beeasyed;842317123 said:

---

from Chad's own mouth, looks like our ex-true frosh ILB is transferring to Oklahoma State.

happy Friday.

---

Happy 2013

Why are you guys torturing yourselves in the offseason? Enjoy your Spring and Summer. Take a break. You'll need one between the '13 and '14 seasons.

KevBear, thanks for the long post. I'm in entire agreement with your analysis of year 1 of Sonny.

I don't think Sonny's the devil or a bad guy. Heck he may even be a good coach... but not at this level. I think the guy is in over his head. The lack of defense at LaTech and hiring of Buh / mismanagement of our defense shows that he's lacking in this department as head coach. Even on offense the guy looks like he's trying different combinations of players out of desperation rather than something purposeful.

Art might help him pull off a couple wins but I don't see long term success for this coaching staff as a whole.

freshfunk;842317130 said:

---

KevBear, thanks for the long post. I'm in entire agreement with your analysis of year 1 of Sonny.

I don't think Sonny's the devil or a bad guy. Heck he may even be a good coach... but not at this level. I think the guy is in over his head. The lack of defense at LaTech and hiring of Buh / mismanagement of our defense shows that he's lacking in this department as head coach. Even on offense the guy looks like he's trying different combinations of players out of desperation rather than something purposeful.

Art might help him pull off a couple wins but I don't see long term success for this coaching staff as a whole.

---

He may very well be in over his head and that is how I'm inclined to believe but very few coaches wouldn't have been considering the circumstances of last year. His hand was largely forced into trying different combinations of players and yes, it was desperate. The purpose was to try and stem the bleeding. Trying to play chess with all pawns and not enough of them is a challenge. I'll make a judgement when his pieces are in place.

NYCGOBEARS;842317132 said:

---

He may very well be in over his head and that is how I'm inclined to believe but very few coaches wouldn't have been considering the circumstances of last year. His hand was largely forced into trying different combinations of players and yes, it was desperate. The purpose was to try and stem the bleeding. Trying to play chess with all pawns and not enough of them is a challenge. I'll make a judgement when his pieces are in place.

---

I don't think that he was playing chess with all pawns. Sure he had a few pawns, but he also had a few good football players, also some checkers, a few Monopoly houses, a couple of those little plastic people from the game of life, a handful of marbles, a Bazooka wrapper, dryer lint, a Topps Bob Brenly card from his Blue Jay season, some random Lego blocks, and Buh.

going4roses;842317117 said:

---

trying to make light of the uncertainty

who now says still hell no to HC being H. jackson and whom is willing to admit couldnt have hurt much more than it did ..

sonny and spread vs h jackson pro system ..

---

Man. You're like everyone on here. Like to kick a dog when he's already down. And you've already broken the owner's jaw.

NYCGOBEARS;842317132 said:

---

He may very well be in over his head and that is how I'm inclined to believe but very few coaches wouldn't have been considering the circumstances of last year. His hand was largely forced into trying different combinations of players and yes, it was desperate. The purpose was to try and stem the bleeding. Trying to play chess with all pawns and not enough of them is a challenge. I'll make a judgement when his pieces are in place.

---

In your estimation, how long should he have to get his pieces in place, and what sort of results are tolerable until he does?

Wow, this is getting so ridiculous that I am going to have to break my response up into two postings. We exceeded the 13624 character limit.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

Here's the trap. You've fallen victim to the conventional wisdom that a new coach must be given X number of years in a fair process.

---

Thanks for providing me such a self revealing and illuminating disclosure regarding my folly. I guess I will just have to chew my leg off.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

It's not that there's nothing valid behind this sentiment. Sample size is of course important when assessing data, and right now our sample size with Dykes is essentially one season. What's more is rebuilding a program is a process where Year 5 is expected to look very much better than Year 1. I have no problem with these as guidelines. What they do not say, however, is that the Year 1 results are insignificant. It is perfectly possible for a coach to return, even in a single year, results that cut through the natural ambiguity of the rebuilding process and cast real concern on his competency.

