am concerned that our recruiting over the last two years has been very mediocre. am concerned that goff is not mobile enough to make plays with his legs. still think that 70% of football is the athletes you have and 30% is coaching. we are coming off two years of suffering lots of blowout losses. my opinion we need some stud athletes on both sides of the ball for a turnaround. anyone agree ??

calgo430;842317888 said:

---

am concerned that our recruiting over the last two years has been very mediocre. am concerned that goff is not mobile enough to make plays with his legs. still think that 70% of football is the athletes you have and 30% is coaching. we are coming off two years of suffering lots of blowout losses. my opinion we need some stud athletes on both sides of the ball for a turnaround. anyone agree ??

---

I think posts like these are like giant turds.

The flies (they know who they are) will now come in and circle (respond) to said turd.

Remember the old college football expression:
It's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

Our Jimmy's are so-so, our Joe's are oft-injured, and our X's and O's are Dykes/Franklin.
3-9 if things break right for Cal.

MiZery, right now Cal athletics is a giant turd. Why would the message board not reflect that. I've got no issue with delusional sunshine pumpers.

BearBoarBlarney;842317899 said:

---

MiZery, right now Cal athletics is a giant turd. Why would the message board not reflect that. I've got no issue with delusional sunshine pumpers.

---

Just to be clear, I meant

Giant Turd = the board members who constantly spew their anti Dykes stuff.

They're more like Shetland Ponies than Thoroughbred's.

calgo430;842317888 said:

---

am concerned that our recruiting over the last two years has been very mediocre. am concerned that goff is not mobile enough to make plays with his legs. still think that 70% of football is the athletes you have and 30% is coaching. we are coming off two years of suffering lots of blowout losses. my opinion we need some stud athletes on both sides of the ball for a turnaround. anyone agree ??

---

CA Chrome did it. It's our year.

With respect to Dykes, I think many of us would like to see him succeed as he seems to be a personable enough guy and not some Saban-esque dictator, but the problem is that I am still waiting for a glimmer, some small tangible sign, that he's a competent Pac-12 level coach.

I don't care what he says, I don't critique what he says, and I don't parse his statements to death or look to read into his "deeper meaning." It doesn't matter because his credibility is zero right now. He has to prove that he knows how to put at least a semi-competent product on the field.

calgo430;842317888 said:

---

am concerned that our recruiting over the last two years has been very mediocre. am concerned that goff is not mobile enough to make plays with his legs. still think that 70% of football is the athletes you have and 30% is coaching. we are coming off two years of suffering lots of blowout losses. my opinion we need some stud athletes on both sides of the ball for a turnaround. anyone agree ??

---

by that standard WSU should continue to suck, year in and year out. somehow Leach turned it around last season. somehow Riley manages to make do with his under-recruited guys every season. oh, and by some miracle, we let the vastly under-talented Colorado stomp us too.

sure, we have had huge recruiting misses, and we are thin at certain spots, and they're very unusual, yet these are issues other schools have dealt with season after season. was ours more extreme than average? yes. but 1-11, extreme? blowouts in almost every game w/in the 1st quarter, extreme? getting rocked by COLORADO, extreme?

UW went 0-11 in 2008, then won 5 games the very next season w/ the same players, including against #3 U$C and #19....CAL. lost to #11 LSU by 8 points. Sark may not have led them to any BCS bowls, but that was an immediate improvement in morale and leadership from their previous coach with roughly the same roster. i can't say that i have seen any improvements in those departments yet, besides the lip service paid in interviews.

MiZery;842317891 said:

---

I think posts like these are like giant turds.

The flies (they know who they are) will now come in and circle (respond) to said turd.

---

How ironic.

FWIW, my buddy has coached in both the NFL and in the Pac 10. He thought with college football coaching accounted for about 75% of success and the athletes 25%. For the NFL, however, he thought it was completely the opposite.

