Is Sonny Dykes more on the hot seat now?

23,892 Views | 155 Replies | Last: 11 yr ago by moonpod
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1979bear;842329294 said:

SFCity is right that overall there were more solid players on the team inherited by Tedford. But Tedford coached up these guys. Three more years of Holmoe and few would have made the NFL. Take Boller. He was off the NFL radar until Tedford. Holmoe did nothing substantive to get Boller to the NFL. Well, I'd like to ask Boller what he thinks.


I agree with you on Kyle Boller. As a teacher, a coach can have success with some players and not with others. Tedford had great success with Kyle Boller, and it solidified Tedford's reputation as a QB guru, and I'm sure that Boller would give Tedford a lot of credit.

Holmoe was a former defensive back in the NFL. Defensive backs Nnamdi Asomugha, Deltha O'Neal, Marquis Smith, Derrick Gardner, Chidi Iwouma, Kato Serwanga, Jemeel Powell, James Bethea all either were recruited by or played for Tom Holmoe at Cal. Of these, Tedford inherited Asomugha and Powell for one year only and Bethea for two years. They were very good established players by the time Tedford got them. All the others entered the NFL having been coached at Cal only by Tom Holmoe and his staff. I think if you talked with these DBs, they might be very likely to give Holmoe some credit for their success.

In his five years, Tom Holmoe recruited and/or coached 37 players who went on to the NFL He sent 23 of them to the NFL before Jeff Tedford arrived in Berkeley. Tedford, in his first five years at Cal, sent 28 players to the NFL, including 14 that he inherited from Tom Holmoe. So yes, Tedford did have success sending players to the NFL, but if that is the measure of a good coach (which it isn't), then Holmoe did even better at it than Tedford.

:beer:
1979bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tom Holmoe coached some solid defensive players. True enough. And thats a fair point. It's hard for me to focus on that. He had no winning seasons. His team lost to Fresno State 17-3. He never beat Furd. He did beat SC three of five and my favorite Holmoe win was over Oklahoma 40-36. But the five year experience in QQ-R37 was awful. Tedford thankfully made it possible to forget Holmoe.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tydog;842329669 said:

Stanfurd in 2009?


Wrong. Cal fans always expect to beat Stanford.

:rollinglaugh:
calbear80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo;842329044 said:

How can you not root for this family?




I have no issues with this (or most other) family.

However, I have a BIG problem with any coach that wins less than 10% of his/her games while getting paid $2+ million/year!
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i think everyone of right mind would agree a coach goes 1-11 under any circumstances that puts them on the hot seat period ...

difference is in the degrees of the heat from HOT as hell cause you really did not want him to begin with .. to 1-11 hey now "would like to see you turn it around"
in 2014 but another season anywhere near 2013 changes have to be made type of HOT aka hot enough where another train wreck seals the deal
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses;842330487 said:

i think everyone of right mind would agree a coach goes 1-11 under any circumstances that puts them on the hot seat period ...


Good use of a qualifier, going4roses.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear;842329373 said:

First of all, your list is riddled with inaccuracy. For instance, I don't know how Asomugha managed to be second in the Pac-10 in interceptions in 2003 while he was playing for the Raiders, but he had 1 inteception in 2000, 3 in 2001, and 3 in 2002.

Another example - Terrell Williams never did anything under Tedford. He barely played. As for running backs, Tedford would have been ecstatic to have Lasco and Muhammed in 2002. They have much higher potential than the runningbacks Tedford inherited - what the coach does with them is another issue.

By the end you seem to just be listing Holmoe guys that started under Tedford. Well, I can do that with Tedford guys that started last year. It is pointless. Somebody has to start. I think it is extremely funny that you list OL's who were crashingly bad as a unit until Tedford got here.

You also (as is your common practice) misrepresent what I said. I didn't say they were a dung heap. They weren't. I was actually one of the few at the time who said that Tedford had enough talent to show some improvement and I expected him to do so. I said that people BELIEVED at the time they were. That is flat out true. People wanted Boller benched. People said they didn't care if players left because they all sucked. People laughed when we got the bowl ban because of its supposed irrelevance. Not just a couple people. Most people. I argued, as I am now, that they were being unfair to the players because coaching made them look bad. I was right then. I believe I'm right today.

