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.

---

In defense of the negas your points have a lot of holes in them.

1) Oregon does not use the same system that we do. They are a run first offense. Oregon's success is more accurately compared to furd's: An essentially private rich school that can fund it's way into athletic excellence. They could use any scheme and win because they are better conditioned.

2) WSU's "success", if you call 1 winning season (8 wins) in 4 as success, is largely a product of their schedule. They played 3 push overs, only winning 2, in OOC play. They played Oregon at it's weakest. They played the 4 weakest teams from the south. They barely beat Rutgers and Arizona. They did play well in a tough road schedule going 4-2 and they barely lost to a good furd team. It is also true that they are young. So they should improve next year. We'll see.

3) The offensive philosophy encourages good skill players to come. But Cal has had difficulty getting OLs to commit.

4) The reason why Lasco was injured was because the coaching staff kept him in the game with 10 minutes left to play against SDS and Cal up by 21 or 28 points. It's a good thing Goff wasn't hurt.

5) Muhammed did better at RB than you think. But I agree that Watson emerged late in the season thank god.

6) Promising freshmen? Freshmen are always promising until the season starts. Rambo was promising and disappeared. Powell was promising but did not play. Bequette and Westerfield were supposed to emerge. Where are they? Noa was all the rage and fumbled a fare catch on Saturday.

heartofthebear;842605517 said:

---

... 5) Muhammed did better at RB than you think. But I agree that Watson emerged late in the season thank god.

---

Khalfani was our leading rusher

RUSHING GP-GS Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G
Muhammad, Khalfani 11-5 78 559 20 539 6.9 1 74 49.0
Enwere, Vic 12-3 98 510 24 486 5.0 7 42 40.5
Watson, Tre 10-1 76 442 8 434 5.7 3 32 43.4
Lasco, Daniel 8-3 65 351 20 331 5.1 3 22 41.4

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.

---

Pick a top coordinator from furd or UCLA and pay them at least twice what they are making.
They would come here.

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.

---

Most coaches/people like making twice what they made previously. That would be true of any assistant that Cal promoted to HC. Cal just needs to find one they think can deal with academics. Surprisingly Cal is not the only academic school left in college football. There are others.

Recently Cal lost a recruiting target to Yale of all places (maybe it was Cornell). Maybe he liked the coaches as well as the school? Who knows?

actually 16 points is technically 2 tds and 2 pt conversions. But point taken, UCLA was probably the worst game Cal played this season (in a season when just about every team had a stinker or two)- but you could see it coming. UCLA at home after two dismal losses, Thursday night (Bruins' second in a row) ESPN game, Cal a step slow coming out of the bye week, and definitely everyone pressing when things went bad- One of the coaching staff's worst games for sure. And Oregon with Adams healthy at QB is a different team than the one that lost to Utah. Ask Shaw.

What's irritating to me is not that Cal was blown out by SC and the Furd, but rather they had opportunities to win both games. The end of first half BG kick off, worst decision of the season by SD as he agreed on the post game interview, and the pick 6 against SC on a play where Goff was trying to do too much it seemed, each changed the game. As did the ridiculous calls (and non-calls) in the BG.

That's college football. But to extrapolate to the conclusion that Cal has not built a solid foundation and is improving each season under Dykes is to ignore the obvious product on the field. Is there a ceiling? We'll see, but we haven't seen that yet.

So I don't agree with the analysis that this is necessarily a good as it gets.

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)

---

Mekari is better than folks think at DT and Kelley is gone next year. Bequette and Ude are the hopefuls to emerge next year at DT. But Ude might be a DE instead.

Eeyore;842605083 said:

---

Westerfield totally disappeared this year.

---

So did Wainwright at LB. I don't even think he is on the roster.

txwharfrat;842605049 said:

---

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

---

Mental note made that you actually typed this sentence.

Uthaithani;842605299 said:

---

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!

---

1) The program did not lack talent. Under Tedford Cal had highly ranked recruiting classes right up until Dykes took over.
2) It did not lack depth: We had 2 of the most coveted QB recruits in the country as freshmen'
The WRs were ridiculously deep.
3) We had 15 LBs, most of them 3 and 4 star recruits before they got hurt.
4) We had a ton of DEs as well

So we were a bit undermanned at OL, DT and DB, a situation made progressively worse by Dykes, who recruited primarily at WR, even though we were solid there.

I think the coaching quality is roughly the same as when JT was here. DC is a wash. OC is better, RB is worse. LB is worse. DB is a wash. DL is a wash. WR is better and OL is a wash. ST, amazingly is worse.

The program does have more heart. That is true.

How can you say that Dykes has improved things fundamentally? The tackling and blocking is worse. The STs and coverages are at best the same. The academic improvements have not been verified by any outside source and Cal has lied about this in the past. And there has been plenty of off field controversy since he took over, including an ongoing lawsuit against Cal.

