparing to the A's is somewhat appropriate. Cal is limited in its ability to compete against big time programs like U$C, Alabama and Ohio State. We do not have a strong football tradition. We do not have a rabid fan base. We do not have unlimited financial contribution from wealthy alumni/donor. We have strict academic standards. Therefore it's tough for us to attract top athletes. Do you really think we're the top 3 choices for most 4/5 star athletes?

---

As upsetting as last season was, I think it's this sentiment that is more disturbing. I can't exactly identify where, but I feel that there's slowly been a broad shift in the expectations for the program. Not this 2014 team, mind you, but the football program at-large.

Even before Tedford took over, I always heard Old Blues refer to Cal as a sleeping giant. The idea was that Cal had so many of the ingredients for a successful program that other flagship universities had--like Michigan and UCLA--that if we could be a top Pac-10 program if we could just get our act together. Great academics and a good location were supposed to be foundation strengths that gave us the potential that schools like OSU and WSU couldn't hope for. It was always thought to be institutional support that held the program back.

Fast forward to 2014. Still have great academics. Still have a really good location. The Tedford years showed that if the team is decent, fans will come out. The AD delivered on state of the art facilities and a $325 million stadium. And now we have a coach who sees us as a small market team of college football.

KevBear;842311172 said:

---

As upsetting as last season was, I think it's this sentiment that is more disturbing...

---

don't waste your breath, Kev. his username is Eeyore. that should be telling enough.

a certain poster loved to bring up how our fanbase was filled with the Eeyore "woe is us" mentality. nothing new here.

KevBear;842311172 said:

---

As upsetting as last season was, I think it's this sentiment that is more disturbing. I can't exactly identify where, but I feel that there's slowly been a broad shift in the expectations for the program. Not this 2014 team, mind you, but the football program at-large.

Even before Tedford took over, I always heard Old Blues refer to Cal as a sleeping giant. The idea was that Cal had so many of the ingredients for a successful program that other flagship universities had--like Michigan and UCLA--that if we could be a top Pac-10 program if we could just get our act together. Great academics and a good location were supposed to be foundation strengths that gave us the potential that schools like OSU and WSU couldn't hope for. It was always thought to be institutional support that held the program back.

Fast forward to 2014. Still have great academics. Still have a really good location. The Tedford years showed that if the team is decent, fans will come out. The AD delivered on state of the art facilities and a $325 million stadium. And now we have a coach who sees us as a small market team of college football.

---

I agree with lots of this -- but the "fast forward" you mention has also taken its toll. Academics? Football has made negative trade-offs. New facilities? Yet to return on investment recruit-wise. Fanbase? Gone. Expectations? Likewise fallen. Any new institutional support? Marketing and advertising never jumped on the JT bandwagon - missed out on the energy he created. The Berkeley/Bay Area community will never be rabid about Cal football. Our HC search went small-time - way too careful in my mind - but that's not Sonny's fault.

KevBear;842311166 said:

---

I'd have more tolerance for Dykes if he would exercise more control in his media remarks. Rash predictions and defensive rationalizations are less forgivable in the head coach than in internet posters.

---

+1 Sonny Dykes is personable and seems like a decent guy but he talks too much. But that's the risk of hiring a glib HC. I can't tell if his rash comments are cultural (Texas talk) or just how he rolls. I just wish he'd zip it a little because talking doesn't equal winning and ultimately he will be judged on his record, not by he what he says.

KevBear;842311172 said:

---

As upsetting as last season was, I think it's this sentiment that is more disturbing. I can't exactly identify where, but I feel that there's slowly been a broad shift in the expectations for the program. Not this 2014 team, mind you, but the football program at-large.

Even before Tedford took over, I always heard Old Blues refer to Cal as a sleeping giant. The idea was that Cal had so many of the ingredients for a successful program that other flagship universities had--like Michigan and UCLA--that if we could be a top Pac-10 program if we could just get our act together. Great academics and a good location were supposed to be foundation strengths that gave us the potential that schools like OSU and WSU couldn't hope for. It was always thought to be institutional support that held the program back.

Fast forward to 2014. Still have great academics. Still have a really good location. The Tedford years showed that if the team is decent, fans will come out. The AD delivered on state of the art facilities and a $325 million stadium. And now we have a coach who sees us as a small market team of college football.

---

+1

72CalBear said:

---

Our HC search went small-time - way too careful in my mind - but that's not Sonny's fault.

---

I feel this way about it too, even though I recognize myself as Monday morning quarterbacking. I have absolutely nothing to back it up, but my feeling about the last search was that Barbour went with a choice that would be hard to criticize rather than someone she personally believed in.

