It is clear when reviewing the results of every season since 2008, that 2015 is the very best football results we have seen in SEVEN YEARS. Not only are the wins and losses there - and I expect the team to finish 8-5 just like in 2009 - but the losses have been far closer and far more entertaining than in ANY seasons since 2008. Plus, ending the season with a Bowl Win would be sweeter than in 2009. We do have to go all the way back to 2008 to find a season as good as this one. Cal wasn't blown out and embarrassed in any of the games this year. Yes, fUCLA outplayed us badly, but the team never gave up and it wasn't a 50-point blowout.

For example, all of Cal's losses this year were by 16 points or less - two of them by just 6 points. Going over results of the prior years, working backwards, we have the following terrible losses of more than 16 points:

2014: THREE losses (21,18,24 points)
2013: NINE losses (50,17,34,24,32,27,22,39,18)
2012: FIVE losses (48,42,22,18,18)
2011: THREE losses (17,21,28)
2010: FOUR losses (34,28,34,21)
2009: FOUR losses (32,17,27,39)
2008: No losses of more than 16 points

Yes - in Tedford's final four seasons he had multiple blowout losses. While Dykes hasn't been able to beat any of the California teams just yet - we have improved from getting blown out regularly to at least beating the teams we are supposed to beat, and keeping the other games close. Overall, you have to rank 2015 as the very best season for Cal football since 2008, when the team finished 9-4 with the victory in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.

Well yes, its the best from a very bad period of football...

I wouldn't mind if he uses it to leave.

socaliganbear;842604871 said:

---

Well yes, its the best from a very bad period of football...

I wouldn't mind if he uses it to leave.

---

Says the negabear who doesn't appear to care that the next coach could (and very likely will) do worse for at least a season.

mvargus;842604885 said:

---

Says the negabear who doesn't appear to care that the next coach could (and very likely will) do worse for at least a season.

---

Oh he definitely will, we're recruiting at the bottom of the conference.

mvargus;842604885 said:

---

Says the negabear who doesn't appear to care that the next coach could (and very likely will) do worse for at least a season.

---

With Goff leaving along with several other Tedford recruits, we're going to do much worse next year than this year regardless of who our coach is.

mvargus;842604885 said:

---

Says the negabear who doesn't appear to care that the next coach could (and very likely will) do worse for at least a season.

---

so you wouldn't trade a season for longer term success? What's the upside with Sonny, and can you live with that?
My reaction to the OP-yes, best season in 7 years, but with the best player(especially at QB) at Cal in what, 11 years? The question is simply-is this the best Sonny Dykes can do at Cal?

mbBear;842604902 said:

---

The question is simply-is this the best Sonny Dykes can do at Cal?

---

Simple answer - I have no clue. I don't think Sonny has every piece in place that he wants, but I also don't spend hours watching film and trying to micro-analyze every play. I suspect that Cal still suffers from a significant athletic talent deficit which they need to resolve before any coach can be successful. It's similar to what Oregon eventually overcame. The offensive philosophy is one that should encourage better athletes to come, but I agree we have struggled against some defenses. I'm not convinced its the offense, since WSU and Oregon run similar offenses and have had success. I do believe a huge part of this season's struggles was the loss of Lasco for so many games. It wasn't until Tre Watson started receiving the lion's share of the carries that the offense started to revive. We need at least the threat of a running game and neither Muhammad nor Enwere was dynamic enough.

the defense is still rebuilding. Dykes definitely needs to recruit a bit better here, but we have a lot of promising freshmen and red shirts. Again, we might learn more in 2016. Having the extra practices for the bowl game will make a big difference for 2016.

You mean the 10-15 seniors who dominated the depth charts?

mvargus;842604915 said:

---

Simple answer - I have no clue. I don't think Sonny has every piece in place that he wants, but I also don't spend hours watching film and trying to micro-analyze every play. I suspect that Cal still suffers from a significant athletic talent deficit which they need to resolve before any coach can be successful. It's similar to what Oregon eventually overcame. The offensive philosophy is one that should encourage better athletes to come, but I agree we have struggled against some defenses. I'm not convinced its the offense, since WSU and Oregon run similar offenses and have had success. I do believe a huge part of this season's struggles was the loss of Lasco for so many games. It wasn't until Tre Watson started receiving the lion's share of the carries that the offense started to revive. We need at least the threat of a running game and neither Muhammad nor Enwere was dynamic enough.

the defense is still rebuilding. Dykes definitely needs to recruit a bit better here, but we have a lot of promising freshmen and red shirts. Again, we might learn more in 2016. Having the extra practices for the bowl game will make a big difference for 2016.

