I agree about the lines. Historically, we've always been able to attract quality players at the skill positions. The struggle has been to get high-end recruits on the lines. When you don't do that, and you also don't have coaches that can teach good technique, that's a recipe for disaster. If these coaches are good, and they show that by getting their linemen to the NFL, that by itself will attract better recruits.

This thread is comical - interesting.

Oh we'll see ya on July 29-30

Jeff82;842842906 said:

---

I agree about the lines. Historically, we've always been able to attract quality players at the skill positions. The struggle has been to get high-end recruits on the lines. When you don't do that, and you also don't have coaches that can teach good technique, that's a recipe for disaster. If these coaches are good, and they show that by getting their linemen to the NFL, that by itself will attract better recruits.

---

My concern is recruiting. I think Wilcox is a good defensive coach, certainly a better defensive coach than we've seen for awhile. He has hired good assistant coaches. I'm real happy with the coaches he's hired, at least from a coaching perspective. However they have no track record for being great recruiters and we have seen no real bump in recruiting. I know it's early but no real scores on the recruiting front. In fact we are getting absolutely mauled by Oregon, Washington and some of the other schools in the PAC 12. They've got good coaches too. Wilcox has to exceed expectations in the first year. If he wins 2 to 3 games this year, we're dead in the water. He has to win at least 5 to 6 games.

AEM80;842842947 said:

---

My concern is recruiting. I think Wilcox is a good defensive coach, certainly a better defensive coach than we've seen for awhile. He has hired good assistant coaches. I'm real happy with the coaches he's hired, at least from a coaching perspective. However they have no track record for being great recruiters and we have seen no real bump in recruiting. I know it's early but no real scores on the recruiting front. In fact we are getting absolutely mauled by Oregon, Washington and some of the other schools in the PAC 12. They've got good coaches too. Wilcox has to exceed expectations in the first year. If he wins 2 to 3 games this year, we're dead in the water. He has to win at least 5 to 6 games.

---

Getting mauled by Washington is no big surprise. Most good players given a choice between Cal and Washington are going to pick Washington right now because they are the best program in the conference. Oregon is a bit more concerning as they had a worse year than us last year and have a new coach as well, but they've always had an appeal for players in the Phil Knight megaspending era. We got a late start with the late hire of Wilcox and so I'm not surprised we didn't do well in recruiting. We're going to have to do the best we can with the talent we have and hope we make a decent showing that shows that the program is on the upswing. I'm personally expecting a tough first year and then hoping we outperform our on the field results with a full year of recruiting. I just don't see coaching fixing all of our defensive problems and I think the offense has a tough road to hoe with a new inexperienced QB and some holes on the line.

OaktownBear;842842689 said:

---

yeah, and Treggs and Harper were clearly lousy teammates who didn't take accountability seriously.

---

Huh? I don't follow?

CalHoopFan;842842969 said:

---

Huh? I don't follow?

---

They were at the bottom of the buy in list.

OaktownBear;842842971 said:

---

They were at the bottom of the buy in list.

---

Got it.

OaktownBear;842842775 said:

---

The staff Dykes put together the first year had me really concerned. Particulary Buh (weak resume, pushed out at Stanford), Stewart (under Holmoe the worst position coach I have ever seen at Cal, now only surpassed by a guy named Stewart in one year under Dykes) and Yenser (WTF). No west coast recruiters. I didn't know much about the other guys other than Franklin and the WR coach who I thought were solid. That is the concern some of us have with the fans. It seems like "we got [fill in name]! Awesome!" Like "we got Buh! Awesome!". "we got Ethelred the Unready! Awesome!"

Wilcox' staff on paper appears to be so much better and seems to have been put together with a plan. Appears being the key word. Proof will come on the field.

---

Meeting that staff in person the first year was a let down mostly. Franklin was clearly the real deal but Yenser was far from impressive and Buh on paper (Dykes didn't even want to hire him) was a disaster. Honestly, the staff improved in some areas (Jones, Peeler and our DB coaches are examples) yet it never got to a good enough place. My strong feeling having talked to Sonny about AK and our DL coach was that he knew he had a big problem and was frustrated by it. Not sure if he blamed Cal or he was already half way out the door or what.

calbear93;842842770 said:

---

While I agree with your general statement , some people have strength that translate better in certain professions and environment and some have weaknesses that are high barriers to success in their position. As a result, whether we praise the strength or focus on weaknesses will depend on the results. The bottom line is that we loved Tedford because of his results in the beginning and focused on his weaknesses because of his results at the end. Same with Dykes. Even though Snyder left, I focused on his strength because he was winning at the time he left. All I have to do is look at Dykes' record and know that his strength was not appropriate at Cal for him to do all of the things he was hired to do (he did one thing well, but definitely not the winning part).

