T-Shirts with slogans are for losers. It smacks of a Sun Belt mentality. Of course, that shouldn't surprise us given that Dykes coaching skill was also at the Sun Belt level.

beeasyed;842843209 said:

---

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

---

I do not think 6 is unreasonable. Yes there are questions that need positive answers but that is true for many of Cal's opponents as well. Many folks on this board are saying they simply want to see improvement as the season goes along. Well last season Cal won 5 games. Could easily have been 7 with just a few plays going differently. Or 3 for that matter. My guess is the folks with dialed down expectations will be very unhappy with JW and staff if they fail to get to 6. There will be a few exceptions there always is, but 6 has to be an expectation. That gets you a bowl and with basically half the programs bowling each year that has to be an "expectation" IMO.

I do not feel it is ok to set an expectation that involves losing more games than winning. Yes there is an understanding that JW and staff are building their own program, culture etc and that may not look great in year one. But I cannot say on June 2nd the expectation should be anything less than a bowl game and at least a .500 season. Cannot possibly imagine the staff is out there recruiting for Cal saying disregard 2017. Is it possible that the team is 3-9 or 4-8? Sure. But it is not "unreasonable" IMO to believe this team can go Bowling.

Most folks had UCLA as a strong team for 2016 and Colorado as a weak one. How did that turn out? And Oregon? There are a lot of seniors on this team and senior lead teams can sometimes "over achieve" relative to "expectations". Colorado a season ago is one. I do believe this team has a little more talent than many believe. I am aware of the "holes". But until we see how this team prepares and plays it is an absolute crapshoot to predict anything. But IMO cannot enter a season with a zero expectation of post season play.

71Bear;842843523 said:

---

Of course, that shouldn't surprise us given that Dykes coaching skill was also at the Sun Belt level.

---

Let's be fair . . . it was at least WAC level.

Dykes teams were not tough. Not offensively, not defensively, not whining on the sidelines. Looking at those teams, they were the definition of soft (relative to Pac-12 football teams anyway). I always thought the "Toughest Team Wins" t-shirt was so that the players understood why they were losing (even when they were playing as they were coached).

Still, hard to compare with Stanford as we don't have the "glove".

6956bear;842843525 said:

---

I do not think 6 is unreasonable. Yes there are questions that need positive answers but that is true for many of Cal's opponents as well. Many folks on this board are saying they simply want to see improvement as the season goes along. Well last season Cal won 5 games. Could easily have been 7 with just a few plays going differently. Or 3 for that matter. My guess is the folks with dialed down expectations will be very unhappy with JW and staff if they fail to get to 6. There will be a few exceptions there always is, but 6 has to be an expectation. That gets you a bowl and with basically half the programs bowling each year that has to be an "expectation" IMO.

I do not feel it is ok to set an expectation that involves losing more games than winning. Yes there is an understanding that JW and staff are building their own program, culture etc and that may not look great in year one. But I cannot say on June 2nd the expectation should be anything less than a bowl game and at least a .500 season. Cannot possibly imagine the staff is out there recruiting for Cal saying disregard 2017. Is it possible that the team is 3-9 or 4-8? Sure. But it is not "unreasonable" IMO to believe this team can go Bowling.

Most folks had UCLA as a strong team for 2016 and Colorado as a weak one. How did that turn out? And Oregon? There are a lot of seniors on this team and senior lead teams can sometimes "over achieve" relative to "expectations". Colorado a season ago is one. I do believe this team has a little more talent than many believe. I am aware of the "holes". But until we see how this team prepares and plays it is an absolute crapshoot to predict anything. But IMO cannot enter a season with a zero expectation of post season play.

---

My only expectation is for Cal to be a well-prepared team that displays a passion for the game on both sides of the ball. This alone would be a huge step forward from the results of the previous decade. How that plays out in terms of wins is unknown. I suggest five given the schedule. Of course, it could be six if Cal pulls off a surprise when we least expect it.

Regardless, I believe that hoisting a six or bust flag over Memorial is not in the best interest of the program. I suggest putting that flag in storage until 2018.

