socaltownie;842604137 said:

---

Well you are wrong. The Tedford mess was a HUGE mess. Frankly I think the administration told him to get rid of dead wood that wasn't ready to deal with the more rigorous academics. Then he had to somehow RECRUIT during that dumpster fire.

Where I am guessing we agree is that next year is very important for how Williams should look at Sonny. He will have a new QB (but one that should have at least 1 if not 2 years to understand the system). We should be improved at RB. Unclear at WR (I would note that the replacement guys sorta steped in and equated themselves well). Defense remains a question mark, But if he puts up 6-8 wins NEXT year I think we should ruefully acknowledge that he might know what he is doing. Put up 2-5 and perhaps that will be what Williams needs to see to understand Sonny is a good man but not one for the ages.

---

Tedford left a mess, sure. But a great coach still probably finds a way to get more than one win (over an FCS team, and by the skin of our teeth at that). It still goes on Sonny's record. That season was awful by any measure. I will never agree with the argument that you wipe that from his slate. Most new coaches come in to a mess; they don't all go 1-11.

If he again improves on his record next year, then I will change my tune and support keeping Sonny. I doubt that will happen, but he's obviously not going anywhere, so we'll see.

With regards to YAC...you may be right that we can't break away from good DBs but we noticed last night that Goff rarely hits guys in stride. Don't know why. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the lack of time he has but against a blitzing team you aren't going to have time and your throws are generally going to be quick, slanting type throws and I can't think of many, or any, that the receiver was able to catch in stride. Maybe next year's QB will have more of that ability (while not having some of Goff's favorable traits) and we'll see more points.
BTW, I agree with most of the OP. Sonny has earned the right to continue his journey. I'm in a wait and see though about what kind of talent we will have next year. We introduced a lot of players last night during senior night. Maybe we have a lot of redshirt guys who have lifted and run their ways into being good D1 football players. I hope so.

socaltownie;842604185 said:

---

Maybe. I think that our worst matchups are against BIG offensive lines and against good Defensive secondaries (no YAC).

---

82gradDLSdad;842604191 said:

---

With regards to YAC...you may be right that we can't break away from good DBs but we noticed last night that Goff rarely hits guys in stride. Don't know why. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the lack of time he has but against a blitzing team you aren't going to have time and your throws are generally going to be quick, slanting type throws and I can't think of many, or any, that the receiver was able to catch in stride. Maybe next year's QB will have more of that ability (while not having some of Goff's favorable traits) and we'll see more points.
BTW, I agree with most of the OP. Sonny has earned the right to continue his journey. I'm in a wait and see though about what kind of talent we will have next year. We introduced a lot of players last night during senior night. Maybe we have a lot of redshirt guys who have lifted and run their ways into being good D1 football players. I hope so.

---

I would have to go back and watch the tape to see if ASU was taking the slants away. What I mean by YAC is that a LOT of our plays are designed to be caught 5-6 yards past the LOS. You are hoping that the first guy misses and thus you can get the first down. Against Furd, USC, and UCLA they don't miss and thus you have to be perfect to sustain a drive. Problem is that it is REALLY HARD to be perfect. It is why I think the TFS has a ceiling in the Pac-12 - a conference with a pretty good track record of recruiting and coaching up Corners and especially safeties to the next level.

I think the yac number is huge, we have good receivers that run great routes and catch but after the catch there's not alot of playmaking happening. Harris and Davis have a little quickness but thats about it. They also get most of the screen passes I would assume by design, they're both good but I don't think they are elite level playmakers. Having to account for a playmaker with the ball changes the way the defense reacts and accounts for the playmakers. We saw last night the Watson was able to get to the second level and make people miss, he's gonna be good next year. I've also seen Hanson turn up field and get yardage, Noa is going to be a beast. I think those 3 guys are going to open up the offense next year. The same applies to the defense, we need a playmaker in the front 7 that will open it up for the other guys and give the opposing o fits. Washington state has a lineman that does just that, he has to be accounted for and opens it up for everyone else.

jhbchristopher;842604208 said:

---

I think the yac number is huge, we have good receivers that run great routes and catch but after the catch there's not alot of things happening. Harris and Davis have a little quickness but that about it. They also get most of the screen passes I would assume by design, there both good but I don't think they are elite level playmakers. Having to account for a playmaker with the ball changes the way the defense reacts and accounts for the playmakers. We saw last night the Watson was able to get to the second level and make people miss, he's gonna be good next year. I've also seen Hanson turn up fiel and get yardage, Noa is going to be a beast. I think those 3 guys are going to open up the offense next year. The same applies to the defense, we need a playmaker in the front 7 that will open it up for the other guys and give the opposing o fits. Washington state has a lineman that does just that, he has to be accounted for and opens it up for everyone else.