He has not improved as a coach every year. For the third year running he still has yet to recruit a quality interior defensive lineman. He made the WR unit worse after taking over. And he is sticking with the TFS a system that has never succeeded against the better teams in the conference.

I will concede that he did improve in some areas like at DB recruiting and coaching.

Evidence that Cal will not improve next year.
He won 7 games with a top level talent at QB. Next year he will have a QB with virtually no D1 experience at QB
He looses 8 guys off the DL, a unit that still didn't rush the QB. The guys carrying the load at DL were Jalil and Kragan. They are gone. Although Looney and Wilson could provide a nice core to build on.
The LBs lack depth and there is nobody committed at LB of any note. Plus we lose Jefferson, one of our most consistent players the last 3 years.
We still have talent at WR, but like at QB, it will go from mega-experienced to largely inexperienced in one year.
We lose our best all-purpose back.

And what guarantee do you have that they would be any more successful than Dykes is? I remember Derek Mason was a candidate when Dykes was hired. His two year record at Vanderbilt is 7-17. Does he have that program headed in the right direction? Has Scott Frost ever been a head coach at any level? I remember years ago when everyone was excited about the Gilbertson hire. That didn't end well. Sometimes coordinators make good coaches but there are no guarantees. They are just as likely to fail. If these coordinators are so good, why aren't they candidates for other jobs. An earlier post hit the nail on the head. If Cal is serious about competing with the upper the division of this conference they need to come up with a lot more money. Lets just start by doubling the coaches' salaries. Not just the head coach but the assistants as well. Some of that can be in the form of incentives but they have to have the ability to make something approaching $4 million. No one with any real pedigree wants to coach at Cal. So you'll need to offer boat loads of cash. Probably more than everyone else. Not after to two or three years but right off the bat. We have the lowest paid coach in the PAC-12. So the truth is that is that he is somewhat of a bargain. He has certainly overachieved based on his salary. Unbelievable that we are talking about firing Dykes after a winning season, our best season in the last 7 years. If he somehow manages back to back winning seasons, he'll probably move on. Then we can re-hire Tedford. He'll surely be fired after another losing season in B.C.

AEM80;842605562 said:

---

And what guarantee do you have that they would be any more successful than Dykes is? I remember Derek Mason was a candidate when Dykes was hired. His two year record at Vanderbilt is 7-17. Does he have that program headed in the right direction? Has Scott Frost ever been a head coach at any level? I remember years ago when everyone was excited about the Gilbertson hire. That didn't end well. Sometimes coordinators make good coaches but there are no guarantees. They are just as likely to fail. If these coordinators are so good, why aren't they candidates for other jobs. An earlier post hit the nail on the head. If Cal is serious about competing with the upper the division of this conference they need to come up with a lot more money. Lets just start by doubling the coaches' salaries. Not just the head coach but the assistants as well. Some of that can be in the form of incentives but they have to have the ability to make something approaching $4 million. No one with any real pedigree wants to coach at Cal. So you'll need to offer boat loads of cash. Probably more than everyone else. Not after to two or three years but right off the bat. We have the lowest paid coach in the PAC-12. So the truth is that is that he is somewhat of a bargain. He has certainly overachieved based on his salary. Unbelievable that we are talking about firing Dykes after a winning season, our best season in the last 7 years. If he somehow manages back to back winning seasons, he'll probably move on. Then we can re-hire Tedford. He'll surely be fired after another losing season in B.C.

---

There is a difference between firing and simply not extending.
We could give him a one year extension I suppose, but it seems to be a lot more than that.
I think I am confused as to why he deserves the extension.
Cal lost a lot of money due to overextending JT. I think JT had like 4 extensions that went out 5 or 6 years into the future.

What sort of mistake do you want to make this time. Maybe one year and no more seems enough to keep the recruits buying in. That would give him 3 years total from now. But I doubt that is what is being negotiated by Cal.

So there are risks on both sides. It's really about risk assessment. If you don't extend, you might lose Dykes and or recruits to other schools. But you are not going to lose any money.

If you extend Dykes you might lose money but you probably won't lose recruits.

Either way there is no guarantees that the team will improve their win/loss record next year or thereafter.

So it really depends on how confident you are in your ability to analyze coaching ability. I am on the fence there. When it comes to coaching, I see a guy I could take or leave. If you assume that the rumors of academic improvement are true, then you probably want to keep him. I would want to see hard evidence that the academics have improved before I extend. I suppose that is what Williams is basing things on. But other respected sources have placed reasonable doubt about the academic progress at Cal, so I just don't know.