There's a great article on another site about the coach search that Gladstone ran back in 2001. The search committee was himself, two assistant ADs and Jack Clark. It took six weeks. He talked about the process and the pressures involved, but what really came across was how idiosyncratic his process was. Not that he was the only guy to use the process he did, but that the actual decision was very personal, subjective and particular to his experiences and the candidate. The 2012 search, facilitated by a hiring firm (DHR International), seems plastic in comparison.

Even though I've always been wary of its stultifying potential, I've come to appreciate why so many successful programs have tried to hire from "within the family." When referrals and evaluations come from people who you know are loyal to the program, you can get a better sense for the kind of personal qualities a coach has than a professional HR-style vetting will get. This is doubly true for the people who are advising the search. I'm sure a 3rd party firm wants to do well for their reputation, but they can't be expected to have the kind of investment in the outcome that people who love the program have.

It's hard to not appreciate the value that having such a successful coach like Gladstone running the search could have had. He must have access to so much intuition about a coach--even one outside of his sport--that an administrator without that experience would benefit from. And that's not even to mention having Clark with him on the committee. It seems like it would be hard for a coach to bullshit those two about coaching.

I'm not trying to kick dirt at Barbour here. I didn't complain about her selecting Dykes. But if another search becomes required in the near future, I hope we use the '01 search rather than the '12 search as the model.

72CalBear;842311182 said:

---

I agree with lots of this -- but the "fast forward" you mention has also taken its toll. Academics? Football has made negative trade-offs. New facilities? Yet to return on investment recruit-wise. Fanbase? Gone. Expectations? Likewise fallen. Any new institutional support? Marketing and advertising never jumped on the JT bandwagon - missed out on the energy he created. The Berkeley/Bay Area community will never be rabid about Cal football.

---

So what's the X-Factor in your eyes? Is it really just academics?

slider643;842310980 said:

---

So you're saying that Dykes FR recruits should have lead us to glory last season? And the incoming FR this season should lead us to glory this season?

I'll have what you're smoking.

---

Understood
But I don't think the prior regime had anything to do with Ragin, Whitener, Wilkerson, Tagaloa etc. transferring to other schools. And how many of the early NFL guys like Jackson and Moala would still be here?

Of course, word is most of them were academic casualties waiting to happen.

KevBear;842311207 said:

---

I feel this way about it too, even though I recognize myself as Monday morning quarterbacking. I have absolutely nothing to back it up, but my feeling about the last search was that Barbour went with a choice that would be hard to criticize rather than someone she personally believed in.

There's a great article on another site about the coach search that Gladstone ran back in 2001. The search committee was himself, two assistant ADs and Jack Clark. It took six weeks. He talked about the process and the pressures involved, but what really came across was how idiosyncratic his process was. Not that he was the only guy to use the process he did, but that the actual decision was very personal, subjective and particular to his experiences and the candidate. The 2012 search, facilitated by a hiring firm (DHR International), seems plastic in comparison.

Even though I've always been wary of its stultifying potential, I've come to appreciate why so many successful programs have tried to hire from "within the family." When referrals and evaluations come from people who you know are loyal to the program, you can get a better sense for the kind of personal qualities a coach has than a professional HR-style vetting will get. This is doubly true for the people who are advising the search. I'm sure a 3rd party firm wants to do well for their reputation, but they can't be expected to have the kind of investment in the outcome that people who love the program have.

It's hard to not appreciate the value that having such a successful coach like Gladstone running the search could have had. He must have access to so much intuition about a coach--even one outside of his sport--that an administrator without that experience would benefit from. And that's not even to mention having Clark with him on the committee. It seems like it would be hard for a coach to bullshit those two about coaching.

I'm not trying to kick dirt at Barbour here. I didn't complain about her selecting Dykes. But if another search becomes required in the near future, I hope we use the '01 search rather than the '12 search as the model.



So what's the X-Factor in your eyes? Is it really just academics?

---

I could guess. Looking at say, Ucla, who faces a somewhat similar academic and institutional situation, albeit no professional football teams to compete with in LA like Cal does in the Bay Area. What did they do? Simply put - hired Jim Mora and his staff, and somehow out recruited us and many others. If not the Ucla model, how about we simply look into some academic majors that are football-player friendly. Without a winning football tradition, we might need to scare our recruits less and still honor the BA from Cal. I don't mean less structured, challenging, or "easier" majors, but simply finding a more meaningful road for the football player who is largely a different creature from the other athletes at Cal. And lastly, if we Bear Insiders spent MORE of our time actually lobbying for some of the things we truly believe in, and less time blogging, we might in fact, affect some changes. Who knows really?