---

Good observation about Harris and Davis. And I agree about Watson. He really came on the last 3-4 games. Next man up and he was great at it.

You're right about the play design. Since I didn't sign up for the TFS dvd (:-)) I don't know if the play design is the norm or if it is because we haven't been able to give Goff enough time to throw longer developing routes. For example, I always wondered why WSU runs a million mesh routes and I don't think I've seen us run one? Is it because it takes time for the two inside receivers to cross the field? That route seems to always get a guy open and running away from a defender.

socaltownie;842604197 said:

---

I would have to go back and watch the tape to see if ASU was taking the slants away. What I mean by YAC is that a LOT of our plays are designed to be caught 5-6 yards past the LOS. You are hoping that the first guy misses and thus you can get the first down. Against Furd, USC, and UCLA they don't miss and thus you have to be perfect to sustain a drive. Problem is that it is REALLY HARD to be perfect. It is why I think the TFS has a ceiling in the Pac-12 - a conference with a pretty good track record of recruiting and coaching up Corners and especially safeties to the next level.

---

82gradDLSdad;842604231 said:

---

You're right about the play design. Since I didn't sign up for the TFS dvd (:-)) I don't know if the play design is the norm or if it is because we haven't been able to give Goff enough time to throw longer developing routes. For example, I always wondered why WSU runs a million mesh routes and I don't think I've seen us run one? Is it because it takes time for the two inside receivers to cross the field? That route seems to always get a guy open and running away from a defender.

---

That is my understanding. We do a lot of zone floods but not that much crossing stuff. I think it is in design and it is also a function of offensive line play which has a hard time with longer developing routes.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;842603781 said:

---

Just not getting why everyone is so down on the coaching staff. In the grand scheme of the history of Cal football, this is not that bad of a period.

---

Why? After a very good start, Cal lost 5/6 with a couple of bad losses and little chance to win. The 5/6 losses hurt because, while expected, winning the first 5 games set expectations higher or unrealistically.

GivemTheAxe;842603938 said:

---

Your argument might have more legitimacy if you had acknowledged that WSU's win over UO was over a UO team without its starting QB who returned in time to start against Cal.

---

Oregon was 7-1 with a healthy Vernon Adams. Their only loss was by 3 points at Michigan State, who could likely play themselves into the CFO with a win over Iowa next week.
Going into the final week, the Pac12 had 5 teams in the CFP rankings. Cal went 1-4 against them.

beelzebear;842604250 said:

---

Why? After a very good start, Cal lost 5/6 with a couple of bad losses and little chance to win. The 5/6 losses hurt because, while expected, winning the first 5 games set expectations higher or unrealistically.

---

Most have been waiting for 2015, The Year, when the young players matured into juniors and seniors, perhaps not considering that the same was happening on other teams. So, 2015, a 5-0 start, close to 6-0, then reality hit - hard.
I know I went from being "Sonny's Son", castigated (with cause) by some, to a very neutral attitude, especially after the Oregon blowout. The OSU win wasn't inspiring and the gawd awful loss to furd made it worse, and the first half against ASU seemed very same old, SNAFU ...

Then the second half happened, on O and D. Victory was snatched from the drooling jaws of defeat. We got the 7th win, an unexpected dramatic finish to the regular season and a thrill, especially to the seniors.
Hoping, with most, for the 8th win and a strong recruiting finish, but just hope, no expectations.
Neutral, as experience teaches most Old Blues to be.

SonOfCalVa;842604277 said:

---

So, 2015, a 5-0 start, close to 6-0, then reality hit - hard.

---

Reality was always going to be the middle stretch. Slim to no chance we were going to get those road wins, or SC.

tequila4kapp;842604135 said:

---

who cares how many 8 win seasons Cal has had? That's just a justification for ongoing mediocrity. While I didn't think it was realistic personally, most here expected more based on the schedule, QB, depth, etc. FWIW, it may not sound like it to you but based on your second paragraph we are largely in the same camp.

---

8 wins is mediocre? So you are saying that a team that wins more than 60% of its games is still only "average" by your standards?