What I am sure of is that there are coaching with an academic and football track record that would want the HC job at Cal. Yes you roll the dice with an assistant or coordinator. But you roll the dice with anybody that comes to Cal because Cal is not like anyplace else. That does not mean that you can't reduce the risk of making a mistake by doing your homework and finding the right fit.

txwharfrat;842604866 said:

---

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.

---

I guess, if you want to look at it that way. But my response will be brief: In 2009, they did get blown out as you pointed out, but they also won 8 regular-season games and beat a ranked team (that team being Stanford for the Axe). Sonny's never whiffed any of those three accomplishments yet.

bearingup;842605069 said:

---

"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.

---

Bam!

CGB2813;842605655 said:

---

I guess, if you want to look at it that way. But my response will be brief: In 2009, they did get blown out as you pointed out, but they also won 8 regular-season games and beat a ranked team (that team being Stanford for the Axe). Sonny's never whiffed any of those three accomplishments yet.

---

2009 team with Jahvid Best and Shane Vereen being run up the middle by Ludwig (neither getting 1000 yards) and then losing to Utah in the Poinsettia Bowl was one of the most frustrating teams to watch--except for that Big Game that we almost gave away at the end only to have Harbaugh choke--that was fun!

heartofthebear;842605501 said:

---

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.

---

For me, seven wins would be acceptable next year IF there are NO blowouts.
Add another win for each blowout. ASU Comeback offset the 60 minutes of stinky, runny duck sh!t shower.

This is a guy who just beat Peterson, Graham, Leach, Anderson, and Strong, while having the team competive in 9 games out of 12, winning 7, taking us to a bowl game, and having the coaching smarts to go with Goff over Kiline. Extend him .

Chapman_is_Gone;842605547 said:

---

Mental note made that you actually typed this sentence.

---

And that it is true....

annarborbear;842605687 said:

---

This is a guy who just beat Peterson, Graham, Leach, Anderson, and Strong, while having the team competive in 9 games out of 12, winning 7, taking us to a bowl game, and having the coaching smarts to go with Goff over Kiline. Extend him .

---

Thank you for being intelligent. We appreciate it.

AEM80;842605562 said:

---

And what guarantee do you have that they would be any more successful than Dykes is? I remember Derek Mason was a candidate when Dykes was hired. His two year record at Vanderbilt is 7-17. Does he have that program headed in the right direction? Has Scott Frost ever been a head coach at any level? I remember years ago when everyone was excited about the Gilbertson hire. That didn't end well. Sometimes coordinators make good coaches but there are no guarantees. They are just as likely to fail. If these coordinators are so good, why aren't they candidates for other jobs. An earlier post hit the nail on the head. If Cal is serious about competing with the upper the division of this conference they need to come up with a lot more money. Lets just start by doubling the coaches' salaries. Not just the head coach but the assistants as well. Some of that can be in the form of incentives but they have to have the ability to make something approaching $4 million. No one with any real pedigree wants to coach at Cal. So you'll need to offer boat loads of cash. Probably more than everyone else. Not after to two or three years but right off the bat. We have the lowest paid coach in the PAC-12. So the truth is that is that he is somewhat of a bargain. He has certainly overachieved based on his salary. Unbelievable that we are talking about firing Dykes after a winning season, our best season in the last 7 years. If he somehow manages back to back winning seasons, he'll probably move on. Then we can re-hire Tedford. He'll surely be fired after another losing season in B.C.

---

So, you stick with Dykes because you know what you have? What you have is good enough for you?

AEM80;842605562 said:

---

I remember years ago when everyone was excited about the Gilbertson hire.

---

You must have known different people than those I knew. Everyone I knew was upset we hired Gilby instead of Mooch, thereby losing any hope of keeping a decent portion of the incoming recruiting class, and losing any hope of having continuity on the coaching staff. Based on his limited success at Idaho, we HOPED that Gilby could have some success, but "excited"?? You must have hung with a much different crowd than mine if everyone was "excited about the Gilbertson hire."

By the way, we wanted a degree of continuity because of the success, especially the offensive success. The opposite was true when Mooch was left. The defense under Mooch was a complete failure, playing one good half of defense all season, the last thing we wanted was continuity on the defensive side, yet we hired the defensive coordinator under Mooch to be HC. That was an even odder decision than hiring a guy who had been hanging out in Hollywood and hadn't coached in college or the pros (see Joe Kapp).

That said, your basic point is correct. Hiring a guy without any FBS HC experience is a gamble, no matter what his assistant pedigree looks like. I think it takes an understanding of the qualities that make up a good HC, not just a look at how well someone has done as a coordinator. That is at least what Gladstone tried to do when replacing Holmoe. But there is still no guarantee.

0-12

AEM80;842605562 said:

---

I remember years ago when everyone was excited about the Gilbertson hire. That didn't end well.