Just the opinion of one who expects great things from Wilcox if he is given a full and fair opportunity to succeed.

71Bear;842843523 said:

---

T-Shirts with slogans are for losers. It smacks of a Sun Belt mentality. Of course, that shouldn't surprise us given that Dykes coaching skill was also at the Sun Belt level.

---

Lots of programs wear shirts with slogans. But for practice, in the S&C room etc. On gameday IMO you wear Cal gear. Can hardly wait for all the negatives should JW continue to wear a visor rather than a hat. Of course the "ole ball coach" won a lot of games wearing a visor.

71Bear;842843540 said:

---

My only expectation is for Cal to be a well-prepared team that displays a passion for the game on both sides of the ball. This alone would be a huge step forward from the results of the previous decade. How that plays out in terms of wins is unknown. I suggest five given the schedule. Of course, it could be six if Cal pulls off a surprise when we least expect it.

Regardless, I believe that hoisting a six or bust flag over Memorial is not in the best interest of the program. I suggest putting that flag in storage until 2018.

Just the opinion of one who expects great things from Wilcox if he is given a full and fair opportunity to succeed.

---

Not hoisting a 6 win or bust flag. Just do not believe you go in expecting to lose more than you win. As for what is best for the program that is always up for debate. I understand wanting to under promise and over deliver, but the program is suffering some under the perception that they are permanent members of the P12 underclass. Wilcox is an organized guy and IMO is trying to do things the right way. The staff on "paper" looks to be very good. It is very hard to build a program. Cal is in need of a really solid 2018 recruiting class. I like the players committed so far, but to be fair many are projects with high upside potential. Not sure things by any stretch. I am uncertain that Cal can recruit the way they NEED to if they win 4 games. It will harm the 2018 class and provide no momentum of the 2019 class.

These 2 classes (2018 and 2019) are likely crucial to JW if the program is to turn around. Simply being a good coach is NOT enough. You have to have players as well. Most of us are in agreement that Wilcox and this staff are a serious upgrade over the prior staff. But JW has yet to coach a game as the HC. The better players like to see results. It is a very hard sell for top recruits to say come to Cal we will be good by 2020. Some programs can sell prior history to recruits. USC for instance. And even Oregon now. New coach and so far recruiting is going very well. Cal was better than Oregon a season ago. Not by much, but better. Cal is selling academics strongly. Despite their great ranking academically, Cal almost always loses recruiting battles with Stanford and UCLA. Stanford is now even harder to recruit against as they are a very strong program and most recruits do not know a time when Stanford was down. UCLA may be a notch below Cal academically, but lets face it they are a strong academic school. And almost always better in football.

So how does Cal get better. Recruiting, coaching and culture. I think the Bears can get there. But there needs to be some level of expectation from the fan base. Cal is losing the perception battle with many top recruits. They all come by, say they love the campus, the weather, the staff and current players. Then choose UCLA, Oregon, UW or wherever. Why because the program perception is low. They just cannot see the team winning. If the fans start every season with low expectations it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You need to be reasonable with expectations but a 4 win season sells really nobody that the program is on the upswing. Lots of well prepared teams lose every weekend. I expect every team to be well prepared. But you need players too.

Not flying 6 win or bust flag, but really 6 wins is not a good season. It qualifies you for a very minor bowl. I know you got to start somewhere, but if a 6 win season is unreasonable that in itself is a very bad sign. If Wilcox and this staff are better by as much as many on this board feel over the prior regime then 6 wins should be a given. The won 5 last year with the prior staff and again experienced lots of injuries. I will be very concerned if the team goes 5-7. 6 wins is not unreasonable.

I think 6 is needed to get over the hump

If talking quantity of wins, we should be talking conferences ones. Some years OOC games are brutal and other years quite the opposite... For when comparing Cal teams over the years, or with other conferences foes, that is a logical standard - conference wins.

Winning at least 5 conference games, ie being a winning Pac-12 team, is what I'd like to see and what half the conference teams do each season. Not whole heck of a lot to ask, to be above average....