---

I simply want a reason to believe in Sonny. I believe in patience. I want reasons to be patient with him.

SRBear;842604917 said:

---

You mean the 10-15 seniors who dominated the depth charts?

---

Are you suggesting that seniors dominating the depth charts is bad?
Or is this just another "I miss my Teddy bear" dig.
BTW, Goff was totally developed under Dykes and Franklin.

SonOfCalVa;842604931 said:

---

Are you suggesting that seniors dominating the depth charts is bad?
Or is this just another "I miss my Teddy bear" dig.
BTW, Goff was totally developed under Dykes and Franklin.

---

He's saying Dykes had a veteran team.

Oregon runs the ball with a running QB. That's not our offense. WSU has a similar offense with similar results. As others have pointed out WSU's "success" this year was partly due to schedule and not really that Leach has made some sort of epic leap that Sonny has yet to make. I really do like the attempt Sonny/Tony have made in trying to field a unique offense. I just think you still have to block and tackle, play good defense and good special teams to have to good team. Not sure I've seen that yet out of Sonny and it does take a step up in recruiting sometimes before you can make the leap to being a good team. Chicken and egg I guess.

mvargus;842604915 said:

---

Simple answer - I have no clue. I don't think Sonny has every piece in place that he wants, but I also don't spend hours watching film and trying to micro-analyze every play. I suspect that Cal still suffers from a significant athletic talent deficit which they need to resolve before any coach can be successful. It's similar to what Oregon eventually overcame. The offensive philosophy is one that should encourage better athletes to come, but I agree we have struggled against some defenses. I'm not convinced its the offense, since WSU and Oregon run similar offenses and have had success. I do believe a huge part of this season's struggles was the loss of Lasco for so many games. It wasn't until Tre Watson started receiving the lion's share of the carries that the offense started to revive. We need at least the threat of a running game and neither Muhammad nor Enwere was dynamic enough.

the defense is still rebuilding. Dykes definitely needs to recruit a bit better here, but we have a lot of promising freshmen and red shirts. Again, we might learn more in 2016. Having the extra practices for the bowl game will make a big difference for 2016.

---

socaliganbear;842604933 said:

---

He's saying Dykes had a veteran team.

---

With some seniors who don't sniff the field if playing on upper tier conference foes.

Look - the next 2 years will give us the best chance to really understand what is going on (for both good and ill). We will see Sonny recruits in starting rolls. We will see how the TFS does without a top 5 pick QB (though wouldn't it be funny if he pulled a Luck and came back). I have decided, in the spirit of Ken Montgomery, to hold my fire for 9 months. Williams seems to have decided to invest in Sonny so with rumors of 4 years and 11 million it means we are into it for another 2 years. If it works, great. If not, reload and next man up. I can't stress about it any more.

socaltownie;842605006 said:

---

Look - the next 2 years will give us the best chance to really understand what is going on (for both good and ill). We will see Sonny recruits in starting rolls. We will see how the TFS does without a top 5 pick QB (though wouldn't it be funny if he pulled a Luck and came back). I have decided, in the spirit of Ken Montgomery, to hold my fire for 9 months. Williams seems to have decided to invest in Sonny so with rumors of 4 years and 11 million it means we are into it for another 2 years. If it works, great. If not, reload and next man up. I can't stress about it any more.

---

Worst case scenario, we send Dykes packing in the next 1-2 years, and the next coach we bring in will have no excuses regarding talent and should expect to compete for the PAC-12 North immediately.

I'm saying we didn't have 10-15 seniors dominating the depth charts or the field. Some, sure, but not enough Tedford leftovers who were difference makers.

Strykur;842605007 said:

---

Worst case scenario, we send Dykes packing in the next 1-2 years, and the next coach we bring in will have no excuses regarding talent and should expect to compete for the PAC-12 North immediately.