My casual observations lead me to think he is correct. I can remember quite a few examples of a new coach turning a college program around very rapidly. Not so many in the NFL. (Though, Chip Kelly and Andy Reid both had terrific success last season in their first years)

calgo430;842317888 said:

---

am concerned that our recruiting over the last two years has been very mediocre. am concerned that goff is not mobile enough to make plays with his legs. still think that 70% of football is the athletes you have and 30% is coaching. we are coming off two years of suffering lots of blowout losses. my opinion we need some stud athletes on both sides of the ball for a turnaround. anyone agree ??

---

If only Tosh were here.

anyone agree that this thread has too many punctuation marks of various sorts?

beeasyed;842317905 said:

---

by that standard WSU should continue to suck, year in and year out. somehow Leach turned it around last season. somehow Riley manages to make do with his under-recruited guys every season. oh, and by some miracle, we let the vastly under-talented Colorado stomp us too.

sure, we have had huge recruiting misses, and we are thin at certain spots, and they're very unusual, yet these are issues other schools have dealt with season after season. was ours more extreme than average? yes. but 1-11, extreme? blowouts in almost every game w/in the 1st quarter, extreme? getting rocked by COLORADO, extreme?

UW went 0-11 in 2008, then won 5 games the very next season w/ the same players, including against #3 U$C and #19....CAL. lost to #11 LSU by 8 points. Sark may not have led them to any BCS bowls, but that was an immediate improvement in morale and leadership from their previous coach with roughly the same roster. i can't say that i have seen any improvements in those departments yet, besides the lip service paid in interviews.

---

right @ wash st with players like daquawn brown CB started last year and did well ... that could not qualify for CAL

going4roses;842317926 said:

---

right @ wash st with players like daquawn brown CB started last year and did well ... that could not qualify for CAL

---

ohhh on your high horse now.

so Cal probably should be#6 in the country, huh? b/c the only players that can qualify at Cal AND can beat us are probably Furd, Notre Dame, Michigan, UCLA, and U$C. we should probably also tell the SEC that it doesn't matter that they can beat us b/c they're players are all so stoopid. why win games at all? we have academic prestige at Cal.

who CARES that the players on WSU wouldn't cut it in the classroom at Cal? they were a bottom-feeder team that was a free "W" for us. then Colorado was when it joined the PAC, and they stomped us too. now we are.

OP asked if it was a recruiting issue. the only thing WSU, Colo, and Cal have in common is that we all got new coaching staffs in the last 2 seasons. their recruiting classes haven't gotten better than ours in that same period. the last excuse we need in the long list of excuses is that "we don't have the horses", especially b/c that type of thinking leads to "Sonny needs another 3 years to see his freshmen recruits turn into seniors".

beeasyed;842317937 said:

---

ohhh on your high horse now.

so Cal probably should be#6 in the country, huh? b/c the only players that can qualify at Cal AND can beat us are probably Furd, Notre Dame, Michigan, UCLA, and U$C. we should probably also tell the SEC that it doesn't matter that they can beat us b/c they're players are all so stoopid. why win games at all? we have academic prestige at Cal.

who CARES that the players on WSU wouldn't cut it in the classroom at Cal? they were a bottom-feeder team that was a free "W" for us. then Colorado was when it joined the PAC, and they stomped us too. now we are.

---

huh excuse me go look at all of my posts high horse ? your a joke ... but curious thing is you choose to be

are you alright .. you mentioned something i added to it just stating facts ,if you felt like i was being pompous your completely

maybe you should ask first what was i trying to say ... or infer .. or whatever something anything

remember the RULE for you and only you, when you see a comment by me stop then and say to yourself .. i do not understand him nor what he is saying .... then proceed it will save you a lot of time plus being flat out wrong again

going4roses;842317939 said:

---

huh excuse me go look at all of my posts high horse ? your a joke ... but curious thing is you choose to be

are you alright .. you mentioned something i added to it just stating facts ,if you felt like i was being pompous your completely

maybe you should ask first what was i trying to say ... or infer .. or whatever something anything

remember the RULE for you and only you, when you see a comment by me stop then and say to yourself .. i do not understand him nor what he is saying .... then proceed it will save you a lot of time plus being flat out wrong again