---

Well i thought Sonny left a stronger program, but believe the right decision was make to hire Wilcox. Also, I don't really disagree with your comments in general.

AEM80;842842947 said:

---

He has to win at least 5 to 6 games.

---

I hope the Bears win at least that many.

But "has to"? No. With one of the toughest schedules in CFB, and with how thin the defense is, with no clear starter at QB... it's not going to be an easy season.

6 is the bottom line

Jeff82;842842622 said:

---

My thesis has always been that the school, as unusual as this would be, should have figured out a way to permit/persuade Tedford to take a one-year sabbatical, maybe the year they played in SF, to get his health back, get his head screwed on straight, and to move on from there. I just thought he got burned out from all the hassles with the stadium, and perhaps ceded too much authority to assistants, which resulted in some bad decisions, such as the Tosh recruiting snafus. I still think he's the best coach we've had in the post-Waldorf era, and could have righted the ship if given the chance. Since you've been following the program closely throughout this saga, am I way off base?

---

Jeff82, you have floated this idea in the past and, while it seems innovative at first glance, think of all the potential pitfalls:

Who is in charge of the program during the "sabbatical"?

What would Tedford really have done -- or have been permitted to have done -- during that year?

What happens if the year is a success and there is a feeling that the "interim HC" had done a better job than Tedford could have?

What happens if the year off doesn't seem to have helped and now you've just wasted two years.

What recruits would want to join the program during this time of uncertainty?

There is a reason that no program, to the best of my knowledge, has ever done anything like that and it's more than lack of ability to think outside the box. Jeff Tedford is rightly lauded for the first 2/3 of his tenure at Cal. But then he lost it, by every conceivable measure. And once you lose it, you rarely get it back.

going4roses;842843011 said:

---

6 is the bottom line

---

Why? I just hope 2017 won't be a year zero for Coach Wilcox...

Meister Petz;842843036 said:

---

Why? I just hope 2017 won't be a year zero for Coach Wilcox...

---

Recruiting Recruiting Recruiting

AEM80;842842947 said:

---

My concern is recruiting. I think Wilcox is a good defensive coach, certainly a better defensive coach than we've seen for awhile. He has hired good assistant coaches. I'm real happy with the coaches he's hired, at least from a coaching perspective. However they have no track record for being great recruiters and we have seen no real bump in recruiting. I know it's early but no real scores on the recruiting front. In fact we are getting absolutely mauled by Oregon, Washington and some of the other schools in the PAC 12. They've got good coaches too. Wilcox has to exceed expectations in the first year. If he wins 2 to 3 games this year, we're dead in the water. He has to win at least 5 to 6 games.

---

I'll judge by what I see on the field. I want us to look like we know what we're doing on both sides of the ball, and administratively. For example, knowing what we know about what happened when we went back to Maryland, we should be flying east plenty early enough (no later than Wednesday night IMHO) to get acclimated to the time change and weather. Sleep walking through the first half is not acceptable. If Wilcox is prevented from doing that by Mike Williams, the Chancellor, etc., he should be publicly calling them out.

My other goals: no blowouts, play hard, get plays in on offense timely, be willing to make in-game adjustments and take some chances. On defense, we need to blitz more, because we're probably not going to generate much pressure from the basic package, and the defensive backfield is one area of experience. If we get burned, so be it. But better to try some different things than just stand pat and get bludgeoned, which in my view is pretty much what Kaufman did.

Big C_Cal;842843035 said:

---

Jeff82, you have floated this idea in the past and, while it seems innovative at first glance, think of all the potential pitfalls:

Who is in charge of the program during the "sabbatical"?

What would Tedford really have done -- or have been permitted to have done -- during that year?

What happens if the year is a success and there is a feeling that the "interim HC" had done a better job than Tedford could have?

What happens if the year off doesn't seem to have helped and now you've just wasted two years.

What recruits would want to join the program during this time of uncertainty?

There is a reason that no program, to the best of my knowledge, has ever done anything like that and it's more than lack of ability to think outside the box. Jeff Tedford is rightly lauded for the first 2/3 of his tenure at Cal. But then he lost it, by every conceivable measure. And once you lose it, you rarely get it back.