---

Wouldn't be surprised. This happens fairly often - the guy is canned a year before he would have gotten "his kids" on the field.

mbBear;842604902 said:

---

so you wouldn't trade a season for longer term success? What's the upside with Sonny, and can you live with that?
My reaction to the OP-yes, best season in 7 years, but with the best player(especially at QB) at Cal in what, 11 years? The question is simply-is this the best Sonny Dykes can do at Cal?

---

Who's the last coach we hired other than Tedford that brought us success. When JT was hired he was probably the third best coach in the PAC-10. By the time he was fired he was probably eighth or ninth best.The quality of PAC-12 coaches now is very high and to get the quality coach needed is going to cost a lot of money and that's only if you can convince a HC to even come here. Everybody thinks we can do better than Sonny but no one has a coach who would actually come here. When it comes to football at Cal we're a Catch-22.

socaliganbear;842604871 said:

---

Well yes, its the best from a very bad period of football...

I wouldn't mind if he uses it to leave.

---

I have been watching Cal religiously (every game as opposed to just a few games a year) since 1963, there have been a number of long "very bad periods of football" with a few bright spots of Mike White, Snyder, and Tedford.01
If Cal stays true to form, IF Sonny should leave, odds are that the next coach is NOT better and maybe worse.
Most successful college coaches do not like coaching at institutions such as Cal.

socaliganbear;842604933 said:

---

He's saying Dykes had a veteran team.

---

I'd argue that it was "veteran" only in certain positions and injuries didn't help. Also as others have noted some of the senior starters wouldn't have been starting for other Pac-12 programs. There is still a lack of depth and speed on the team.

Offense Seniors
Rigsbee - OG
all starting WR except Lawler
Lasco

Of course we probably lose Goff as well, but other than Goff we might not have any offensive players drafted this season. If we do it will likely be after the third round.

I will accept that the senior starters had lots of experience, but the OL wasn't the best. We really only had 2.5 returning starters in Rigsbee (who moved around a lot) and Moore. Granado wasn't expected to start. Borrayo was in his second year starting and Farley was another player pulled into service because there was no one else. Throw in Lasco getting hurt and the offense had some challenges they couldn't overcome quickly.

Next season we return 4 OL, and 3 different RB who have starting experience. We also will have at least 3 WR with game experience, 2 who were used quite a bit late in the season. (Hudson and Hansen.) I expect most publications will have the offense as returning 5 starters. Not bad when you think about it.

Defense Seniors
Jalil, Barr, Kragen, Lopa, Johnson on the DL (might be one more I'm missing)
Broussard, Jefferson - LB
White, McClure, Willis - DB

At most you get 6 starters from this list. Broussard was injured quite a bit and Willis was beaten out by later recruits. Jalil was good when healthy, but wasn't starting by the end of the season. White and McClure were probably the class of the class on defense for their tenure in their positions and skill.

Cal will lose a lot of talent, but most reports have us losing 24 seniors. (and then Lawler and Goff might leave as well.) When you look at the starters, I don't see that many seniors.

It was a team with a lot of upperclassmen, but perhaps not the most talented class of upperclassmen. Still they lived through the disaster of Dykes first season and have been around to see Cal return to a bowl game. They deserve accolades for their accomplishments.

82gradDLSdad;842604936 said:

---

Oregon runs the ball with a running QB. That's not our offense. WSU has a similar offense with similar results. As others have pointed out WSU's "success" this year was partly due to schedule and not really that Leach has made some sort of epic leap that Sonny has yet to make. I really do like the attempt Sonny/Tony have made in trying to field a unique offense. I just think you still have to block and tackle, play good defense and good special teams to have to good team. Not sure I've seen that yet out of Sonny and it does take a step up in recruiting sometimes before you can make the leap to being a good team. Chicken and egg I guess.

---

I agree with the assessment that Leach benefitted from the scheduling this year. Wazzu skipped both $C and Utah and instead played Arizona and Colorado. You swap those two teams out on our schedule and Wazzu's schedule and Wazzu ends up 6-6 and we end up 9-3.

bar20;842605021 said:

---

Who's the last coach we hired other than Tedford that brought us success. When JT was hired he was probably the third best coach in the PAC-10. By the time he was fired he was probably eighth or ninth best.The quality of PAC-12 coaches now is very high and to get the quality coach needed is going to cost a lot of money and that's only if you can convince a HC to even come here. Everybody thinks we can do better than Sonny but no one has a coach who would actually come here. When it comes to football at Cal we're a Catch-22.