I remain wanting to see such, as a minimum, no matter who is the HC. I can accept seasons where we fall short of course, but over three to four seasons, we should consistently have a cumulative winning conference record. JT's rolling 3/4 season average was positive (conf wins vs losses), and when it wasn't, he was gone shortly thereafter. SD was 10-26 over four seasons, only bettering the Beavs, barely.

Teams who have recruited worse than us have (lower average star classes) delivered 5+ win conference seasons, and it's not uncommon. The HC and staff are instrumental in such success. They are IMO the most impactful talent on the team...

As with previous HCs and staffs, Wilcox has my full support from day one; and that will remain until there are sufficient data points and trends to feel otherwise.

If after three seasons we are 14-13 in conference (not since 2008 - 2010), I'd be inclined to remain supportive, especially so if the trend is in the right direction.

This is all just a semantic debate. I assume that the people who have "expectations" if winning at least six games are not prepared to fire Wilcox if he goes 5-7 or worse. If they're not, who cares. Would I be disappointed if we went 5-7? It depends. If the seven losses only included one blowout, and we were basically in the other six games (i.e. within two touchdowns or less at the end), I would consider that progress from the Dykes clown-show performance. I also don't buy this logic that tightly ties recruiting to record. I think that's probably more true in basketball, when many of the better players want to get to the next level before graduating, and are looking for the greater exposure a winning/tournament team gets. In football, one-and-dones are rarer, and I think the record may be less important than how it looks like the program is developing players over four-year careers for the NFL. What is important is to show improvement from year-to-year, and a path to consistent bowl appearances. But I'm not sure the differences between 4-8, 5-7, 6-6 and 7-5, as a one-year snapshot, are all that important to recruits.

Jeff82;842843637 said:

---

This is all just a semantic debate. I assume that the people who have "expectations" if winning at least six games are not prepared to fire Wilcox if he goes 5-7 or worse. If they're not, who cares. Would I be disappointed if we went 5-7? It depends. If the seven losses only included one blowout, and we were basically in the other six games (i.e. within two touchdowns or less at the end), I would consider that progress from the Dykes clown-show performance. I also don't buy this logic that tightly ties recruiting to record. I think that's probably more true in basketball, when many of the better players want to get to the next level before graduating, and are looking for the greater exposure a winning/tournament team gets. In football, one-and-dones are rarer, and I think the record may be less important than how it looks like the program is developing players over four-year careers for the NFL. What is important is to show improvement from year-to-year, and a path to consistent bowl appearances. But I'm not sure the differences between 4-8, 5-7, 6-6 and 7-5, as a one-year snapshot, are all that important to recruits.

---

Cal has consistently placed players into the NFL. They have been in the top 10-15 teams of active players in recent times. They have had some terrific individual players. They have not however had many really good teams. Some success yes. Even a nice little run early in the JT era. But annual success? Not really. There is a reason the program has not recruited consistently. It is called losing. Teams have down seasons, they fail at times to meet expectations. That happens. But Cal is looked at by many recruits as a lower tier program with very good academics. Do they get some good recruits? Of course. Do they routinely recruit top 25 classes? No. Despite the success of having many players in the NFL the program still fails to recruit at a high level overall. Some good players, but not enough to build a consistent winner year over year. Why? Losing more than they win is right near the top of the list. Any P5 program can produce NFL players, but not all have consistent winning records, bowl appearances full stadiums. Those are reserved for winning teams. Teams that recruit well overall, not having a handful of terrific players.

Look at the records of the teams that win and recruiting rankings. It is pretty clear recruiting success and winning are closely tied. Not exclusive but pretty damn close. We give coaches some seasons to develop their programs as one year snapshots are indeed not a good indicator of long or short term success. But 6 wins is a low expectation. Not like anybody here is suggesting being in the playoff. I of course would give Wilcox a few seasons to show how he will develop his program and 5-7 in year 1 is not something you fire a coach for. However 5-7 will unlikely be considered major improvement by recruits that will notice that record was achieved twice by Dykes over the last 3 years sandwiched around an 8-5 season. And most on this board feel Dykes was a colossal failure. So getting to 6 wins with the number of returning players and a staff considered by many to be in the upper half of P12 staffs from a "coaching" perspective hardly seems unreasonable to me.