---

Now you are vindicating me? My sentiment is valid!!!! I want to quote one of my favorite bears here "I don't need easy, I need perfectly possible". (Emphasis all yours) It even took Jorge more than a few years to reach the NBA finals.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

In these instances, coaches are still not fired after Year 1, but that's because of practical limitations associated with AD resources and the dynamics of appearances (that a school may not want to get a reputation for firing coaches unjustly, or that an AD would not want the pressure and accountability that would follow making such a controversial executive decision), not because there isn't a rational basis to judge the coach's performance.

---

Wow, the first half of what you said sounds a lot like Cal football. The second half sounds mutually exclusive to me.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

You don't think that the team's performance in '13 was bad enough to warrant removing Dykes (practical limitations notwithstanding). Ok, I think you're wrong, but we'll look the details next. For now, can't we agree that there is a level of poor team performance even in the first year where you would have to reevaluate and consider immediate action (again, notwithstanding practical limitations)?

---

I think the teams performance was really bad, but I don't think the bad result was all of Dykes doing.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

If instead, Dykes had gone 0-12 and lost every game by 50+, wouldn't you say "uh, maybe we made a mistake?" Is that an absurdly unrealistic example? Of course it is. Of course a coach who performs that unfathomably badly should lose the benefit of the doubt. You couldn't just say "it's too short-sighted to pull the plug after Year 1, that's not going to help right the ship." But on the scale of actual results, the season Dykes just produced was the realistic equivalent of unfathomably bad. It was the worst season in Cal history. One of the worst seasons in the modern history of the conference. That alone, before any other factors are looked at, should at least open the door to a reevaluation. Why? Because it's very rare that a program ever recovers after a season like that with the same coach at the helm.

---

For starters, Dykes didn't go 0-12 or lose every game by +50 points. So we are better than your hypothetical example. I agree with you that an unfathomably bad coach should lose the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think we know whether Dykes is unfathomably bad yet. The team had a bad first season, but that doesn't tell me he is a bad coach.

So I have a question for you. What coaches am I talking about in the following example?

Coach A / Year 1: 3 wins
<<Coaching Change>>
Coach B/ Year 2: 1 win
Coach B/ Year 3: 7 wins

Guess what. Cal had a coach by the name of Pete Elliott who took over a 3 win team from the great and esteemed Pappy Waldorf in 1956 and found himself with a single win season in 1957. Do you know what Pete did the next year? He won 7 games and took the first place Bears to a Rose Bowl appearance. Some may have been glad that Pete was given the benefit of the doubt. He proved a lot of people wrong (and then right the next season :facepalm).

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

Now, about last season. Yes, Dykes did not take over a strong roster. But before the start of the 2013 season, typical preseason predictions had this team winning 4-5 games. Dykes himself corroborated those predictions by stating his positive appraisal of the talent left behind by Tedford. As we all know, it didn't turn out that way, so we look for explanations.

---

A prediction is simply an estimate that may go higher or lower. Clearly the pumpers were buying. Perhaps they didn't account for the, and I am sorry, the injuries and resulting youthfulness of the backups. Or the other factors that may have limited our upside potential.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

The explanation that casts Dykes positively is, of course, the injuries. There were a lot of them, they are presumably outside of Dykes' influence and they unquestionably affected the team's performance. Are they enough by themselves to cast enough ambiguity on the product that was last season to warrant holding judgment against Dykes?

No.

---

That is your opinion that is not shared among everybody. Perhaps you will ultimately be correct that Dykes is not the guy. Perhaps Dykes will take the road of a Frank Wickhorst. As I said, and conventional wisdom suggests, a coach should be given some time to make positive progress. Studies have shown that white coaches get about 3 years on average before they get canned when expectations are not met. Interestingly, black coaches seem to make it closer to 7 years according to one study (although I think study was flawed).