---

All good questions, which would have had to be worked out. But it has occurred. Meyer did it at Florida. Coach K did it at Duke. The Harvard coach is doing it this year. Obviously, it's 20/20 hindsight, but it's not like subsequent events showed that firing Tedford resulted in a great step forward. I just disagree with your last sentence. I'm actually more afraid that Tedford was our one chance to again have a legacy coach and build a several-decade record of success, and now that opportunity is gone. I also think the academic problems were as much Sandy's fault and the fault of the campus administration as they were Tedford's fault.

Jeff82;842843085 said:

---

On defense, we need to blitz more, because we're probably not going to generate much pressure from the basic package, and the defensive backfield is one area of experience. If we get burned, so be it. But better to try some different things than just stand pat and get bludgeoned, which in my view is pretty much what Kaufman did.

---

If the Spring "Game" is any indication this is exactly what's coming. They even showed a corner blitz. I just hope we're stout enough that we don't need to fall into constant blitzing. I'm comfortable that's not what Wilcox and DR would prefer though.

The defense will be better

I'm glad Dykes is gone. I was surprised it happened when it did - late and with the big buyout. But ultimately, I'm happy. At the same time, I think people are underestimating how difficult a situation Dykes was faced with when he was hired and minimizing what he accomplished (mostly off the field).

In JT's final years, Cal's teams were filled with dissension (offense v. defense, special treatment of certain players, and JT's decline). Those teams were fragile - both literally (poor strength and conditioning) and mentally (lots of blowout losses and players who appeared to quit). Academics were atrocious as was the product on the field.

Dykes stepped into that situation. He was hired VERY late -pure incompetence by Cal. That very significant fact, his limited budget, and administrative meddling (AD preferencing people with Cal ties like Buh, over guys that Dykes wanted to hire, like Dave Aranda) contributed to him assembling a pretty weak staff that was hired late and on the cheap. It also adversely affected recruiting. Is that on Dykes? Partly. But not entirely. Given those constraints, Dykes staff was going to be less than stellar and recruiting was going to suffer. And let's face it, Cal - as an institution - is not good at supporting football.

Upon his arrival, Dykes also faced significant APR issues - which led to MASSIVE attrition and further constrained recruiting. People seem to be minimizing how dire the the academic situation (and how toxic the culture) was during JTs final years.

Did Dykes deserve to be fired? Yes. He clearly wasn't committed to the program long term and things were not trending upward - particularly recruiting and on defense (related issues). He had reached a point were good assistants (and likely recruits) were not willing to join his sinking ship.

But he clearly left the program in much better shape than it was in when he inherited it. MUCH better. Academics are in order and Dykes' teams were tough, played hard, never gave up (even if they disliked him, which may have been the case), and players seemed to be bonded to each other - all in stark contrast to the situation when Dykes arrived. To a large extent, he fixed the culture issues. It is a foundation that Wilcox can build upon - hopefully by improving recruiting and the defense.

Does this make me a Dykes apologist or sunshine pumper? I don't think so. It makes me a realist. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging things Dykes did well and the things he didn't do well (game management was really bad).

+1

OldBlue1999;842843091 said:

---

If the Spring "Game" is any indication this is exactly what's coming. They even showed a corner blitz. I just hope we're stout enough that we don't need to fall into constant blitzing. I'm comfortable that's not what Wilcox and DR would prefer though.

---

It's tricky because we're playing a 3-4 now, but DeRuyter will only rush three 5-10% of the time. The majority of the time we'll be looking at a 4-man rush, but who the fourth rusher is will be unpredictable, which is a change from the 4-3. He's got a pretty easy system in place to bring any of the four LB's as the fourth rusher. To bring more than 4, DeRuyter uses mostly 5-man zone blitzes, which sets him apart from 3-4 coaches like Clancy Pendergast or Todd Graham who will bring more pressure and play more man-free or Cover-0.

going4roses;842843011 said:

---

6 is the bottom line

---

sounds like an overadjustment post-Dykes era and an unreasonable expectation

given the holes on the roster left by Dykes and the huge question mark that is the QB, hard to say the minimum expectation is bowl eligibility

Jokes

Tough? Cal got their ass kicked regularly by high level teams partly because they were weak. My definition of tough is Stanford. The disparity between the Cardinal and Cal was a wide gulf. Dykes' teams were not tough.

71Bear;842843279 said:

---

Tough? Cal got their ass kicked regularly by high level teams partly because they were weak. My definition of tough is Stanford. The disparity between the Cardinal and Cal was a wide gulf. Dykes' teams were not tough.