It is past time for Cal to revel in the number of NFL players they have and start winning games. They of course should be proud of their NFL players and should not be afraid to point out that an NFL future is indeed possible at Cal. But they are paid to win games along with developing some NFL players. Time to start winning games. 6 wins for 2017 seems reasonable. They may not get there, but it is hardly a major stretch. The record is always important. Not as important in year one as in year 4 for a coach but still important. I do not like that many have dismissed this season as a losing one and seem so willing to settle for it, somehow believing that a one season losing record will suddenly lead to multiple winning ones. Not impossible for sure, but I would rather recruit to a bowl season than one in which they again did not play in a bowl. 6 wins at Cal seems so improbable to many. That is likely why recruiting does not go as well as needed.

6956bear;842843566 said:

---

Not hoisting a 6 win or bust flag. Just do not believe you go in expecting to lose more than you win. As for what is best for the program that is always up for debate. I understand wanting to under promise and over deliver, but the program is suffering some under the perception that they are permanent members of the P12 underclass. Wilcox is an organized guy and IMO is trying to do things the right way. The staff on "paper" looks to be very good. It is very hard to build a program. Cal is in need of a really solid 2018 recruiting class. I like the players committed so far, but to be fair many are projects with high upside potential. Not sure things by any stretch. I am uncertain that Cal can recruit the way they NEED to if they win 4 games. It will harm the 2018 class and provide no momentum of the 2019 class.

These 2 classes (2018 and 2019) are likely crucial to JW if the program is to turn around. Simply being a good coach is NOT enough. You have to have players as well. Most of us are in agreement that Wilcox and this staff are a serious upgrade over the prior staff. But JW has yet to coach a game as the HC. The better players like to see results. It is a very hard sell for top recruits to say come to Cal we will be good by 2020. Some programs can sell prior history to recruits. USC for instance. And even Oregon now. New coach and so far recruiting is going very well. Cal was better than Oregon a season ago. Not by much, but better. Cal is selling academics strongly. Despite their great ranking academically, Cal almost always loses recruiting battles with Stanford and UCLA. Stanford is now even harder to recruit against as they are a very strong program and most recruits do not know a time when Stanford was down. UCLA may be a notch below Cal academically, but lets face it they are a strong academic school. And almost always better in football.

So how does Cal get better. Recruiting, coaching and culture. I think the Bears can get there. But there needs to be some level of expectation from the fan base. Cal is losing the perception battle with many top recruits. They all come by, say they love the campus, the weather, the staff and current players. Then choose UCLA, Oregon, UW or wherever. Why because the program perception is low. They just cannot see the team winning. If the fans start every season with low expectations it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You need to be reasonable with expectations but a 4 win season sells really nobody that the program is on the upswing. Lots of well prepared teams lose every weekend. I expect every team to be well prepared. But you need players too.

Not flying 6 win or bust flag, but really 6 wins is not a good season. It qualifies you for a very minor bowl. I know you got to start somewhere, but if a 6 win season is unreasonable that in itself is a very bad sign. If Wilcox and this staff are better by as much as many on this board feel over the prior regime then 6 wins should be a given. The won 5 last year with the prior staff and again experienced lots of injuries. I will be very concerned if the team goes 5-7. 6 wins is not unreasonable.

---

Of course you don't aim to win 6 games. Honestly, you should be aiming to win 1 game. The next one. But that isn't the point. Cal doesn't need to win a set number of games this year to be successful or for Wilcox to be on the path to turning things around. If what you are talking about is what the team's goal should be, I think that is a really poor outlook for coaches and players to have. They should go into every game thinking victory.