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

The defense was absolutely terrible from the very beginning. Yes they were missing guys against Northwestern, but NU was missing key guys too. They still got shredded by one of the worst teams in the Big Ten. Then there was Portland State. What happened there cannot be explained by injuries, and makes a mockery of attempts to paint the defense's subsequent failures on the accelerating injuries. It was coaching, a fact that Dykes himself tacitly declared when he fired the entire defensive staff after the season--a staff that he picked earlier that year!

---

No quibble for me on that part. I claim that Dykes' decisiveness on getting a new D coaching staff was a positive of last season and might be what gets him back your good graces. Time will tell.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

The offense was terrible too. It was a palliative to a lot of people that the offense racked up a lot of yards through the air, but it was still the worst scoring offense in the conference. Unlike the defense, the offense's performance doesn't have a laundry list of injuries to hide behind. They lost two starters they whole year, Adcock and Cochran. Does it suck to lose guys? Yeah. But two lost starters on a unit is not anything egregious. If that is all it takes to sink Dykes then the program should load up on life preservers.

---

We lost Adcock at Oregon (game 4) for the season. A particularly bad loss given he was our starting center, at a position of exceptional importance in a system where the center calls the blocking assignments. Cochran was lost before Adcock I believe. Not to mention Tyndall was out at the same time. Conventional wisdom suggest that games are won and lost in the trenches. We had a long record under Tedford of under performing offensive line play. I think Tedford passed that on to Dykes like a bad case of gonorrhea. It continued and was exacerbated by the fact that the system demanded different things from the players than they were used to doing. Losing 2 starters in the first 4 games along with some of our depth on the OL didn't allow the line to gel over the season. I don't see this as an excuse, because I don't think anybody could control the injuries.

My second installment. And I am done. Like forever on this thread. Last shot is yours.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

As for the excuses of installing a new system or cleaning up team morale, they're both bullshit.

Dykes' system is supposedly geared for simplicity. We heard constantly about that simplicity being a virtue, about how few plays the players needed to know. Goff quoted Dykes as saying he could teach his system to a bunch of 4th graders. Now you want to use a learning curve as an explanation for the offense's failures?

---

I disagree. The system is simple, but based on timing. Timing that required practice repetition by the same players overtime to master it. What you seem to forget, or ignore, is that we had a stream of players at almost every position on the field dropping out due to injury. There was no continuity on game day or on the practice field. These are facts and they are indisputable in my mind. Do I like the results, no. But that doesn't change the context surrounding the team's performance.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

The team morale should have been an opportunity for improvement, not an albatross. The most immediate benefit that good coaches usually bring to foundering programs is an improvement in morale. The dissension on the team was an indictment of Dykes' leadership abilities. The synthesis of leadership is to get guys to perform as you want them to within their capabilities. So long as it's not abusive, how you go about doing it--buddy-buddy or hard-ass disciplinarian or professional decorum--is immaterial. It's the results you're going to be accountable for. Now, one could say that Dykes took some sort of long-view approach here, giving the team some tough medicine in Year 1 in order to instill habits and attitudes that would pay dividends in later years. Maybe, but I doubt it. When a new coach takes over a program, there's often friction in the beginning, as the new coach imposes his methods and personality over the old system--but by year's end, you usually don't hear about this as a complication any more with good coaches. You don't have the head coach yelling at the players and telling those who won't buy-in to get lost after the season ending game. The time to do that was in preseason.

---

I love the clarity of your opinionated fantasy world.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

So by ourselves we had 8.3% of all early declarants who didn't get drafted? That's not good.

In Tedford's entire 10 year tenure, how many players declared early and didn't get drafted?

---

As I stated in an earlier post, coaching changes statistically lead to more players declaring for the draft. We had a coaching change. We had a lot of players declare. Some have speculated that half our early entrants left because of discipline or academic issues. The remainder left because of draft evaluations that showed a reason to leave. One departure was a bit of a mystery, but was proven to have possibly been a reasonable choice for the player. Comparing this situation to Tedford's career here is not exactly the same, so you will have to go look it up if you feel so inclined to weave dissimilar situations.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

Yes, but I didn't say I knew why they left. I never represented it as anything other than my opinion that Dykes' leadership is the overarching factor, which is why when you called me out originally for not knowing why each of them left, I took exception. It was never claimed to be more than speculative, but since, as your pointed out, none of us know on an individual basis why each player left, and since an unusual volume of players have departed, we should be compelled to speculate and look for overarching factors.