---

I'm not in the "everybody thinks we can do better than Sonny" camp. That is a silly place to be.

68great;842605029 said:

---

I have been watching Cal religiously (every game as opposed to just a few games a year) since 1963, there have been a number of long "very bad periods of football" with a few bright spots of Mike White, Snyder, and Tedford.01
If Cal stays true to form, IF Sonny should leave, odds are that the next coach is NOT better and maybe worse.
Most successful college coaches do not like coaching at institutions such as Cal.

---

Our best chance of enjoying football for years to come at Cal is to sign Sonny up for the long term.

txwharfrat;842605046 said:

---

I agree with the assessment that Leach benefitted from the scheduling this year. Wazzu skipped both $C and Utah and instead played Arizona and Colorado. You swap those two teams out on our schedule and Wazzu's schedule and Wazzu ends up 6-6 and we end up 9-3.

---

Their biggest break was catching Oregon in disarray. Their win over UCLA was solid otherwise there is little to distinguish Cal, WSU, Washington State, Washington and ASU.

mvargus;842605033 said:

---

I'd argue that it was "veteran" only in certain positions and injuries didn't help. Also as others have noted some of the senior starters wouldn't have been starting for other Pac-12 programs. There is still a lack of depth and speed on the team.

Offense Seniors
Rigsbee - OG
all starting WR except Lawler
Lasco

Of course we probably lose Goff as well, but other than Goff we might not have any offensive players drafted this season. If we do it will likely be after the third round.

I will accept that the senior starters had lots of experience, but the OL wasn't the best. We really only had 2.5 returning starters in Rigsbee (who moved around a lot) and Moore. Granado wasn't expected to start. Borrayo was in his second year starting and Farley was another player pulled into service because there was no one else. Throw in Lasco getting hurt and the offense had some challenges they couldn't overcome quickly.

Next season we return 4 OL, and 3 different RB who have starting experience. We also will have at least 3 WR with game experience, 2 who were used quite a bit late in the season. (Hudson and Hansen.) I expect most publications will have the offense as returning 5 starters. Not bad when you think about it.

Defense Seniors
Jalil, Barr, Kragen, Lopa, Johnson on the DL (might be one more I'm missing)
Broussard, Jefferson - LB
White, McClure, Willis - DB

At most you get 6 starters from this list. Broussard was injured quite a bit and Willis was beaten out by later recruits. Jalil was good when healthy, but wasn't starting by the end of the season. White and McClure were probably the class of the class on defense for their tenure in their positions and skill.

Cal will lose a lot of talent, but most reports have us losing 24 seniors. (and then Lawler and Goff might leave as well.) When you look at the starters, I don't see that many seniors.

It was a team with a lot of upperclassmen, but perhaps not the most talented class of upperclassmen. Still they lived through the disaster of Dykes first season and have been around to see Cal return to a bowl game. They deserve accolades for their accomplishments.

---

I really liked what Manley, Kelly and Saffle were doing on Saturday (along with the guys that are leaving). I see some hope in the d-line in future. I think if Saffle can add more lbs and stays injury free, he is going to be a star.

"there is little to distinguish Cal, WSU, Washington State, Washington and ASU"

Well, one distinction is Cal was the only team to beat all the others on this list.

txwharfrat;842604866 said:

---

Yes - in Tedford's final four seasons he had multiple blowout losses. While Dykes hasn't been able to beat any of the California teams just yet - we have improved from getting blown out regularly to at least beating the teams we are supposed to beat, and keeping the other games close.

---

60% of our losses this year have been blow-outs (13 points or more). So I don't see how you think we weren't blown out multiple times.

UCLA whooped us by 16 and it would have been more if not for a garbage time TD by Khalfani. Oregon was also by 16. Stanfurd was by 13, but we only got that close after a garbage time TD to Treggs.

KoreAmBear;842605068 said:

---

I really liked what Manley, Kelly and Saffle were doing on Saturday (along with the guys that are leaving). I see some hope in the d-line in future. I think if Saffle can add more lbs and stays injury free, he is going to be a star.