How do you know, for instance, that we don't have a Wendell Hunter on the roster among guys like Nickerson and Jefferson? We didn't know that Wendell Hunter was going to step up when Tedford was hired. You are assuming it because you haven't seen it.

Your whole post misses the point entirely. My point is that those were good players who demonstrated they were good players once the lousy coach left and Tedford came in. So your stating how awesome they all became after Tedford coached them really does nothing but bolster my point. My point is that we have many good players on the roster today who would demonstrate it if they had a good coach. The reason people think they suck is that their performance sucked. The reason their performance sucked is, like under Holmoe, they had a lousy coach.

We got blown out by Colorado - one of the worst teams in major college football. We barely beat Portland State. If nothing else, those results - coupled with no positive results to counter them - should demonstrate to anyone that we were performing way below our talent level even if you think our talent sucks. No way our talent was that bad.


Here is what you wrote in post #72: "Everyone believed Tedford was inheriting a dung heap, and if he coached them like Sonny they would still believe that to this day. Lousy coaching makes players look lousy."

Taken literally, "everyone" means every person, including you and me and all who follow Cal football. Now you are excluding yourself from that group, and saying you are one who did not believe it was a dung heap that Tedford inherited. If you had been forthcoming and written that in your original post, I would have agreed with you and there would have been no need for me to waste all the time I did responding to your post.

Your words, "dung heap", referred to Cal players of 2002, when Tedford inherited them from Tom Holmoe, and the words "them" and "they" clearly refer to Holmoe players who were later coached by Tedford. I didn't misrepresent anything you wrote, and I resent the implication that I do this to you as a matter of "common practice".

As to Nnamdi Asomugha, he played for Tom Holmoe in 1999, 2000, and 2001. I made a typo on the year 2003. It should have been 2001. I apologize for the mistake, but I can't see how that changes the fact that Nnamdi was a darn good player before Tedford inherited him for his senior year.

As to Terrell Williams, he was on the PAC10 All-Freshman team, and won the team's award as Most Valuable Freshman, all due to the excellent job he did running the football when Joe Igber got hurt and could not play in 2001. When Tedford inherited Williams, he was an established player with an outstanding freshman season under his belt. Muhammad is a talent, but as freshmen, Williams outgained him 688 yards to 445, behind what you called "a crashingly bad offensive line". Behind that bad line, Williams rushed for 105 yards per game in his last five games of 2001. The running backs Tedford inherited were much better. Igber, Williams, and Echemandu (who I forgot to include) were all very good running backs. Dykes inherited only the injured Lasco and often injured Bigelow, plus the freshman Muhammad. Under Tedford, Williams played behind Igber (who had returned from injury) in 2002, and he blew out the ligaments in his knee, missing 3 games and then missing all of the 2003 season. He was never able to regain the form he had as a freshman. In 2011, Lasco redshirted, and in 2012 Lasco had 6 carries. How can you possibly judge Lasco as superior to Williams as a proven player at the point when they were inherited by the incoming coach? Hopefully Lasco has put his injuries behind him and can reach the potential we think he has.

I made a list of good Cal players I could remember who played for Holmoe and Tedford. When I make a list of players, I try and include all I can remember, even if I end up including players who don't support my case. I don't intentionally cherry pick, as you did by using the one typo I made regarding Asomugha's playing years to accuse me of presenting a list of players "riddled with inaccuracies". One typo leads to a huge exaggeration. Actually, my list of players who played for Holmoe and were inherited by Tedford was incomplete. Here are some more Holmoe players who played in the NFL:

Mark Wilson
Adimchinobe Echemandu
Mawuko Tugmenyoh
Chase Lyman
L.P. Ladouceur

My list of Holmoe players who made it to the NFL without ever playing for Jeff Tedford was also incomplete. Here are the rest:

Jeremy Newberry
Marquis Smith
Matt Beck
Dameane Douglas
Derrick Gardner
Chidi Iwouma
Keith Miller
Jeremiah Parker
John Romero
Katu Serwanga
Bobby Shaw
Tarik Smith
John Welbourn
Josh White
Brandon Whiting

In his five years at Cal, Tom Holmoe sent a total of 23 players to the NFL, before Jeff Tedford ever arrived in Berkeley. Tedford inherited an additional 14 future NFL players from Tom Holmoe, whom Tedford eventually sent to the NFL. Tedford in his first five years sent 14 players, whom he had recruited himself, to the NFL. So Tedford sent a total of 27 players to the NFL in his first five years, 14 of whom had been recruited and/or coached by Holmoe.