---

I've never accepted anything you have written as anything other than your opinion. But in my opinion your writing tends to be more black and white than anything. If you took exception, I apologize - sorry.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

As for the supposed "fight" in the team last year, that's not what I saw. I saw a team that came to the realization that they were going to get blown out every week no matter what they did and became comfortable with it. They showed up and went through the motions, like a particularly intense set of scrimmages.

---

No quibble here. You see a lot of things differently.

KevBear;842317051 said:

---

Bottom line: If I could wave a magic wand void Dykes' contract, I would. I don't really know what's happened behind closed doors on the team, and I don't really know exactly how much of the disaster last year was because of injuries. To know both, you'd have to be both a football expert and an intimate of the team. I am neither of those things. All I can do is look at the results, and the results are really bad. The last 30 years of this conference's history furnishes a lot of examples of new coaches trying to rebuild a failing program and there is a very consistent pattern to their Year 1 results: when the new coach's first year is worse than the previous year, the tenure almost always turns out badly. A lot of the same excuses being used by the people who still believe in Dykes are the same excuses used by the people who still believed in Paul Wulff after his initial failure. Those excuses proved to be a smokescreen. One year should have been enough to alert them to the fact that when the new coach has a worse record than the old coach and gets blown out a lot more than the old coach, something is probably wrong with the new coach.

---

I guess we can agree to disagree, but I think you will find many examples of Cal coaches who have digressed in their first year from their predecessor's final season, only to bounce back their second year. Take a look at the following coaching tenures as examples: Nibs Price, Pete Elliott, Marv Levy (admittedly Paul Wulff territory), Ray Willsey, Mike White, Rodger Theder, Keith Gilbertson, Tom Holmoe (another not so strong example). There are a few who picked up right where their predecessor left off and got better, and even fewer who totally flamed out. It is clear that history will repeat itself, but not so clear how with Dykes. TIME WILL TELL.

KevBear;842317137 said:

---

In your estimation, how long should he have to get his pieces in place, and what sort of results are tolerable until he does?

---

I want to see marked improvement on the field as well as short and long term organizational development. Rather than set an objective based on only wins and loses, I want to see if Dykes has the capability to lead our program on an upward trajectory and sustain it. I hope for a championship caliber team in the near (2 -3 years) future and the pieces in place to continue that momentum.

This next year will give us plenty of insight into whether or not he's capable of this. 4-5 wins, mostly competitive games, few to no blowouts, palpable team chemistry and a few happy surprises would cause me to reassess my opinion of the likelihood of Dykes' success at Cal.

Anything resembling last year and I'll be the first negabear in line to yell for Sonny's (and Sandy's) head.

biely medved;842317135 said:

---

Man. You're like everyone on here. Like to kick a dog when he's already down. And you've already broken the owner's jaw.

---

correction .. that is not what i was saying .. i was simply asking a question .. and truth being told ..

i was not being a smart ass.. just wondering what people thought..

have you ever seen me say fire sonny ?... NOPE so be kwel ight

biely medved;842317135 said:

---

Man. You're like everyone on here. Like to kick a dog when he's already down. And you've already broken the owner's jaw.

---

you're wrong about the dude. he's actually one of the biggest defenders of the staff!

beeasyed;842317142 said:

---

you're wrong about the dude. he's actually one of the biggest defenders of the staff!

---

see that is exactly what im talking about .. lol .. they are here ... they are the coaches ... what it really is i got respect /want them to do well for the young men putting it on the line period point blank .. that is it and that is all

i am not knowledgeable about football / coaching to do a proper evaluation besides knowing 1-11 is **** poor/ unacceptable

yes im giving the benifit of timing .. let me see what the team does aug 30 .. are they ready and prepared ... if not.. changes must be made the sooner the better

Some people seem to give Sonny a pass for Buh, pointing at him as if he's an excuse. In my opinion he is responsible for hiring him and that is part of his evaluation of being head coach. Sonny had the financial resources to hire a good DC and, instead, hired someone unproven and inexperienced.