---

i said even the PAC cellar-dweller WSU has turned it around under Leach....and your response is:

"they played guys like Daquawn Brown and they couldn't qualify at Cal" damn, those non-qualifers beat us by 22 points. yes, the same type of guys who couldn't qualify (at Cal), WSU recruited even before Leach took over? then why couldn't they beat us before Leach was hired? and what about sad ass Colorado beating us? and Oregon State?


and i'm the joke? :rollinglaugh:

KevBear;842317908 said:

---

How ironic.

---

Yes, and the program pumpers will dump their support of all things SD should he get fired. We just saw that happen with JT. Same characters doing the same thing now.

beeasyed;842317905 said:

---

by that standard WSU should continue to suck, year in and year out. somehow Leach turned it around last season. somehow Riley manages to make do with his under-recruited guys every season. oh, and by some miracle, we let the vastly under-talented Colorado stomp us too.

sure, we have had huge recruiting misses, and we are thin at certain spots, and they're very unusual, yet these are issues other schools have dealt with season after season. was ours more extreme than average? yes. but 1-11, extreme? blowouts in almost every game w/in the 1st quarter, extreme? getting rocked by COLORADO, extreme?

UW went 0-11 in 2008, then won 5 games the very next season w/ the same players, including against #3 U$C and #19....CAL. lost to #11 LSU by 8 points. Sark may not have led them to any BCS bowls, but that was an immediate improvement in morale and leadership from their previous coach with roughly the same roster. i can't say that i have seen any improvements in those departments yet, besides the lip service paid in interviews.

---

At least, those coaches had experienced players when they came in. They may not have been good players, but they had playing experience. In the case of UW, they also had the advantage of a system that was close to what they had been playing under before. Grant you, Leach brought in something completely new, as did SD, and you saw the disruption, albeit dampened by the experience many of them had.

Had we kept JT, it is likely that things would not have been too different. We were on a downward spiral as it was. The mistake was keeping him a year or two longer than we should have.

At least, the new O system doesn't need superstars to the extent that a conventional system does where it's more mano a mano. That's how Peterson did it at Boise. Now, let's see if SD can build the same thing. The jury's still out. We've got a chance for 5 wins this year. Let's see if he can do it.

calgo430;842317888 said:

---

am concerned that our recruiting over the last two years has been very mediocre. am concerned that goff is not mobile enough to make plays with his legs. still think that 70% of football is the athletes you have and 30% is coaching. we are coming off two years of suffering lots of blowout losses. my opinion we need some stud athletes on both sides of the ball for a turnaround. anyone agree ??

---

Does Cal lack "stud" athletes? Do we need more McCain's?
Fr Borraya obviously was and is not a stud because he's at Cal.
Tate has found two (2) totally unexpected DL, but, by definition, they're automatically mediocre.

Goff not mobile ... OMG ... is it too late to get back Kline? :rollinglaugh:
Two (2) seasons of blowout losses ... Sonny here for only one (1) ... hmmm

This is a great topic for all the :cry: :cry: :cry: people.
Their :cry: :cry: :cry: people have their :chainsaw working.

The big difference when comparing WSU to Cal is that Leach had two years to demonstrate progress. Why doesn't Dykes get the same latitude?

beeasyed;842317940 said:

---

i said even the PAC cellar-dweller WSU has turned it around under Leach....and your response is:

"they played guys like Daquawn Brown and they couldn't qualify at Cal" damn, those non-qualifers beat us by 22 points. yes, the same type of guys who couldn't qualify at Cal they recruited even before Leach took over? why couldn't they beat us back then?


and i'm the joke? :rollinglaugh:

---

"they played guys like Daquawn Brown and they couldn't qualify at Cal"

is that my fault they lost to wash st ? was it may doing brown could not qualifiy for CAL?


where is the high horse ? and who gave you the right to decide what i was saying beside stating facts .... to the point of trying so hard to be a dumbass again over and over give it up simp

exactly you are constantly a pure joke when you respond to my posts ...

i told you to think before you post responding to me .. but remmeber you are the one that said i was on a high horse me never try and try again even though you will fail

BearBoarBlarney;842317899 said:

---

MiZery, right now Cal athletics is a giant turd.