72CalBear;842311241 said:

---

I could guess. Looking at say, Ucla, who faces a somewhat similar academic and institutional situation, albeit no professional football teams to compete with in LA like Cal does in the Bay Area. What did they do? Simply put - hired Jim Mora and his staff, and somehow out recruited us and many others. If not the Ucla model, how about we simply look into some academic majors that are football-player friendly. Without a winning football tradition, we might need to scare our recruits less and still honor the BA from Cal. I don't mean less structured, challenging, or "easier" majors, but simply finding a more meaningful road for the football player who is largely a different creature from the other athletes at Cal. And lastly, if we Bear Insiders spent MORE of our time actually lobbying for some of the things we truly believe in, and less time blogging, we might in fact, affect some changes. Who knows really?

---

Interesting thoughts and I tend to agree. Also agree with much of what Kev has been posting as well.

edit: Kev. I wouldn't assume that the college football landscape today can be compared with what it was even 10 years ago. Just the pac-12 alone is almost completely different.

72CalBear;842311241 said:

---

I could guess. Looking at say, Ucla, who faces a somewhat similar academic and institutional situation, albeit no professional football teams to compete with in LA like Cal does in the Bay Area. What did they do? Simply put - hired Jim Mora and his staff, and somehow out recruited us and many others. If not the Ucla model, how about we simply look into some academic majors that are football-player friendly. Without a winning football tradition, we might need to scare our recruits less and still honor the BA from Cal. I don't mean less structured, challenging, or "easier" majors, but simply finding a more meaningful road for the football player who is largely a different creature from the other athletes at Cal. And lastly, if we Bear Insiders spent MORE of our time actually lobbying for some of the things we truly believe in, and less time blogging, we might in fact, affect some changes. Who knows really?

---

Mora came into a great situation at UCLA. Fantastic recruiting area--best in the Pac-12. UCLA had been recruiting well and underperforming. The big dog in town, USC, was in midst of the Reggie Bush scholarship sanctions and the final throws of the disastrous Kiffin hiring. Mora's first class benefited more than anyone from Tosh Lupoi blowing up Cal's recruiting class (freeing up a bunch of top recruits just in time for the new staff to jump on).

The power in the Pac-12 was in the North, with Kelly's Oregon and Harbaugh's Stanford. Mora won the Pac-12 South losing to Pac-12 North teams OSU, Cal (the Maynard-lead Bears beat the Bruins 43-17) and Stanford (and then to Stanford again in the championship game). They did not play Oregon or Washington and beat hapless WSU 44-36.

heartofthebear;842311254 said:

---

Interesting thoughts and I tend to agree. Also agree with much of what Kev has been posting as well.

edit: Kev. I wouldn't assume that the college football landscape today can be compared with what it was even 10 years ago. Just the pac-12 alone is almost completely different.

---

I certainly agree that observation is true. Is there something in specific you meant to apply that to?

Bobodeluxe;842310878 said:

---

Sonny let Tosh recruit idiots. Sonny let Teddy recruit only Elite 11's.

If Sonny's Freshmen and Redshirt Freshmen can't win at least 15 games, I say fire him!

After all, I went to Cal!

:woohoo:rant:woohoo

---

Going 1-11 is okay and I have no right to expect competence! After all we're Cal! :woohoo

KevBear;842311346 said:

---

I certainly agree that observation is true. Is there something in specific you meant to apply that to?

---

I'm just saying that what Dykes came into when he became HC is not the same as what JT came into. Yes we have better facilities etc. but the quality of the conference more than compensates for those advantages. When JT became HC, the only quality teams were USC, WSU and Oregon. Now there are at least 5 quality teams. That is, imo, the reason JT himself could no longer compete.

Also, most teams in the pac-12, including even lowly WSU and Colorado, have upgraded facilities. Sure, Cal's are still probably superior to most but that doesn't necessarily sell as much as winning does.

I have some real reservations with Dykes, particularly his religious like devotion to TF and his system. And I think it's possible that Dykes will be fired after this season when it is fully discovered how poor the offensive scheme is. But I still think that comparing Dykes to JT or 2002 to 2013 is not good research methodology. In order to compare two things, they have to share the same variables. I don't think you can do that in this case.

grandmastapoop;842310862 said:

---

...he compares your team to the Oakland A's (a very successful franchise, not hating on the A's, A's fans. It's just that very few teams have been able to replicate that success).

I do not take this as a good sign.


Edit: I sure some will jump on me, so let me elaborate. Last year was obviously not good. There is not much enthusiasm in the fanbase. I was not able to attend any spring practices or the spring game, so I had to rely on recaps from others. Considering we came off a 1-11 seasons, hopes are understandably low - it's always tough to tell what kind of team you have when they're playing themselves, so you tend to assume not too much of a change from the year before, especially with much the same personnel. But even the most optimistic people seem to think 4-6 wins - which is not good.

Dykes did say we were better than last year - I read that on twitter. It's hard to say if he meant we are better than we were last Spring or last season. Either way - this reference to the A's sounds like desperate rationalizing. To me it says our coach thinks we lack talent. If that's true, we are in for another long year, in all likelihood. I'd love to be proven wrong.