The key responsibility for any leader is hiring the right key people for their staff. For many CEOs that is their key responsibility when building a staff. The hiring of Buh isn't Sonny's excuse but a key reason why he should be let go. If Sonny were hamstrung financially like Tedford was, he could have some excuse. But when Buh was hired he was the highest paid DC of any public school in the P12.

Sonny should fired and replaced by someone that can take us to the championship game at least in 2014 or 15

NYCGOBEARS;842317132 said:

---

He may very well be in over his head and that is how I'm inclined to believe but very few coaches wouldn't have been considering the circumstances of last year. His hand was largely forced into trying different combinations of players and yes, it was desperate. The purpose was to try and stem the bleeding. Trying to play chess with all pawns and not enough of them is a challenge. I'll make a judgement when his pieces are in place.

---

Other than the top teams in the conference, has any coaches eve had all their pieces in place? Most teams have some weakness and they work around that.

If we looked good the first half - heck even the first quarter - of the season I might buy into your line of thinking. But there's was no more stability at the end of the season than the beginning. It was bad juggling from day 1.

Even when Tedford had injuries, there was intentionality behind his decisions (particularly at OL). In Sonny's case he seemed to be flipping a coin every game -- during the game on what to do. Ergo you see sillyness like Kline getting 7 games to turn the tide of a game only to be pulled. Maybe it's not Sonny's doing and more like Tony's but, either way, the responsibility comes back to him.

freshfunk;842317147 said:

---

Some people seem to give Sonny a pass for Buh, pointing at him as if he's an excuse. In my opinion he is responsible for hiring him and that is part of his evaluation of being head coach. Sonny had the financial resources to hire a good DC and, instead, hired someone unproven and inexperienced.

The key responsibility for any leader is hiring the right key people for their staff. For many CEOs that is their key responsibility when building a staff. The hiring of Buh isn't Sonny's excuse but a key reason why he should be let go. If Sonny were hamstrung financially like Tedford was, he could have some excuse. But when Buh was hired he was the highest paid DC of any public school in the P12.

---

I honestly don't think anyone here gives Sonny a pass for hiring Buh. I also don't think anybody here wants his contract extended either.

Almost everybody here knows that a key responsibility of management is hiring the right staff.

freshfunk;842317147 said:

---

Some people seem to give Sonny a pass for Buh, pointing at him as if he's an excuse. In my opinion he is responsible for hiring him and that is part of his evaluation of being head coach. Sonny had the financial resources to hire a good DC and, instead, hired someone unproven and inexperienced.

The key responsibility for any leader is hiring the right key people for their staff. For many CEOs that is their key responsibility when building a staff. The hiring of Buh isn't Sonny's excuse but a key reason why he should be let go. If Sonny were hamstrung financially like Tedford was, he could have some excuse. But when Buh was hired he was the highest paid DC of any public school in the P12.

---

understood ... i can see grounds for a change .. but was that all on sonny ?
a real FOOTBALL AD or asst AD with some football knowledge would not have allowed sonny to make such choice

especially since sonny's success was on Offense .. even more of reason to hire a seasoned DC no

freshfunk;842317149 said:

---

Other than the top teams in the conference, has any coaches eve had all their pieces in place? Most teams have some weakness and they work around that.

If we looked good the first half - heck even the first quarter - of the season I might buy into your line of thinking. But there's was no more stability at the end of the season than the beginning. It was bad juggling from day 1.

Even when Tedford had injuries, there was intentionality behind his decisions (particularly at OL). In Sonny's case he seemed to be flipping a coin every game -- during the game on what to do. Ergo you see sillyness like Kline getting 7 games to turn the tide of a game only to be pulled. Maybe it's not Sonny's doing and more like Tony's but, either way, the responsibility comes back to him.