Your point about Wendell Hunter is well taken. Sometimes one can see great potential in a freshman and sometimes not. Most observers could see that freshman Lorenzo Alexander had NFL in his future, and I think he would have made it to the NFL regardless of which coach tutored him. Sometimes it takes a 4th year under a new coach like with Boller. But Tedford did inherit a number of players who had individual accomplishments recognized by the PAC10 and the media, even if the 2001 team was a bad team. He did have a decent nucleus of veterans to work with. Dykes did not.
beelzebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Holmoe got players in the NFL. Tedford got better players in the NFL, off of winning and saved a few like Boller.

If Tedford's NFL players formed a team...they could be pretty damn good. Best QB in the league helps tremendously but RB and WR are loaded as well.
gobears725
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear;842330596 said:

Here is what you wrote in post #72: “Everyone believed Tedford was inheriting a dung heap, and if he coached them like Sonny they would still believe that to this day. Lousy coaching makes players look lousy.”

Taken literally, “everyone” means every person, including you and me and all who follow Cal football. Now you are excluding yourself from that group, and saying you are one who did not believe it was a dung heap that Tedford inherited. If you had been forthcoming and written that in your original post, I would have agreed with you and there would have been no need for me to waste all the time I did responding to your post.

Your words, “dung heap”, referred to Cal players of 2002, when Tedford inherited them from Tom Holmoe, and the words “them” and “they” clearly refer to Holmoe players who were later coached by Tedford. I didn’t misrepresent anything you wrote, and I resent the implication that I do this to you as a matter of “common practice”.

As to Nnamdi Asomugha, he played for Tom Holmoe in 1999, 2000, and 2001. I made a typo on the year 2003. It should have been 2001. I apologize for the mistake, but I can’t see how that changes the fact that Nnamdi was a darn good player before Tedford inherited him for his senior year.

As to Terrell Williams, he was on the PAC10 All-Freshman team, and won the team’s award as Most Valuable Freshman, all due to the excellent job he did running the football when Joe Igber got hurt and could not play in 2001. When Tedford inherited Williams, he was an established player with an outstanding freshman season under his belt. Muhammad is a talent, but as freshmen, Williams outgained him 688 yards to 445, behind what you called “a crashingly bad offensive line”. Behind that bad line, Williams rushed for 105 yards per game in his last five games of 2001. The running backs Tedford inherited were much better. Igber, Williams, and Echemandu (who I forgot to include) were all very good running backs. Dykes inherited only the injured Lasco and often injured Bigelow, plus the freshman Muhammad. Under Tedford, Williams played behind Igber (who had returned from injury) in 2002, and he blew out the ligaments in his knee, missing 3 games and then missing all of the 2003 season. He was never able to regain the form he had as a freshman. In 2011, Lasco redshirted, and in 2012 Lasco had 6 carries. How can you possibly judge Lasco as superior to Williams as a proven player at the point when they were inherited by the incoming coach? Hopefully Lasco has put his injuries behind him and can reach the potential we think he has.

I made a list of good Cal players I could remember who played for Holmoe and Tedford. When I make a list of players, I try and include all I can remember, even if I end up including players who don’t support my case. I don’t intentionally cherry pick, as you did by using the one typo I made regarding Asomugha’s playing years to accuse me of presenting a list of players “riddled with inaccuracies”. One typo leads to a huge exaggeration. Actually, my list of players who played for Holmoe and were inherited by Tedford was incomplete. Here are some more Holmoe players who played in the NFL:

Mark Wilson
Adimchinobe Echemandu
Mawuko Tugmenyoh
Chase Lyman
L.P. Ladouceur

My list of Holmoe players who made it to the NFL without ever playing for Jeff Tedford was also incomplete. Here are the rest:

Jeremy Newberry
Marquis Smith
Matt Beck
Dameane Douglas
Derrick Gardner
Chidi Iwouma
Keith Miller
Jeremiah Parker
John Romero
Katu Serwanga
Bobby Shaw
Tarik Smith
John Welbourn
Josh White
Brandon Whiting

In his five years at Cal, Tom Holmoe sent a total of 23 players to the NFL, before Jeff Tedford ever arrived in Berkeley. Tedford inherited an additional 14 future NFL players from Tom Holmoe, whom Tedford eventually sent to the NFL. Tedford in his first five years sent 14 players, whom he had recruited himself, to the NFL. So Tedford sent a total of 27 players to the NFL in his first five years, 14 of whom had been recruited and/or coached by Holmoe.

Your point about Wendell Hunter is well taken. Sometimes one can see great potential in a freshman and sometimes not. Most observers could see that freshman Lorenzo Alexander had NFL in his future, and I think he would have made it to the NFL regardless of which coach tutored him. Sometimes it takes a 4th year under a new coach like with Boller. But Tedford did inherit a number of players who had individual accomplishments recognized by the PAC10 and the media, even if the 2001 team was a bad team. He did have a decent nucleus of veterans to work with. Dykes did not.[/QUOTE]

I like your post sfbay up until you use it to say that Dykes did not have a sufficient amount of talented veterans to work with. i believe that he did. Rodgers and Fortt were drafted. Coleman, Moala, Mccain and Jackson have at least some chance to make a roster.

For next year, Harper and Treggs are pretty likely to get drafted whenever they decide to come out, whether it be this year or next year. Same goes with Sebastian.

When you look back on this 2 or 3 years from now, it wouldnt surprise me if Dykes also inherited about the same number of players that end up making the NFL. guys such as lawler, adcock, cochran, scarlett, among some others probably have a shot if they develop or prove that they can stay healthy.

The biggest thing that i see with Dykes is that its not that he didnt have veterans to work with, its that for whatever the reason, he was unable to get a lot of the veterans to produce and either led to them leaving or him kicking them off the team. people will point to the players and people will point to Dykes but ultimately it doesnt matter. the only thing that matters is that they werent able to work together to achieve a common goal, it really doesnt matter whose fault it is, but for whatever the reason, it just didnt happen with that group of guys and this coaching staff, but if it continues to be that he can get results out of a group of players that he more likes, players that survived his house cleaning and players that he brought in himself, then the obvious denominator is him as to why the results still arent there
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842329313 said:

You clearly don't understand the concept of comparison. If things are exactly the same, you can't compare them. They need to be at least a little different to be comparable.

Tedford had some advantages over Sonny. And Sonny had a lot of advantages over Tedford. But they both inherited Cal programs coming off terrible seasons. Of course you can compare them. If you can't compare these two situations, then you can't compare anything.

Did you go to Cal?


I think what happened here was derived from your earlier post where you wrote: "Tedford inherited a similar situation in 2002, except the record was worse and the team was already on NCAA academic-related sanctions."

I used the word comparable to respond to the exact same word that OaktownBear used and the exact same word that GivemTheAxe used before him in response to your statement. The situation was similar in your mind because you consider only the team's record of the previous season and the NCAA sanctions, and you left out everything else. Perhaps we all should have used your word "similar" to respond, so you could understand us better. Of course, the two situations can be compared. However, your comparison is based on only that "the record was worse" and "the team was already on NCAA academic related sanctions", which makes your comparison almost totally worthless. You leave out the most important aspects of comparison, and you show a good degree of bias doing so.

The situations are not similar. First of all, the record of the previous team. Holmoe's final season record was worse than the record of Tedford's final season. That is totally irrelevant as it relates to the performance of a team the following year with a new coach and system. One could say that many of the returning veterans might have suffered such damage to their self-confidence that they would be harder to coach, or one could also say that many of the returning players would be anxious to wipe the previous season from memory and start anew, and might be very receptive to new coaching. Who could tell us the answer to that?