---

You are starting to see it gmp. Yes, people will poke holes in your post saying you are reading too much into one statement. But it's not one statement. I'll tell you the one that speaks to me this spring. The "they need to learn how to win" statement.

Here is the thing people are not getting. When you take over as head coach of a losing team, job 1 is psychological . You need to get that team to believe in you, believe in themselves, believe they can win when no one else thinks they can, believe that the program is working toward something better. Get them to trust you and themselves. You don't do it with pie in the sky, BS pronouncements that can't be backed up. You need to get buy in. Without this, nothing else matters. Nothing else will work. He failed in this. Massively. A couple guys don't buy in. Fine. Happens. Guys quit on him literally and figuratively all over the place. Their performance indicated they didn't trust the coaches or themselves. There was no confidence.

And why would there be. When the going got tough, Dykes had no confidence and he flailed all around. One week he's congratulating them for beating PSU because it's tough to win a football game. Then he's telling the media we badly need a win for our morale not only telling the world we are in a fragile psychological state, but reinforcing the fact to the players. He's calling out players for not being tough. Then its "we've got good players. How can we be this bad?" Then it's "I know, I'll just tell them that something happened in the UCLA game that brought us together and we've had the best week of practice and maybe they'll believe that everything is going to change startingNow! Uh oh. I mean Now! No? How aboutNow!" Then he's just throwing guys in the lineup desperately trying to just make any change to see what happens without rhyme or reason. And then going back to the start. I know. This week I'll just change every position on the O-line. How are players supposed to believe in a program when the coach is on the sideline asking the magic 8-ball for answers because he shows no signs he knows what to do?

It is sad to have to make this comparison, that the standard is this low, but there is only one remotely similar team in the conference right now and that is Colorado. They stink. Other than kicking our asses, they lost their Pac-12 games by an average of 47-18. Even I thought there was no way we were going to lose to Colorado. You know why we got our asses kicked? Because MacIntyre accomplished 1 thing (which was one more thing than Dykes accomplished). Those delusional idiots, even coming off a 59-7 loss, actually believed in themselves. Believed that they were accomplishing something. The players. The damned radio announcers. Everyone. So they believed themselves into beating us. Job 1 accomplished. Maybe the only thing accomplished, but it was accomplished. That is the difference between 4-8 and 1-11. Cal will not get better until this is accomplished and there is no sign it is happening. They just need to learn how to win. Guess who is supposed to teach them!

Then when we haven't been able to get buy in rather than realizing they've blown it, we blame the miscreants and talk about blowing the whole thing up.

This Moneyball thing is just another in a line of a very Holmoesque pattern. I had hopes for Dykes when they had the stories about how he really wanted THIS job. Hoped that he saw this as a special opportunity. Maybe he did/does. But since he hit adversity, there have been consistent comments about our limitations, our obstacles. That is Holmoe all over.

EVERY school has an aspect of Moneyball. Basic recruiting. Identify players that are undervalued in the market. If you aren't a traditional top ten program you are to some extent playing Moneyball. Might be a valid thing to say. NOT FOR THE COACH. You ask an industry analysts why a company's sales are down, he may rightly say because the company's products suck. But the CEO or the head of marketing or the head of sales better not say that.

The A's have a low payroll. It is black and white. It is about dollars. Very little the GM can do to create any more value. But a college coach is in large part responsible for creating the capital that he can use to recruit and then sells recruits by convincing them that the value of the program is high. So you don't go to the media and tell them that you are the equivalent to a low payroll team.

But the main issue is the mindset. We are not the A's. We may not be the Yankees, but we are not the A's. Of course we have our challenges. Some of them are unique. EVERY SCHOOL has challenges. We've got a lot going for us also. Snyder saw that and sold it. Tedford saw that and sold it. Holmoe didn't see it and constantly worried more about limitations (or is it excuses) than opportunities. Even Gilbertson, when the UW press tried to throw him a softball and give him the chance to say that he failed at Cal because of Cal said Cal was a great place to recruit to. Until Dykes realizes what makes Cal special and sells it AND BELIEVES IT, if he doesn't get over this loser mentality and see the opportunity instead of the excuses, he is doomed to fail.

OaktownBear;842311454 said:

---

You are starting to see it gmp. Yes, people will poke holes in your post saying you are reading too much into one statement. But it's not one statement. I'll tell you the one that speaks to me this spring. The "they need to learn how to win" statement.

Here is the thing people are not getting. When you take over as head coach of a losing team, job 1 is psychological . You need to get that team to believe in you, believe in themselves, believe they can win when no one else thinks they can, believe that the program is working toward something better. Get them to trust you and themselves. You don't do it with pie in the sky, BS pronouncements that can't be backed up. You need to get buy in. Without this, nothing else matters. Nothing else will work. He failed in this. Massively. A couple guys don't buy in. Fine. Happens. Guys quit on him literally and figuratively all over the place. Their performance indicated they didn't trust the coaches or themselves. There was no confidence.