But this is a discussion of fan expectations of the coach and "what it says if". My opinion is that I don't put a win metric on a coach in his first year. I can easily imagine a scenario where 3 wins makes me very happy and another where I think 7 wins turned out not great. Yes, everyone has question marks, but ours are huge. Two major ones, though not nearly the only:

1. On defense - Our defense has been pathetic. We can improve tremendously here and still be poor. I am extremely confident we will improve. The fundamentals were terrible under the old staff. The scheme was awful. The coaches did not put our players in the best position to succeed. I expect all three will change. The big question is the personnel. We clearly are not starting with top ten level personnel. However, I think that with solid development and good scheme it may prove that we had maybe average personnel made awful by a bad coaching staff rather than awful personnel made more awful by a bad coaching staff. I don't think we will know, however until they are put in a position to succeed and do what they do. It could be we have a rebuild to get to mediocre or it could be something very manageable to achieve this year.

2. At QB - c'mon we just don't know what we have. Webb walked in last year and wasn't even challenged by the guys already here. I'm sorry. Webb is not that good. Winning the job is one thing. No competition is another. Coaches just can't conjure quality QB's.

So, what if everything about this team says 8 win team, but the quarterback position basically loses 3+ games for us? (Can happen. See 2005.) Or what if we see a defense that plays fundamentally sound and a scheme that pressures the offense, but they just get out - athleted to often? Or, what if (like in 2003), we are really struggling early - what with new schemes on both sides of the ball, a new QB, etc. - but we put it together and by the last third of the season our defense starts to gel and we find our QB for 2018? (note, it is very possible the first guy to start at QB won't ultimately prove to be the starter of the future).

On the flip side, what if it turns out the QB is awesome out of the gate, and everything else sucks? We lead the conference in penalties, unsportsmanlike, turnovers, but our future first round pick drags us to 6 wins against the bottom half of the schedule? Can't say I'm happy about that.

Year 2, he has a chance to see his personnel and react to it. I expect 5 conference wins. Year 1, the cards are dealt. If he plays that hand well, I'm happy. If plays that hand incompetently - he accidentally drops his cards on the table showing he has nothing and then keeps raising, I'm not happy.

Uthaithani;842842839 said:

---

Who are these people who are giving Wilcox a flyer this year?
I for one expect the team to have a poor season and finish with about 2-3 wins. That's not giving Wilcox a flyer, that's factoring in Wilcox's performance at SC (his last Pac 12 stop), the horrible recruiting for 2017 (not blaming Wilcox for that, but he certainly wasn't the recruiting spark plug people thought he would be, either - at least it hasn't happened so far), and that Wilcox is going to have a lot of on-the-job training.

Given all that, I figure Wilcox will cost the team a couple games this season. That's hardly giving him a pass. But what is a fan to do? Cal could have hired Fleck or other better names, but people in power dithered and frittered, so things are what they are. Which isn't great, but it's the only thing on the menu. At this point, he's the coach. However bad he does this season, he'll still be the coach at the end. I would like to see him and the team do well, and maybe by year 3 with some really good recruiting (which I have yet to see, so jury is still very much out here) the team will be second-tier-in-the-conference as they were for pretty much the entire Tedford era.

I wish things were better. I wish we had a real name and good recruiting in football and MBB. As it is, with have neither at both. We have hope. That's pretty much all we ever have. Hope and the leftover talent will likely net 2-3 wins for the Bears in 2017. That's not the record of a coach I'd like to keep around for a long time, but the Cal Cafeteria is selling meat loaf, not filet mingnon. I hope I'm wrong, but in my experience if you want to succeed and hope is your plan, you're not going to succeed.

---

This could be the most poorly timed post since Schroeder71's infamous rant at halftime of the Amit Tamir - Oregon basketball game. Can you please comment about a few other things we don't have?

oaktownbear;842843734 said:

---

this could be the most poorly timed post since schroeder71's infamous rant at halftime of the amit tamir - oregon basketball game. Can you please comment about a few other things we don't have?

---

lol

OaktownBear;842843734 said:

---

This could be the most poorly timed post since Schroeder71's infamous rant at halftime of the Amit Tamir - Oregon basketball game. Can you please comment about a few other things we don't have?