Second, the matter of NCAA probation. The NCAA probation has its effect only in recruiting, and most new recruits will not get much if any playing time as freshmen. So the NCAA probation aspect has little effect on the performance of the team in its first year under a new coach. Where it can have a detrimental effect is in the following years, when the weaker recruiting classes take their toll. Still, the probation is not a major deterrent for recruiting.

As I said, the won-loss record of the previous year's team is irrelevant in both cases. What is most relevant is how good are the returning veteran players? I have proved to my own satisfaction that the players Tedford received from Holmoe were far more capable and proven players than those received by Dykes last year. It is not even close.

Here is a list of returning starters and other significant players from 2012:

Treggs
Rodgers
Rigsbee
Coleman
McCain
Scarlett
Leiniger
D'Amato
Jackson
Sebastian
Harper
Forbes
Fortt

I'm sure I missed some, but no one on that list, with exception of D'Amato, stands out to me as being a more accomplished player at his position than the players from 2001 inherited by Tedford, which I listed in an earlier post. You will also note that several of these players were injured and could not perform much or at all for Sonny Dykes. There were others who arrived injured and never played at all last season. Tedford's last team had graduated or otherwise lost many of its best players

You have leveled heavy criticism against Sonny Dykes, and in doing so, you have overlooked the injury factor. The Bears were hit harder by injuries last season than in any season in my 60+ years of watching Cal football. No season comes close. I have a good friend and former HS football player and Contra Costa HS football referee, who is now a security guard at Memorial Stadium. He told me that last season, every week following a Cal game, he would show up for work, and there would be 3 or 4 more players on crutches than there were the week before. He said he had never seen anything like it. I think Sonny Dykes deserves another year on that alone.

Finally, I don't think GivemTheAxe and I appreciate being lectured about understanding the meaning of words. I went to Cal, and who in the hell are you to ask such a question? In fact, I am still using the same dictionary today that I used then to help me graduate. I notice you did not lecture OaktownBear for using the same word. I guess that is because his point of view agrees with yours.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear;842330596 said:

Here is what you wrote in post #72: "Everyone believed Tedford was inheriting a dung heap, and if he coached them like Sonny they would still believe that to this day. Lousy coaching makes players look lousy."

Taken literally, "everyone" means every person, including you and me and all who follow Cal football. Now you are excluding yourself from that group, and saying you are one who did not believe it was a dung heap that Tedford inherited. If you had been forthcoming and written that in your original post, I would have agreed with you and there would have been no need for me to waste all the time I did responding to your post.

Your words, "dung heap", referred to Cal players of 2002, when Tedford inherited them from Tom Holmoe, and the words "them" and "they" clearly refer to Holmoe players who were later coached by Tedford. I didn't misrepresent anything you wrote, and I resent the implication that I do this to you as a matter of "common practice".

As to Nnamdi Asomugha, he played for Tom Holmoe in 1999, 2000, and 2001. I made a typo on the year 2003. It should have been 2001. I apologize for the mistake, but I can't see how that changes the fact that Nnamdi was a darn good player before Tedford inherited him for his senior year.

As to Terrell Williams, he was on the PAC10 All-Freshman team, and won the team's award as Most Valuable Freshman, all due to the excellent job he did running the football when Joe Igber got hurt and could not play in 2001. When Tedford inherited Williams, he was an established player with an outstanding freshman season under his belt. Muhammad is a talent, but as freshmen, Williams outgained him 688 yards to 445, behind what you called "a crashingly bad offensive line". Behind that bad line, Williams rushed for 105 yards per game in his last five games of 2001. The running backs Tedford inherited were much better. Igber, Williams, and Echemandu (who I forgot to include) were all very good running backs. Dykes inherited only the injured Lasco and often injured Bigelow, plus the freshman Muhammad. Under Tedford, Williams played behind Igber (who had returned from injury) in 2002, and he blew out the ligaments in his knee, missing 3 games and then missing all of the 2003 season. He was never able to regain the form he had as a freshman. In 2011, Lasco redshirted, and in 2012 Lasco had 6 carries. How can you possibly judge Lasco as superior to Williams as a proven player at the point when they were inherited by the incoming coach? Hopefully Lasco has put his injuries behind him and can reach the potential we think he has.