And why would there be. When the going got tough, Dykes had no confidence and he flailed all around. One week he's congratulating them for beating PSU because it's tough to win a football game. Then he's telling the media we badly need a win for our morale not only telling the world we are in a fragile psychological state, but reinforcing the fact to the players. He's calling out players for not being tough. Then its "we've got good players. How can we be this bad?" Then it's "I know, I'll just tell them that something happened in the UCLA game that brought us together and we've had the best week of practice and maybe they'll believe that everything is going to change startingNow! Uh oh. I mean Now! No? How aboutNow!" Then he's just throwing guys in the lineup desperately trying to just make any change to see what happens without rhyme or reason. And then going back to the start. I know. This week I'll just change every position on the O-line. How are players supposed to believe in a program when the coach is on the sideline asking the magic 8-ball for answers because he shows no signs he knows what to do?

It is sad to have to make this comparison, that the standard is this low, but there is only one remotely similar team in the conference right now and that is Colorado. They stink. Other than kicking our asses, they lost their Pac-12 games by an average of 47-18. Even I thought there was no way we were going to lose to Colorado. You know why we got our asses kicked? Because MacIntyre accomplished 1 thing (which was one more thing than Dykes accomplished). Those delusional idiots, even coming off a 59-7 loss, actually believed in themselves. Believed that they were accomplishing something. The players. The damned radio announcers. Everyone. So they believed themselves into beating us. Job 1 accomplished. Maybe the only thing accomplished, but it was accomplished. That is the difference between 4-8 and 1-11. Cal will not get better until this is accomplished and there is no sign it is happening. They just need to learn how to win. Guess who is supposed to teach them!

Then when we haven't been able to get buy in rather than realizing they've blown it, we blame the miscreants and talk about blowing the whole thing up.

This Moneyball thing is just another in a line of a very Holmoesque pattern. I had hopes for Dykes when they had the stories about how he really wanted THIS job. Hoped that he saw this as a special opportunity. Maybe he did/does. But since he hit adversity, there have been consistent comments about our limitations, our obstacles. That is Holmoe all over.

EVERY school has an aspect of Moneyball. Basic recruiting. Identify players that are undervalued in the market. If you aren't a traditional top ten program you are to some extent playing Moneyball. Might be a valid thing to say. NOT FOR THE COACH. You ask an industry analysts why a company's sales are down, he may rightly say because the company's products suck. But the CEO or the head of marketing or the head of sales better not say that.

The A's have a low payroll. It is black and white. It is about dollars. Very little the GM can do to create any more value. But a college coach is in large part responsible for creating the capital that he can use to recruit and then sells recruits by convincing them that the value of the program is high. So you don't go to the media and tell them that you are the equivalent to a low payroll team.

But the main issue is the mindset. We are not the A's. We may not be the Yankees, but we are not the A's. Of course we have our challenges. Some of them are unique. EVERY SCHOOL has challenges. We've got a lot going for us also. Snyder saw that and sold it. Tedford saw that and sold it. Holmoe didn't see it and constantly worried more about limitations (or is it excuses) than opportunities. Even Gilbertson, when the UW press tried to throw him a softball and give him the chance to say that he failed at Cal because of Cal said Cal was a great place to recruit to. Until Dykes realizes what makes Cal special and sells it AND BELIEVES IT, if he doesn't get over this loser mentality and see the opportunity instead of the excuses, he is doomed to fail.

---

zero confidence .. whose fault is it sonny ? or a tier of ranking responsibility among the staff ? the players ? or sandy and the hiring firm ? or all of the above ?

how long does it take to instill confidence and what does it come from ?

was sonny always behind the eight ball because was he is not from the NFL or didnt attend CAL ? o

whom do you think/ know would instilled the confidence within them to " learn to win " quickly or quicker

do you still see same team or do need till aug /sept to get idea of where you think things are headed

internally what can be done ?

OaktownBear;842311454 said:

---

You are starting to see it gmp. Yes, people will poke holes in your post saying you are reading too much into one statement. But it's not one statement. I'll tell you the one that speaks to me this spring. The "they need to learn how to win" statement.

Here is the thing people are not getting. When you take over as head coach of a losing team, job 1 is psychological . You need to get that team to believe in you, believe in themselves, believe they can win when no one else thinks they can, believe that the program is working toward something better. Get them to trust you and themselves. You don't do it with pie in the sky, BS pronouncements that can't be backed up. You need to get buy in. Without this, nothing else matters. Nothing else will work. He failed in this. Massively. A couple guys don't buy in. Fine. Happens. Guys quit on him literally and figuratively all over the place. Their performance indicated they didn't trust the coaches or themselves. There was no confidence.