---

I think we need 1 more solid speed rusher, and I'd love a bit more depth at the DT and SDE positions. Saffle is intriguing, but he played so little that its hard to get a good read on him. Manley and Kelly are both solid, but we really need at least one more DT and Wilson looks good at times.

Looney needs to be more consistent. He has good plays, but then vanishes for a few plays.

I believe we had a couple players redshirt so it is intriguing for next season. It is clear that Dykes wants to improve the DL play as we are recruiting this position heavily. (personally I'd like to see 1-2 more LB at this point, we have only 1 confirmed LB commit right now)

mvargus;842605077 said:

---

I think we need 1 more solid speed rusher, and I'd love a bit more depth at the DT and SDE positions. Saffle is intriguing, but he played so little that its hard to get a good read on him. Manley and Kelly are both solid, but we really need at least one more DT and Wilson looks good at times.

Looney needs to be more consistent. He has good plays, but then vanishes for a few plays.

I believe we had a couple players redshirt so it is intriguing for next season. It is clear that Dykes wants to improve the DL play as we are recruiting this position heavily. (personally I'd like to see 1-2 more LB at this point, we have only 1 confirmed LB commit right now)

---

Westerfield totally disappeared this year.

CaliforniaDan;842605071 said:

---

60% of our losses this year have been blow-outs (13 points or more). So I don't see how you think we weren't blown out multiple times.

UCLA whooped us by 16 and it would have been more if not for a garbage time TD by Khalfani. Oregon was also by 16. Stanfurd was by 13, but we only got that close after a garbage time TD to Treggs.

---

I'm not going to re-copy the data here. Just go look at the numbers in the OP.... Sheesh...

Also - there is no definition anywhere that would call a two-score game a "blowout"....

CaliforniaDan;842605071 said:

---

60% of our losses this year have been blow-outs (13 points or more). So I don't see how you think we weren't blown out multiple times.

UCLA whooped us by 16 and it would have been more if not for a garbage time TD by Khalfani. Oregon was also by 16. Stanfurd was by 13, but we only got that close after a garbage time TD to Treggs.

---

Correct. We were blown out by UCLA Oregon & Stanford. How anyone could claim we were not blown out by UCLA - is beyond me. Final score is not indicative due to garbage time as you have rightly noted.

We are extolling the virtues of a coach who has gone 0-12. Remarkably low bar we have set for ourselves.

SRBear;842604917 said:

---

You mean the 10-15 seniors who dominated the depth charts?

---

:tedford

:p

socaliganbear;842604933 said:

---

He's saying Dykes had a veteran team.

---

Yah, that HE developed! If the argument is Dykes can't build a winning program, you've proven yourself wrong. If the argument is he can't do any better than this, I don't agree and I'd rather accept a few more potential 6-7 win seasons before determining that he's "plateaued" than cut him loose after his first bowl season and find out the hard way he's got a lot more upside in him.

I see a coach that took over a nightmare program that lacked talent, depth, coaching and heart. And from that he created a winning program - the right way, with solid academics and team discipline. The better question isn't "what proof do you have that Dykes can get Cal to the championship level," but "what proof do you have that he can't?" He's improved the program at a foundational level, he's improved as a coach himself every year. What evidence do you have that he WON'T win more games than 2015 in future years? The evidence, if anything, points to a steady level of overall improvement. It's far LESS of a leap of faith to predict that trend line continues than to predict this is the best he'll ever do.

Oh, and next person who uses Coach Martin's recruiting success as a pathetic rationale for replacing Dykes - 1) You're a fucking moron 2) The coaches support each other, knock that bullsh*t off, it's seriously uncool - try being a Cal fan instead of a douche canoe and 3) see #1

Go Bears!

Your claim that the UCLA game was not a blowout - regardless of definitions and score differentials referenced (don't you technically have to score four times when down by 16) - would leave one to believe you did not watch the game. Cal was not remotely competitive in that game.

mbBear;842604902 said:

---

so you wouldn't trade a season for longer term success? What's the upside with Sonny, and can you live with that?
My reaction to the OP-yes, best season in 7 years, but with the best player(especially at QB) at Cal in what, 11 years? The question is simply-is this the best Sonny Dykes can do at Cal?

---

Also, it is one of the most experienced teams in the nation. So there is every reason to believe the next year or two are rebuilding years. If you top out at 7 wins it's not something to celebrate.