I made a list of good Cal players I could remember who played for Holmoe and Tedford. When I make a list of players, I try and include all I can remember, even if I end up including players who don't support my case. I don't intentionally cherry pick, as you did by using the one typo I made regarding Asomugha's playing years to accuse me of presenting a list of players "riddled with inaccuracies". One typo leads to a huge exaggeration. Actually, my list of players who played for Holmoe and were inherited by Tedford was incomplete. Here are some more Holmoe players who played in the NFL:

Mark Wilson
Adimchinobe Echemandu
Mawuko Tugmenyoh
Chase Lyman
L.P. Ladouceur

My list of Holmoe players who made it to the NFL without ever playing for Jeff Tedford was also incomplete. Here are the rest:

Jeremy Newberry
Marquis Smith
Matt Beck
Dameane Douglas
Derrick Gardner
Chidi Iwouma
Keith Miller
Jeremiah Parker
John Romero
Katu Serwanga
Bobby Shaw
Tarik Smith
John Welbourn
Josh White
Brandon Whiting

In his five years at Cal, Tom Holmoe sent a total of 23 players to the NFL, before Jeff Tedford ever arrived in Berkeley. Tedford inherited an additional 14 future NFL players from Tom Holmoe, whom Tedford eventually sent to the NFL. Tedford in his first five years sent 14 players, whom he had recruited himself, to the NFL. So Tedford sent a total of 27 players to the NFL in his first five years, 14 of whom had been recruited and/or coached by Holmoe.

Your point about Wendell Hunter is well taken. Sometimes one can see great potential in a freshman and sometimes not. Most observers could see that freshman Lorenzo Alexander had NFL in his future, and I think he would have made it to the NFL regardless of which coach tutored him. Sometimes it takes a 4th year under a new coach like with Boller. But Tedford did inherit a number of players who had individual accomplishments recognized by the PAC10 and the media, even if the 2001 team was a bad team. He did have a decent nucleus of veterans to work with. Dykes did not.


I'm sorry, I think I need to file for divorce. I just don't think we should have discussions here. We are not compatible. I knew based on your posting on the basketball board that you were going to come back with the "You said EVERYONE believed and clearly not EVERYONE believed." argument, which, given that ALMOST everyone understand that in that context using the formulation I used does not mean LITERALLY everyone, is an extremely hackneyed and annoying arguing technique. But what should I expect from a guy that takes a quote from Justin Cobbs talking about a big game trying to get into the NCAA tourney, uses the quote days later in a completely different context and situation and then rips him for it. If you'd do that to a Cal player, what can I expect you'd do to a random poster.

I clearly said everyone believed they were a dung heap not that they were a dung heap. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. You have still completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how many Holmoe players went pro either before or after being coached by Tedford. I am saying that people look at the players Dykes has and say they are bad because they lose JUST LIKE MOST PEOPLE SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT THE PLAYERS TEDFORD INHERITED. Tedford had enough to have some success and he did and frankly maximized that success. Dykes has enough to have some success, certainly more than 0 wins against D-1.

Tedford sent a ton of players to the NFL. Two of his players just got drafted off Sonny's team. In the end, I believe you will find a lot of Tedford players who play for Sonny will play in the NFL. Your own arguments in favor of Holmoe work equally well, frankly better, to indicate that Dykes has enough talent to work with. Which he does. I hope that these guys get the chance to prove you wrong in 2015.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear;842330638 said:

I'm sorry, I think I need to file for divorce. I just don't think we should have discussions here. We are not compatible. I knew based on your posting on the basketball board that you were going to come back with the "You said EVERYONE believed and clearly not EVERYONE believed." argument, which, given that ALMOST everyone understand that in that context using the formulation I used does not mean LITERALLY everyone, is an extremely hackneyed and annoying arguing technique. But what should I expect from a guy that takes a quote from Justin Cobbs talking about a big game trying to get into the NCAA tourney, uses the quote days later in a completely different context and situation and then rips him for it. If you'd do that to a Cal player, what can I expect you'd do to a random poster.

I clearly said everyone believed they were a dung heap not that they were a dung heap. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. You have still completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how many Holmoe players went pro either before or after being coached by Tedford. I am saying that people look at the players Dykes has and say they are bad because they lose JUST LIKE MOST PEOPLE SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT THE PLAYERS TEDFORD INHERITED. Tedford had enough to have some success and he did and frankly maximized that success. Dykes has enough to have some success, certainly more than 0 wins against D-1.