Sorry, but that is illogical in the extreme. There are very few places in the world outside academia where winning 6 out of 10 chances is not considered successful. It might not be as successful as we would like to see, but by any definition that I can come up with an 8-5 season is at the very minimum a qualified success, and calling it "continuing mediocrity" only displays a surprising level of animosity towards the program or people involved in it.

mvargus;842604320 said:

---

8 wins is mediocre? So you are saying that a team that wins more than 60% of its games is still only "average" by your standards?

Sorry, but that is illogical in the extreme. There are very few places in the world outside academia where winning 6 out of 10 chances is not considered successful. It might not be as successful as we would like to see, but by any definition that I can come up with an 8-5 season is at the very minimum a qualified success, and calling it "continuing mediocrity" only displays a surprising level of animosity towards the program or people involved in it.

---

Not at Georgia apparently. 5th highest winning % among active coaches, a chance at another 10 win season this year, 15 bowl games in 15 years, a newly signed extension in January....and kaboom....see ya.

mvargus;842604320 said:

---

8 wins is mediocre? So you are saying that a team that wins more than 60% of its games is still only "average" by your standards?

Sorry, but that is illogical in the extreme. There are very few places in the world outside academia where winning 6 out of 10 chances is not considered successful. It might not be as successful as we would like to see, but by any definition that I can come up with an 8-5 season is at the very minimum a qualified success, and calling it "continuing mediocrity" only displays a surprising level of animosity towards the program or people involved in it.

---

You misunderstand my point. The prior poster was arguing that 8 win seasons are so rare for us that we should be satisfied with that result, impliedly saying that we have some inherent characteristic which ever prevents us from doing more. I reject that concept. If history is a pure predictor of future sports results then eff it, we should just throw in the towel now.

My use of the word mediocre was poor. 8 win seasons are not mediocre. In college football, where you can play 13 games and schedule yourself into 2-4 (depending on conference/school) wins, 8 wins is nothing special. Decent to good, sure. I understand some of you feel context matters - we were 1-11 two seasons ago. And I'm fine with that. I'm just of the opinion that context cuts both ways - there's plenty to look at and see warning signs that this isn't a comfortable upward trajectory.

But whatever. As I said in another thread, I didn't like this hiring from the beginning AND I hope the Bears win out to finish 8-5. I'd rather be happy than right.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;842603781 said:

---

It would have been nice to beat one if the California schools, but let's face it. Furd, SC, and UCLA are the class of the conference right now.

Of the 5 losses, 4 were on the road. All 5 losses were to teams that were better, more talented, have more expensive coaches, and we're favored against us going into the season and into the games against us. All 5 teams also spent time ranked in the top 10 at some point in the season

---

I might be a little late to the conversation, but I don't get this "justification" for what, despite the thrill of last night's win, was still a pretty disappointing regular season. Under your rationale, it seems we should be perpetually satisfied as long as we beat the teams we are "supposed" to beat, which to me is a pretty complacent attitude. How do you become the class of the conference without overachieving at some point? Especially with one of the most experienced teams in the league, with a top-tier quarterback, and an offensive system that is supposedly cutting-edge? When you consider those factors, the fact that we regularly got smoked by the "better teams" and often only squeaked by the "lesser teams," I don't see that the delta between us and the top tier is really narrowing all that much. And I can't believe we really can be content with the kind of program that just throws up their hands and accepts this as their lot in life.

One thing I will say on the positive side is that the players could have easily given up on Dykes last night, which is as powerful a statement as there could be. But instead, the team rallied, was overjoyed at the outcome, and celebrated with Dykes. To me this counts for a lot despite the marginal improvement this year. Anyway, I suppose this puts me in the short-extension camp, and a year more to see if we can possibly compete for a conference title under this staff.

tequila4kapp;842604339 said:

---

You misunderstand my point. The prior poster was arguing that 8 win seasons are so rare for us that we should be satisfied with that result, impliedly saying that we have some inherent characteristic which ever prevents us from doing more. I reject that concept. If history is a pure predictor of future sports results then eff it, we should just throw in the towel now.

My use of the word mediocre was poor. 8 win seasons are not mediocre. In college football, where you can play 13 games and schedule yourself into 2-4 (depending on conference/school) wins, 8 wins is nothing special. Decent to good, sure. I understand some of you feel context matters - we were 1-11 two seasons ago. And I'm fine with that. I'm just of the opinion that context cuts both ways - there's plenty to look at and see warning signs that this isn't a comfortable upward trajectory.

But whatever. As I said in another thread, I didn't like this hiring from the beginning AND I hope the Bears win out to finish 8-5. I'd rather be happy than right.

---

What he said.