And why would there be. When the going got tough, Dykes had no confidence and he flailed all around. One week he's congratulating them for beating PSU because it's tough to win a football game. Then he's telling the media we badly need a win for our morale not only telling the world we are in a fragile psychological state, but reinforcing the fact to the players. He's calling out players for not being tough. Then its "we've got good players. How can we be this bad?" Then it's "I know, I'll just tell them that something happened in the UCLA game that brought us together and we've had the best week of practice and maybe they'll believe that everything is going to change startingNow! Uh oh. I mean Now! No? How aboutNow!" Then he's just throwing guys in the lineup desperately trying to just make any change to see what happens without rhyme or reason. And then going back to the start. I know. This week I'll just change every position on the O-line. How are players supposed to believe in a program when the coach is on the sideline asking the magic 8-ball for answers because he shows no signs he knows what to do?

It is sad to have to make this comparison, that the standard is this low, but there is only one remotely similar team in the conference right now and that is Colorado. They stink. Other than kicking our asses, they lost their Pac-12 games by an average of 47-18. Even I thought there was no way we were going to lose to Colorado. You know why we got our asses kicked? Because MacIntyre accomplished 1 thing (which was one more thing than Dykes accomplished). Those delusional idiots, even coming off a 59-7 loss, actually believed in themselves. Believed that they were accomplishing something. The players. The damned radio announcers. Everyone. So they believed themselves into beating us. Job 1 accomplished. Maybe the only thing accomplished, but it was accomplished. That is the difference between 4-8 and 1-11. Cal will not get better until this is accomplished and there is no sign it is happening. They just need to learn how to win. Guess who is supposed to teach them!

Then when we haven't been able to get buy in rather than realizing they've blown it, we blame the miscreants and talk about blowing the whole thing up.

This Moneyball thing is just another in a line of a very Holmoesque pattern. I had hopes for Dykes when they had the stories about how he really wanted THIS job. Hoped that he saw this as a special opportunity. Maybe he did/does. But since he hit adversity, there have been consistent comments about our limitations, our obstacles. That is Holmoe all over.

EVERY school has an aspect of Moneyball. Basic recruiting. Identify players that are undervalued in the market. If you aren't a traditional top ten program you are to some extent playing Moneyball. Might be a valid thing to say. NOT FOR THE COACH. You ask an industry analysts why a company's sales are down, he may rightly say because the company's products suck. But the CEO or the head of marketing or the head of sales better not say that.

The A's have a low payroll. It is black and white. It is about dollars. Very little the GM can do to create any more value. But a college coach is in large part responsible for creating the capital that he can use to recruit and then sells recruits by convincing them that the value of the program is high. So you don't go to the media and tell them that you are the equivalent to a low payroll team.

But the main issue is the mindset. We are not the A's. We may not be the Yankees, but we are not the A's. Of course we have our challenges. Some of them are unique. EVERY SCHOOL has challenges. We've got a lot going for us also. Snyder saw that and sold it. Tedford saw that and sold it. Holmoe didn't see it and constantly worried more about limitations (or is it excuses) than opportunities. Even Gilbertson, when the UW press tried to throw him a softball and give him the chance to say that he failed at Cal because of Cal said Cal was a great place to recruit to. Until Dykes realizes what makes Cal special and sells it AND BELIEVES IT, if he doesn't get over this loser mentality and see the opportunity instead of the excuses, he is doomed to fail.

---

Pretty much how I felt during the season, that it was a complete failure of leadership.

Reading Dykes comments this spring just give me a terrible feeling about the expectations he has for this season.

heartofthebear;842311420 said:

---

I'm just saying that what Dykes came into when he became HC is not the same as what JT came into. Yes we have better facilities etc. but the quality of the conference more than compensates for those advantages. When JT became HC, the only quality teams were USC, WSU and Oregon. Now there are at least 5 quality teams. That is, imo, the reason JT himself could no longer compete.

Also, most teams in the pac-12, including even lowly WSU and Colorado, have upgraded facilities. Sure, Cal's are still probably superior to most but that doesn't necessarily sell as much as winning does.

I have some real reservations with Dykes, particularly his religious like devotion to TF and his system. And I think it's possible that Dykes will be fired after this season when it is fully discovered how poor the offensive scheme is. But I still think that comparing Dykes to JT or 2002 to 2013 is not good research methodology. In order to compare two things, they have to share the same variables. I don't think you can do that in this case.

---

Yeah, I'm cognizant of how different the Pac-12 landscape is now versus in 2002, but I think the willingness to attribute Tedford's eventual failure to it is misplaced.

Even when they played against superior teams, those early Tedford teams looked a lot different than the late year models did. For his first six years, even against good teams, the vast majority of losses were competitive affairs where one or two plays--usually turnovers, or inability to capitalize in the redzone--decided the outcome. Blowouts were very rare.