Tedford sent a ton of players to the NFL. Two of his players just got drafted off Sonny's team. In the end, I believe you will find a lot of Tedford players who play for Sonny will play in the NFL. Your own arguments in favor of Holmoe work equally well, frankly better, to indicate that Dykes has enough talent to work with. Which he does. I hope that these guys get the chance to prove you wrong in 2015.


Look, I am a very simple man. If you want me to understand your point, then don't write it in an ambiguous way, leave me to interpret it the best I can, and then rip me if I misunderstand your point which you did not state clearly in the first place. Believe me, I bear you no ill will, and I will try harder to understand what you say before I respond to you, if I ever do respond to you again.

I've read a lot of your posts in the past, and you have usually made very reasoned and sensible arguments. Once in a while we all get off the rails here, and get personally insulting. I think we both want the best for Cal teams and fans. I find that I can say something critical about a player or coach, and if that person is one who holds great favor with the BI posters, I will get ripped. I find that if I say something in praise of a player or coach who is generally disliked by most of the posters here, I will get ripped. (Brandon Smith, the BB player, or Mike Montgomery, the recruiter, are good examples of that). Holmoe is a coach who nearly everyone here seems to dislike, so to compliment him in any way, well, I knew I would get ripped. You just can't do that on the BI. Sonny Dykes, with one short season coaching a team with more injuries than any team on the planet, has already become the object of many fans derision. I don't think he deserves it. He made some very questionable coaching hires, but other than that, I don't know what he could have done differently to get more than one win out of the players he had for any game.

Back to the dung heap for a moment. You didn't really show any proof that the players Dykes inherited after the 2012 season were as good in 2012 as the ones Tedford inherited after the 2001 season. The players Dykes inherited may turn out to be better than anyone knew, in part because Tedford liked to play his more experienced players where possible, and not give younger players much playing time as a rule. I hope you are right about how good they are, and that this season will be a complete turnaround.

The Justin Cobbs statement to someone from my generation was a statement that would never have been made back when I played. I think most of my coaches would have benched him for a game for saying it, no matter when he said it. In general, coaches 50 years ago were much harder on their players. I should be more understanding of the young kids' mindset, but somehow, I can't bring myself to accept all of it.

I have a habit of responding in kind to insults, and I really don't want to get into that with you. I agree to the divorce. The ignore list may be the answer. I hope both you and Sonny have a great 2014.

Go Bears!

:beer:
Irishbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear;842330658 said:

Look, I am a very simple man. If you want me to understand your point, then don't write it in an ambiguous way, leave me to interpret it the best I can, and then rip me if I misunderstand your point which you did not state clearly in the first place. Believe me, I bear you no ill will, and I will try harder to understand what you say before I respond to you, if I ever do respond to you again.

I've read a lot of your posts in the past, and you have usually made very reasoned and sensible arguments. Once in a while we all get off the rails here, and get personally insulting. I think we both want the best for Cal teams and fans. I find that I can say something critical about a player or coach, and if that person is one who holds great favor with the BI posters, I will get ripped. I find that if I say something in praise of a player or coach who is generally disliked by most of the posters here, I will get ripped. (Brandon Smith, the BB player, or Mike Montgomery, the recruiter, are good examples of that). Holmoe is a coach who nearly everyone here seems to dislike, so to compliment him in any way, well, I knew I would get ripped. You just can't do that on the BI. Sonny Dykes, with one short season coaching a team with more injuries than any team on the planet, has already become the object of many fans derision. I don't think he deserves it. He made some very questionable coaching hires, but other than that, I don't know what he could have done differently to get more than one win out of the players he had for any game.

Back to the dung heap for a moment. You didn't really show any proof that the players Dykes inherited after the 2012 season were as good in 2012 as the ones Tedford inherited after the 2001 season. The players Dykes inherited may turn out to be better than anyone knew, in part because Tedford liked to play his more experienced players where possible, and not give younger players much playing time as a rule. I hope you are right about how good they are, and that this season will be a complete turnaround.