---

Fresh, let's see how this year goes.

CALiforniALUM;842317139 said:

---

My second installment. And I am done. Like forever on this thread. Last shot is yours.

---

Well, great. I think I'll opt not to talk much into a dead line.

Sooooo................. Kev, what is acceptable to you?? 5-7 wins / bowl game / beating a ranked opponent??? Just askin.

Davidson;842317148 said:

---

Sonny should fired and replaced by someone that can take us to the championship game at least in 2014 or 15

---

that soon huh .. hmm k .. anyone in mind ? young/ older

next thought is with CMS bill still on the books . how much actual capital can be spent on payoffs of old coaches and acquisition of new coaches

bonsallbear;842317154 said:

---

Sooooo................. Kev, what is acceptable to you?? 5-7 wins / bowl game / beating a ranked opponent??? Just askin.

---

As a guideline*, I would be satisfied that last year was a contingent aberration if Dykes can win at least 5 games and have most of the losses be competitive affairs. Were he to go 5-7 with generally reasonable margins in the losses, that would buy him another year to show continued substantial improvement.

Of course, I say guideline because not all wins are equal. For instance, if he went 4-8 but the wins were higher quality and the margin in the losses more respectable, I could accept that as buying one more year.

The key is that it can't just be an improvement from '13 in a binary sense. The bar is too low for that. If it's 3-9 with lots of blowouts, Dykes should be replaced.

going4roses;842317117 said:

---

trying to make light of the uncertainty

who now says still hell no to HC being H. jackson and whom is willing to admit couldnt have hurt much more than it did ..

sonny and spread vs h jackson pro system ..

---

:rollinglaugh:

Perfect unanswerable question posed to those whose woulda/coulda/shoulda answers to that are totally irrelevant.
Well done!

:gobears:

KevBear;842317162 said:

---

As a guideline*, I would be satisfied that last year was a contingent aberration if Dykes can win at least 5 games and have most of the losses be competitive affairs. Were he to go 5-7 with generally reasonable margins in the losses, that would buy him another year to show continued substantial improvement.

Of course, I say guideline because not all wins are equal. For instance, if he went 4-8 but the wins were higher quality and the margin in the losses more respectable, I could accept that as buying one more year.

The key is that it can't just be an improvement from '13 in a binary sense. The bar is too low for that. If it's 3-9 with lots of blowouts, Dykes should be replaced.

---

what about 3-9 with a lot of moral defeats? Because that is my prediction for the season. If we have unprecedented health, then 4-8 or even 5-7. Wins are Colorado, Sac. St., WSU and then maybe BYU and Oregon St. I don't see any other wins on our schedule unless another team like Northwestern and/or Arizona is really banged up. The rest of the games will be against top 25 teams with the possible exception of Washington. I would expect some of those loses (i.e. Oregon) to be blowouts, meaning 21 or more points.

Basically I want to see the defense show up this year, even if the offense doesn't. I really think the offense is going to be exposed this year for better or worse and Dykes future should be evaluated as such.

Northwestern will be the barometer. A win and something really may happen this year. A close loss and SD may still have us turned around the right direction. Jury still out. A blow out...and you might wanna tune out college football this year

If we lose to Northwestern, no matter how close, this is going to be a bad season...

Cal Panda Bear;842317183 said:

---

If we lose to Northwestern, no matter how close, this is going to be a bad season...

---

I think moonpad is correct. Northwestern will be better this year and more like 2 years ago. Plus it's a difficult road game. I think if we had the defense we should have this year we would have beaten Northwestern in Berkeley. It should be interesting and it should be close, like last year. Even if we lose in similar fashion to last year, there is hope for a 4 or 5 win season. If we show up both offensively and defensively, there is hope. I think we will know a lot by how the offensive line shapes up during preseason camp. If a consistent and effective starting 5 are in place a week or 2 before the opener and Adcock and M. Cochran are back in the mix then I'd say we have a chance in Evanston.