Those later teams didn't have the same mental toughness. Blowouts became common place, and were not necessarily suffered at the hands of especially good teams. You could usually tell right out of the gate if it was going to be one of those days. Like Oregon in '09. Or UW in '09. Or SC in '10. Etc. The team would look like it just wasn't ready to be out there. That wasn't a matter of the strength of competition. It was preparation and leadership--or lack thereof.

I really think there's no better way of illustrating what happened to JT than to watch his introductory press conference in '02 and then watch some of his press conferences from '10 onward. The guy just burned out.

Anyway, to your main point about not being able to compare JT and Dykes because their circumstances are significantly different: I partly agree. Their circumstances are meaningfully different, but I don't think this categorically eliminates the validity of comparisons, it just makes a lot of comparisons qualifiable. It's going to be really hard to find another coaching situation that exactly parallels what Dykes is facing here, but that doesn't make his situation beyond compare. It just means you have to work a little bit to draw parallels.

OaktownBear;842311454 said:

---

...Then he's just throwing guys in the lineup desperately trying to just make any change to see what happens without rhyme or reason. And then going back to the start. I know. This week I'll just change every position on the O-line. ...

---

I had the impression that INJURIES to critical players, projected starters, had a bit to do with "throwing guys in the lineup desperately" and "changing every position on the O-line" ... resulting in raw freshmen playing out of position, even.
But, that was last year, gone.

Improvement this year? Things seem better and summer and fall camp will help things improve more.
August 30 is the start of the next season.
Groveling in doom and gloom seems pointless to me but many seem to actually enjoy it.

Looperbear;842310973 said:

---

Exactly. Last year at this time Sonny said the talent was there and that we would surprise some people. If he knew what he was doing he would have recognized a talent deficiency, adjusted his system to play to their strengths and recruited to correct the deficient areas. He's failed on those fronts.

Plus comparing yourself to the A's is absurd. Beane and Alderson who hired him, Depodesta, Forst are nothing short of brilliant; Sonny and Co., not so much.

---

This..

and we sure as heck did surprise some people..mostly the fan base and potential recruits.

slider643;842311130 said:

---

Don't let the facts get in the way of hating Dykes.

---

1-11, plus "surprising people", plus "third best recruiting class", zero top 30 position players committed, and now the A's comparison.

What the freak is there to like??

:facepalm





That's the fact Jack...

When you first come in, you are not exactly sure what you are going to find. Get a pass. Then you are not sure how good your team is. Get a pass. You might even feel pretty good about your past history, and your new guys, so you think in exuberant mood you might surprise some naysayers. Get a pass. Oops guys you thought are good are getting hurt. Lots of them. Get a pass. You go all in on a QB thinking he has what it takes despite other guy's blue shirt year and bleeding blue/gold. Have to choose somebody, right? Get a pass. Force other guy to perform quickly, effectively, or sit him down. Get a pass. Defensive hire maybe didn't quite have the requisites despite injuries, etc. Get a pass. Try hard to fix APR of concern. Get a pass. Season shot, but recruiting pretty good under the circumstances. Get a pass. Make coach change, got new guys, less injuries. Get a pass. Ok sorry but remember though, only 3 things can happen with a pass, and 2 of 'em are bad. Factorial = bad odds, 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 etc.

However, there was no real history there at start of last year for coach to have proven results to facilitate the Oak's desired mental confidence. One must have results to gain respect and success buy-in. Which means, under the new circumstances, it is crucial that the first couple of games generate a good result, a good feeling, a good history, from which the belief can rise. Then, get a pass. A good one.

GoBears58;842311682 said:

---

1-11, plus "surprising people", plus "third best recruiting class", zero top 30 position players committed, and now the A's comparison.

What the freak is there to like??

:facepalm





That's the fact Jack...

---

You prove my point. What you just said has nothing to do with Tedford's recruiting. But don't let that stop you from hating Dykes.

KevBear;842311469 said:

---

Yeah, I'm cognizant of how different the Pac-12 landscape is now versus in 2002, but I think the willingness to attribute Tedford's eventual failure to it is misplaced.

Even when they played against superior teams, those early Tedford teams looked a lot different than the late year models did. For his first six years, even against good teams, the vast majority of losses were competitive affairs where one or two plays--usually turnovers, or inability to capitalize in the redzone--decided the outcome. Blowouts were very rare.

Those later teams didn't have the same mental toughness. Blowouts became common place, and were not necessarily suffered at the hands of especially good teams. You could usually tell right out of the gate if it was going to be one of those days. Like Oregon in '09. Or UW in '09. Or SC in '10. Etc. The team would look like it just wasn't ready to be out there. That wasn't a matter of the strength of competition. It was preparation and leadership--or lack thereof.