---

Really? M and W swimming, M and W golf, T&F - among others - might disagree.

Rushinbear;842317949 said:

---

At least, those coaches had experienced players when they came in. They may not have been good players, but they had playing experience. In the case of UW, they also had the advantage of a system that was close to what they had been playing under before. Grant you, Leach brought in something completely new, as did SD, and you saw the disruption, albeit dampened by the experience many of them had.

Had we kept JT, it is likely that things would not have been too different. We were on a downward spiral as it was. The mistake was keeping him a year or two longer than we should have.

At least, the new O system doesn't need superstars to the extent that a conventional system does where it's more mano a mano. That's how Peterson did it at Boise. Now, let's see if SD can build the same thing. The jury's still out. We've got a chance for 5 wins this year. Let's see if he can do it.

---

ding ding ding .. this is how i feel but even then depending on who was hired we could be still in this same situation ... or at least not where we all think the program should be

CALiforniALUM;842317963 said:

---

The big difference when comparing WSU to Cal is that Leach had two years to demonstrate progress. Why doesn't Dykes get the same latitude?

---

Right you are. That first season Leach looked like a failure--record wise--and most here, including me--penned in WSU as a "sure" win for last season.

Right now, there are few facts suggesting Dykes will succeed, but he has til January to show us the team he has. I'll find out at the games, not here on this board.

1979bear;842317999 said:

---

Right you are. That first season Leach looked like a failure--record wise--and most here, including me--penned in WSU as a "sure" win for last season.

Right now, there are few facts suggesting Dykes will succeed, but he has til January to show us the team he has. I'll find out at the games, not here on this board.

---

I think we stand together on this issue. I will be ready to move on if I don't see progress, however, we are in the unbearable dark space between seasons and none of us have much to go on until football games start back up. I plan on reserving my judgement until I see the team on the field playing somebody else.

Sadly, if we don't see any improvement this coming season, I wonder if we will be able to financially move forward in a different direction and whether such a quick change would also send the wrong message to prospective replacement coaches. The message being that the situation is untenable at CAL, you will have no quality players, no time and a lame duck AD overseeing the entire mess. We may be entering a death spiral where Cal may not pull out until all expectations are at all time lows.

CALiforniALUM;842317963 said:

---

The big difference when comparing WSU to Cal is that Leach had two years to demonstrate progress. Why doesn't Dykes get the same latitude?

---

WSU beat FCS Southern Utah, 1-11 Idaho, 3 Pac-12 teams that went a combined 6-21 in conference, and a Kiffin lead USC. They got blown out 4 times in conference including by OSU. Personally, I don't see anything to emulate there.

CALiforniALUM;842317963 said:

---

The big difference when comparing WSU to Cal is that Leach had two years to demonstrate progress. Why doesn't Dykes get the same latitude?

---

You're right. And while I think the product Sonny put on the field last year was pure garbage, I also think he can have another year to show improvement.

What I can't understand is the need to preemptively give him more latitude mentally before it's even August. "Not enough horses"; "still too young"; "still not enough depth".

What's enough?

Rushinbear;842317949 said:

---

At least, those coaches had experienced players when they came in. They may not have been good players, but they had playing experience. In the case of UW, they also had the advantage of a system that was close to what they had been playing under before. Grant you, Leach brought in something completely new, as did SD, and you saw the disruption, albeit dampened by the experience many of them had.