---

Anyone old enough to have been familiar with the 1991 Washington team knew Jim Lambrights defense carried the team. Gilbertson accomplished nothing except swimming in the defense's wake. When he was hired, I don't remember anyone celebrating the hire. I know I didn't. He lost an 11 point lead to Fresno St in the fourth quarter, he burned Barnes redshirt, and he lost 61-0 to SC. I was there for that embarrassment. That's where the redshirt was burned. Gilby. Yuck.

And then, UW hired him to be head coach. :p

SmellinRoses;842605791 said:

---

0-12

---

You're old fashioned. "Being competitive" ( not winning) is the new standard

I don't think it's silly but here is where I'm at: I think there is a better chance that Sonny is a decent to good coach than our current administration can identify and hire a better football coach. I thought we were close to 'all in' with regards to football when we spent all the money on the facilities but the more I hear the more I think that our top guys could never hire a great football coach and then give him what he needs to hire a great staff. I'm ok with Sonny for the next couple of years. I hope he can continue to build his staff (and that he is given a bump in money to do so) because I think it still needs some work, eg. a WR coach, a RB coach, maybe a ST coach, maybe a LB coach.

txwharfrat;842605048 said:

---

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

---

1979bear;842605794 said:

---

Anyone old enough to have been familiar with the 1991 Washington team knew Jim Lambrights defense carried the team. Gilbertson accomplished nothing except swimming in the defense's wake. When he was hired, I don't remember anyone celebrating the hire. I know I didn't. He lost an 11 point lead to Fresno St in the fourth quarter, he burned Barnes redshirt, and he lost 61-0 to SC. I was there for that embarrassment. That's where the redshirt was burned. Gilby. Yuck.

---

Lambright took over from cowardly James in a horrible turmoil, and got a decent record, then got fired.
Nobody was or has been as purple-blooded as Lambo. He didn't (and couldn't) match unrealistic expectations.
Gilby, another Coordinator, good as such but then failed twice trying to be a HC.
Tedford, sleeping in his office, poorly delegating ... several good to great years but his failings as the HEAD coach caught up to him ... buh bye.
Coordinators stepping up is more a miss than a hit situation as it takes new skills to succeed as HEAD coach.

Looperbear;842604901 said:

---

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.

---

So you might as well get a coach on board who can build a good program on a solid foundation - not on some questionable Bear Raid idea that isn't even effectively implemented with an experienced, superior QB/receiver corps in its third year.

1979bear;842605794 said:

---

Anyone old enough to have been familiar with the 1991 Washington team knew Jim Lambrights defense carried the team. Gilbertson accomplished nothing except swimming in the defense's wake. When he was hired, I don't remember anyone celebrating the hire. I know I didn't. He lost an 11 point lead to Fresno St in the fourth quarter, he burned Barnes redshirt, and he lost 61-0 to SC. I was there for that embarrassment. That's where the redshirt was burned. Gilby. Yuck.

---

As I indicated, my circle of friends and I certainly didn't celebrate the Gilby hire, but we hoped it would work.

While the examples you mention were all problems, we first got a strong clue about how bad Gilby would be as head coach in his second game, following a first game blowout win over a lame San Jose St. team. We went to Purdue to play an inferior team, and got blown out 41-14. It was an embarassment. We had so much more talent than they did. Gilby's second game as a head coach, the team gets off to a bad start and then just quits. Not a good sign if they will play this way for the new coach.

In 1992, Gilby took a very talented team to a 4-7 record. Disaster. Some people got fooled by the 1993 season, when Cal went 9-4 and key injuries likely kept us from winning a weak Pac-10, but man, that team had a lot of talent, and most of the really disgruntled players from 1992 were gone. But even in that season, some of his problems showed through, like in blowing the lead against UW, too big a lead to blow in spite of the Zomalt and Barr injuries. Some gave Gilby credit for the comeback wins against Oregon and Arizona, but there was no excuse for getting as far behind in those games as we did

And don't forget he burned not one, but TWO opportunities to have Barnes get a redshirt year. The 61-0 loss was in '94, Barnes' sophomore year (and I was there for that, too, I stayed until the bitter end, at least traffic wasn't bad getting away from the Coliseum). Gilby wasted Barnes in his true freshman year as well, in the 41-0 loss at ASU in '93.

The Fresno St. loss wasn't until the second game of his fourth and final year, the week after we failed to show up in San Diego and lost to the Aztecs 33-9. After the Fresno St. game, Gilby pretty much asked to be fired. It wouldn't have been a bad idea to do it right then, but Kasser decided that he wanted to torture Gilby, the team, and the fans, so Gilby stayed around until the end of the season.

The odd thing is, with all the evidence needed to demonstrate that, for whatever talents he had as an assistant, Gilby was an awful head coach, UW made him HC anyway in the wake of the Slick Rick fiasco. Go figure.