I really think there's no better way of illustrating what happened to JT than to watch his introductory press conference in '02 and then watch some of his press conferences from '10 onward. The guy just burned out.

Anyway, to your main point about not being able to compare JT and Dykes because their circumstances are significantly different: I partly agree. Their circumstances are meaningfully different, but I don't think this categorically eliminates the validity of comparisons, it just makes a lot of comparisons qualifiable. It's going to be really hard to find another coaching situation that exactly parallels what Dykes is facing here, but that doesn't make his situation beyond compare. It just means you have to work a little bit to draw parallels.

---

First let me be clear that I am pretty much done defending Dykes as I had during most of his first season. The reasons why I am changing my tone would require another thread.

But here is a list of what Dykes has to deal with that make his job more difficult than JT had when he was first hired.

[LIST=1]

Dykes has to dig Cal out of an academic situation. Yes, JT had one too, but this one is different. This one requires an entire shift in how Cal recruits so that the students don't just survive through their junior year but are capable of completing their degree.

Dykes has to work under SB from the start. SB is a great AD in general, but not so much with regard to football.

Dykes is not his own man when it comes to offense. He is tied to an offensive philosophy that is not timed well for success in the pac-12. Note: This is his fault and the main reason why I no longer can defend him.

Dykes' learning curve is longer than JT's because JT came directly from the pac-12, pac-10 at the time.

There is considerably more $$ and high stakes involved in the conference which often leads to more disparity between schools that try to maintain academic standards for their players (ie Cal) and those that don't (ie ASU).

The NCAA, which is supposed to regulate the above so their isn't a disparity, is so much more bought out by ESPN and other TV folks that they are perfectly willing to ignore what is becoming an increasingly unlevel playing field tilted against schools like Cal.


All of this, which is partly just conjecture on my part, is not to say that Dykes, even without the injury problems, is going to turn it around at Cal.

I think Dykes is very much out of touch himself with what it takes to win at Cal, which is not necessarily the same as what it takes to win other places.

If you look at what Kaufman has done, you can get a blueprint for what works at Cal----SIMPLIFICATION!!

Especially when this generation of football players at Cal have so much academic pressure on them to improve Cal's standing, they do not need exotic and complex schemes that require extra work to perfect.

This was JT's problem. I thought, because I believed the rhetoric coming from Tony Franklin, that the new scheme was going to be easy to perfect. That is not really true.

After more than a year, a very talented WR core, many with good size and strength, can't seem to block effectively. And the OL has to make manuevers akin to a yoga master in order to execute the vertical blocking set. And expecting that Cal can get the same kind of linemen they get in Texas or Kentucky is yet again an example of misapplying what works other places to what needs to happen at Cal.

What needs to happen for Cal to be succcessful is less requirements for execution and more time getting in shape so they can compete with the Oregons and the Stanfords, each of whom have great conditioning programs. This is particularly true of our OLs.

We also need to get high school recruits that want to get beyond their high school system and begin to prepare for what is successful and has been successful in the pros for decades...power football. Despite the fact that the NFL is more pass happy, almost none of them run a TFS type system. And Seattle was and is very much a power run team, using, BTW, a Cal back which was recruited to a power run system at Cal.

The other and bigger problem I have with Dykes is something that many here were concerned with from the start, his lack of defensive focus.

Lost amongst all the drama and injuries last year was the fact that Dykes put Griffin Piatt at WR and flipped Joel Willis to WR from DB. They are now both at DB. But, had he developed them as DBs from the start last spring, last season might have gone a bit better.

The really frustrating thing about this is that he already had plenty of WR/TE players on the roster. Piatt and Willis would have been buried 3 deep. He even did this knowing that Piatt was a legit safety prospect as folks can see now.

Dykes history is largely as a WR coach and imo, that is what he basically still is. His bias towards WRs in recruiting is evidenced by the disparity in offers between that position and others. To say that we need more WRs because of the system just begs the question. If the system requires a large disparity of one position over others, then it is no wonder we are thin at other positions like LB and DT. Despite what Dykes says, the TF system does not need 12 WR/TE. Only about 8 guys got meaningful playing time last year (Rodgers, Harper, Treggs, Lawler, S. Anderson, Grissom, Powe, Bouza). The 3rd string hardly saw the field and, if more guys are needed, the RB unit can be used to supplement as was the case when Bigelow and Muhammed were last year.

So Kev.-- I am not a Dykes defender, but I do think his job is more difficult than some people think. In all honesty, if Chip Kelly, David Shaw and Jim Mora had all coached at Cal as part of the same staff, Cal would not win more than a few games per year. And that is why coaches like that won't come to Cal, because they know what it takes to win and Cal makes that very difficult.

But Dykes has made a difficult job practically impossible by rigidly adhering to his biases despite the evidence. I can't forgive him for that, even though the injuries last year were significant and would have devasted the season under any coach.