---

If we were to have swapped all the furd players and coaches with our players and coaches, we would still lose.

71Bear;842843279 said:

---

Tough? Cal got their ass kicked regularly by high level teams partly because they were weak. My definition of tough is Stanford. The disparity between the Cardinal and Cal was a wide gulf. Dykes' teams were not tough.

---

You are conflating physicality with toughness. In the Harbaugh/Shaw era, Stanford has recruited bigger, stronger players than Cal and and played a physical brand of football (compared to Bear Raid type of offense). That has nothing to do with toughness - particularly mental toughness. Dykes teams never quit on him. JT's did even though JT's offense was ostensibly "tough/physical" as you would define it.

Is floyd mayweather not "tough" just because he would get his ass kicked in a fight with the heavy weight champion?

BearGoggles;842843348 said:

---

You are conflating physicality with toughness. In the Harbaugh/Shaw era, Stanford has recruited bigger, stronger players than Cal and and played a physical brand of football (compared to Bear Raid type of offense). That has nothing to do with toughness - particularly mental toughness. Dykes teams never quit on him. JT's did even though JT's offense was ostensibly "tough/physical" as you would define it.

Is floyd mayweather not "tough" just because he would get his ass kicked in a fight with the heavy weight champion?

---

How do you judge whether or not a team "quit" on a game? What did Tedford's teams do that Dykes' did not?

Mental toughness includes the ability to make plays under pressure. Assuming that is true, Davis Webb is the antithesis of mental toughness. Since Webb played for Dykes, I think one could draw the conclusion, the Bears were not mentally tough under Dykes.

Add to that, Goff's total collapse v. Utah in the only "big game" in the Dykes era tells me the QB's were not prepared properly to handle the mental side of the game. That is on Dykes.........

I just think it's really exciting that we have a 12 page thread and every single post has been on topic. Amazing.

Lol

BearGoggles;842843348 said:

---

You are conflating physicality with toughness. In the Harbaugh/Shaw era, Stanford has recruited bigger, stronger players than Cal and and played a physical brand of football (compared to Bear Raid type of offense). That has nothing to do with toughness - particularly mental toughness. Dykes teams never quit on him. JT's did even though JT's offense was ostensibly "tough/physical" as you would define it.

Is floyd mayweather not "tough" just because he would get his ass kicked in a fight with the heavy weight champion?

---

Furd, under Harbaugh, was tough even before the recruiting picked up. He changed their culture before he changed the type of player they were recruiting. It sounded like BS but the "enthusiasm unknown to mankind" was backed up with play. Dammit

Certainly better that Toughest Team Wins - what a joke.....

71Bear;842843455 said:

---

Certainly better that Toughest Team Wins - what a joke.....

---

Harbaugh didn't make the fatal mistake of turning his slogan into a t-shirt. That is the kiss of death

71Bear;842843379 said:

---

Mental toughness includes the ability to make plays under pressure. Assuming that is true, Davis Webb is the antithesis of mental toughness. Since Webb played for Dykes, I think one could draw the conclusion, the Bears were not mentally tough under Dykes.

Add to that, Goff's total collapse v. Utah in the only "big game" in the Dykes era tells me the QB's were not prepared properly to handle the mental side of the game. That is on Dykes.........

---

I previously demonstrated that the percentage blowouts and scope of blowouts in the Dykes era was higher than Tedford and that included if you only looked at late Tedford and took out 2013. This team quit on Dykes often and hard. It became a mantra among pumpers like if they somehow stated the opposite of reality enough they could pretend reality didn't exist.

Dykes and his agent and minions trashed Cal for a full year before Williams kicked him to the curb and now half the time national media writes about Wilcox it includes statements about not being able to win at Cal. I for one am hoping for a nice combo of Wilcox success and Dykes utter failure. I don't like people that trash Cal.

Neither Holmoe or Gilby ever trashed Cal's reputation to try and protect their own. Combine that with the damage done by a Stone Age strength and conditioning program and I'd say this was the biggest disaster of a coaching tenure in my life time

71Bear;842843455 said:

---

Certainly better that Toughest Team Wins - what a joke.....

---

It was accurate however. Many times the tougher team did win. It's just that it wasn't Cal. I hated that shirt. The slogan was fine. Just not a fit for Cal. I think they were originally for Stanford but made in the wrong colors so Cal was able to buy them really cheap.