---

I agree. But that was directed more at the OP's point that you can't win without excellent recruits. If an 0-11 can beat 2 ranked opponents and closely lose to another the very next season and go 5-7, then reasonably, I don't see why we couldn't this season. I don't even know why it excuses last season, but I guess we had to truly bottom out somewhere [and yes, barely beating PSU as the only W is bottoming out].

OaktownBear;842318028 said:

---

WSU beat FCS Southern Utah, 1-11 Idaho, 3 Pac-12 teams that went a combined 6-21 in conference, and a Kiffin lead USC. They got blown out 4 times in conference including by OSU. Personally, I don't see anything to emulate there.

---

I was using WSU as a baseline! Not as a standard for comparison and emulation! :p

MiZery;842317891 said:

---

I think posts like these are like giant turds.

The flies (they know who they are) will now come in and circle (respond) to said turd.

---

Behold, chief turd fly!

we have one of the most talented receiving corps in the country, we have Goff and we have Avery coming back. we have enough horses, but everything has to fall into place. as much as last year was the "perfect storm" in the wrong direction. we need one in the opposite direction. i think we have sufficient talent though that if they overachieved, we could be a bowl team.

Rushinbear;842317949 said:

---

At least, those coaches had experienced players when they came in. They may not have been good players, but they had playing experience. In the case of UW, they also had the advantage of a system that was close to what they had been playing under before. Grant you, Leach brought in something completely new, as did SD, and you saw the disruption, albeit dampened by the experience many of them had.

Had we kept JT, it is likely that things would not have been too different. We were on a downward spiral as it was. The mistake was keeping him a year or two longer than we should have.

At least, the new O system doesn't need superstars to the extent that a conventional system does where it's more mano a mano. That's how Peterson did it at Boise. Now, let's see if SD can build the same thing. The jury's still out. We've got a chance for 5 wins this year. Let's see if he can do it.

---

I think things may have been different with JT. He inherited a team with a losing record and got the same players to 7-5. It took him seven years or so to have a losing season and when he did he came back with a winning record and the Holiday Bowl. Then he had another losing season and got canned. At the time I thought it was the right decision but now I don't think so. I think we'd have done much better with JT last year than we did with Dykes and academics were in the process of getting corrected.

HaasBear04;842318043 said:

---

Behold, chief turd fly!

---

What a big honor you're bestowing! :bravo

2013:
1. youngest team in the country;
2. most injured team in the country;
3. one of the hardest schedules in the country;
4. starting a true freshman QB
5. OL, upperclassmen injured, balance untested as a group;
6. DL, riddled with injury;
7. defensive backfield, CBs and Safety out injured;
8. few experienced LBs available due to injury;
9. running backs without a power back;
10. defensive coordinator unsuited for the position;
11. inability to score inside the opponent's 20 yardline; and,
12. Pac12 arguably the toughest conference from top to bottom.

2014:
1. Seven home games(incl. Levi's) and two BYEs;
2. experienced freshmen of 2013, now able to play D1 ball;
3. defensive coordinator Kaufman replaces Buh;
4. QB, one year smarter, stronger and knowledgeable of D1 ball;
5. QB of defense - Avery - is back and healthy;
6. McClure is back and healthy;
7. OL solidified with Moore, Borrayo, Adcock, M. Cochran and Rigsbee and backups Crosthwaite, A. Cochran, Bunte, Fairly, Frazer, Hinnant, Okafor.
8. Incoming QB Rubenzer, has played TF's offense;
9. Incoming running backs: Enwere and Watson = power and elusiveness;
10. Disruptive influences gone;
11. APR is up;
12. DL has some major pickups for depth;
13. Arguably the best receiving corp. in the Pac12;
14. A simplified playbook;
15. Improved defensive backfield coach;
16. Your choice here...
:gobears:

I think dykes should be given every opportunity to turn the last two years around. My question is can he do it with our current players ? Much of the 2014 team was recruited by jt. I am a realist. If we can somehow win 4 games and suffer no blowout losses this will be a successful season.