KevBear;842317162 said:

---

As a guideline*, I would be satisfied that last year was a contingent aberration if Dykes can win at least 5 games and have most of the losses be competitive affairs. Were he to go 5-7 with generally reasonable margins in the losses, that would buy him another year to show continued substantial improvement.

Of course, I say guideline because not all wins are equal. For instance, if he went 4-8 but the wins were higher quality and the margin in the losses more respectable, I could accept that as buying one more year.

The key is that it can't just be an improvement from '13 in a binary sense. The bar is too low for that. If it's 3-9 with lots of blowouts, Dykes should be replaced.

---

I would have to agree with this as well. We should have a pretty good idea a few weeks in since most of our winnable games we in the first 5 weeks. Some seem to think this is impossibly high but I would see this as a bar to long term success.

moonpod;842317181 said:

---

Northwestern will be the barometer. A win and something really may happen this year. A close loss and SD may still have us turned around the right direction. Jury still out. A blow out...and you might wanna tune out college football this year

---

this as of aug 30th 2014 2:00pm ish cmt/11:00am ish pst we will ALL see for our own eyes what and who this team (players and coaches) really is ..

until then we ALL are just talking

GO BEARS!!!!!

loss has to be something to hang hat on... pride/passion trending up+1 couple of adjustments needed ... but clearly in loss the team / players/coaches / play calling /preparedness / execution should be on point aka confidence growing aka believing in themselves and what the coaches are teaching ...

SonOfCalVa;842317168 said:

---

:rollinglaugh:

Perfect unanswerable question posed to those whose woulda/coulda/shoulda answers to that are totally irrelevant.
Well done!

:gobears:

---

Yup, like if we had hired Gus Malzahn and his version of the spread/hurry up offense, and he had gone 1-11.

Would these same naysayers be harpooning Malzahn? Yes, and yes.

LOL

manus;842317220 said:

---

Yup, like if we had hired Gus Malzahn and his version of the spread/hurry up offense, and he had gone 1-11.

Would these same naysayers be harpooning Malzahn? Yes, and yes.

LOL

---

and that is what's known as "calling it like it is". if Malzahn was our HC and stunk it up like Sonny did, he too would deserve the criticism Sonny is receiving, although he may get some benefit of the doubt for having been in the SEC

have you taken a look at the recruiting classes that gus has had to work with wow ... alot of top rated talent to sift through / work with

go look at 2011 12 13 then look at cal and who is still here be able to contribute etc

and wasn't gus at auburn pior to coming back/ returning .. those kids on offense know whats expected for that system and it showed it ..they were well oil machine that running QB with the triple option is nasty imo

now if CAL had been running something similar to TFS/spread prior to sonny/tony.. i think we would have done bit better 3-9 at at least ...

CAL recruited to run Pro style offense and 3-4 defense .. the transition thus far has been a bumpy ride to say the least..

going4roses;842317230 said:

---

have you taken a look at the recruiting classes that gus has had to work with wow ... alot of top rated talent to sift through / work with

go look at 2011 12 13 then look at cal and who is still here be able to contribute etc

and wasn't gus at auburn pior to coming back/ returning .. those kids on offense know whats expected for that system and it showed it ..they were well oil machine that running QB with the triple option is nasty imo

now if CAL had been running something similar to TFS/spread prior to sonny/tony.. i think we would have done bit better 3-9 at at least ...

CAL recruited to run Pro style offense and 3-4 defense .. the transition thus far has been a bumpy ride to say the least..

---

I think the 4/3 defense is a big mistake. We have always had an easier time getting quality LBs than quality DTs. I think most of Pendergast's success could be attributed to the ability to get 4 talented LBs on the field at once.

heartofthebear;842317247 said:

---

I think the 4/3 defense is a big mistake. We have always had an easier time getting quality LBs than quality DTs. I think most of Pendergast's success could be attributed to the ability to get 4 talented LBs on the field at once.

---

We were short on DL and LB (and DB) last season.
4/3, 3/4, 2/5, 5/2, 1/6 ... didn't matter.