The Justin Cobbs statement to someone from my generation was a statement that would never have been made back when I played. I think most of my coaches would have benched him for a game for saying it, no matter when he said it. In general, coaches 50 years ago were much harder on their players. I should be more understanding of the young kids' mindset, but somehow, I can't bring myself to accept all of it.

I have a habit of responding in kind to insults, and I really don't want to get into that with you. I agree to the divorce. The ignore list may be the answer. I hope both you and Sonny have a great 2014.

Go Bears!

:beer:


Can't you Yentas just get along? I'm anxious to see our 2014 Bears have a vastly improved season. With a better[healthier] OL, Goff will be able to connect with our excellent receivers at an impressive rate. And Muhammad and Lasco will show their stuff. The "D" can only get better. It's going to be an exciting season. Mark my words.


ykes
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Irishbear;842331015 said:

Can't you Yentas just get along? I'm anxious to see our 2014 Bears have a vastly improved season. With a better[healthier] OL, Goff will be able to connect with our excellent receivers at an impressive rate. And Muhammad and Lasco will show their stuff. The "D" can only get better. It's going to be an exciting season. Mark my words.


ykes


I really really hope you are right.
Not only would I be able to enjoy the games themselves and the Saturday night college football wrap up on ESPN again, but maybe the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism would be forced to change their monotonous posts to "dykes should be fired because at 5-7 he failed to get Cal to a bowl game". Or better yet: "dykes should be fired since he failed to get Cal to a better bowl game."
moonpod
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe;842331024 said:

"dykes should be fired since he failed to get Cal to a better bowl game."


Lord as if we are even remotely near being worried about that?

The season will be a litmus test. Either things will be much improved and there will be a sense of optimism about the team that'll spill over to the recruiting and attendance or we will have a string of losses with several of them being blow outs to end the season and dykes will most likely be out.

Fortunately I don't really see a middle scenario. Face it. 3 or 4 wins (or worse) most likely means a serious losing streak to end the season which will most likely create several bad blow outs just from the mental fatigue of losing. 5 wins is probably a tipping point because it means we upset someone and we are more likely to be able to play tough in the losses and "feel good" about the direction.

If we don't do well attendance will suffer further, financial pressure will increase and the new AD who doesn't owe sonny anything will probably make a move. It's not rocket science.

That being said as a Cal fan, no matter how disgusted you are with what happened last year, you gotta hope that Somny is the man and has righted the ship because another fire/hire cycle is gonna just mean more years of struggle and subpar recruiting putting us further behind the eight ball
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
moonpod;842331035 said:

Lord as if we are even remotely near being worried about that?

The season will be a litmus test. Either things will be much improved and there will be a sense of optimism about the team that'll spill over to the recruiting and attendance or we will have a string of losses with several of them being blow outs to end the season and dykes will most likely be out.

Fortunately I don't really see a middle scenario. Face it. 3 or 4 wins (or worse) most likely means a serious losing streak to end the season which will most likely create several bad blow outs just from the mental fatigue of losing. 5 wins is probably a tipping point because it means we upset someone and we are more likely to be able to play tough in the losses and "feel good" about the direction.

If we don't do well attendance will suffer further, financial pressure will increase and the new AD who doesn't owe sonny anything will probably make a move. It's not rocket science.

That being said as a Cal fan, no matter how disgusted you are with what happened last year, you gotta hope that Somny is the man and has righted the ship because another fire/hire cycle is gonna just mean more years of struggle and subpar recruiting putting us further behind the eight ball


I said I am "hoping" for such a result. not that I am "expecting" such a result.

Personally I would be satisfied not "happy" with 4-5 wins. IMO that would mean Cal would have to have 2-3 upsets since personally I can't see more than 2 teams Cal would be favored to beat.
moonpod
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe;842331095 said:

I said I am "hoping" for such a result. not that I am "expecting" such a result.

Personally I would be satisfied not "happy" with 4-5 wins. IMO that would mean Cal would have to have 2-3 upsets since personally I can't see more than 2 teams Cal would be favored to beat.


I'm not sure we are gonna be favored pre season in any game. Maybe the sac st but didn't they handle Portland st last year handily?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.