---

That's what the comments sound like to me. It's a demand without a real explanation of how you expect it to occur. I know, we should allow, for one year, a few 1.0 gpa players to come in and play, so we get to the six wins some are demanding. Then we can revert to our academic standards as recruiting picks up. Yeah, that's the ticket, and I'm also dating Morgan Fairchild.

I'm with OTB. I'm going to evaluate by what I see happening on the field, not an arbitrary W-L metric. I'm assuming that kids being recruited to play football know enough about football that if Wilcox shows he knows what he's doing this year, that will attract some better recruits, even if he doesn't win six games. I don't think you can hope for anything else, since we went the gimmick-coach route with Dykes, and recruiting for everything but skill players nose-dived.

Jeff82;842843838 said:

---

That's what the comments sound like to me. It's a demand without a real explanation of how you expect it to occur. I know, we should allow, for one year, a few 1.0 gpa players to come in and play, so we get to the six wins some are demanding. Then we can revert to our academic standards as recruiting picks up. Yeah, that's the ticket, and I'm also dating Morgan Fairchild.

I'm with OTB. I'm going to evaluate by what I see happening on the field, not an arbitrary W-L metric. I'm assuming that kids being recruited to play football know enough about football that if Wilcox shows he knows what he's doing this year, that will attract some better recruits, even if he doesn't win six games. I don't think you can hope for anything else, since we went the gimmick-coach route with Dykes, and recruiting for everything but skill players nose-dived.

---

the thing is that if we do those things well that a lot of people are citing: improved defense, decent QB play, decent O-line play, chances are we'll be bowl eligible anyway, so it will probably end up taking care of itself. If we suck at those things, then thats when we probably wont win many games

Jeff82;842843838 said:

---

That's what the comments sound like to me. It's a demand without a real explanation of how you expect it to occur. I know, we should allow, for one year, a few 1.0 gpa players to come in and play, so we get to the six wins some are demanding. Then we can revert to our academic standards as recruiting picks up. Yeah, that's the ticket, and I'm also dating Morgan Fairchild.

I'm with OTB. I'm going to evaluate by what I see happening on the field, not an arbitrary W-L metric. I'm assuming that kids being recruited to play football know enough about football that if Wilcox shows he knows what he's doing this year, that will attract some better recruits, even if he doesn't win six games. I don't think you can hope for anything else, since we went the gimmick-coach route with Dykes, and recruiting for everything but skill players nose-dived.

---

You could be dating Morgan Fairchild. She's 67.

Jeff82;842843838 said:

---

That's what the comments sound like to me. It's a demand without a real explanation of how you expect it to occur. I know, we should allow, for one year, a few 1.0 gpa players to come in and play, so we get to the six wins some are demanding. Then we can revert to our academic standards as recruiting picks up. Yeah, that's the ticket, and I'm also dating Morgan Fairchild.

I'm with OTB. I'm going to evaluate by what I see happening on the field, not an arbitrary W-L metric. I'm assuming that kids being recruited to play football know enough about football that if Wilcox shows he knows what he's doing this year, that will attract some better recruits, even if he doesn't win six games. I don't think you can hope for anything else, since we went the gimmick-coach route with Dykes, and recruiting for everything but skill players nose-dived.

---

It seems like we would ALWAYS want to use multiple metrics:
+ overall W/L
+ W/L against rivals
+ eyeball test of being a "well-coached team"
+ players' respect and satisfaction with their experience
+ ethics
+ players' academic success
+ recruiting seems to be going well, or at least trending upward
+ overall program seems to be progressing and headed to eventual conference championships
+ HC as "face of the franchise", i.e. relations with alumni, university, media, etc.

It's just that, early on, the W/L component might not carry as much weight, whereas, at some point, it has to become the bottom line.

OaktownBear;842843683 said:

---

Of course you don't aim to win 6 games. Honestly, you should be aiming to win 1 game. The next one. But that isn't the point. Cal doesn't need to win a set number of games this year to be successful or for Wilcox to be on the path to turning things around. If what you are talking about is what the team's goal should be, I think that is a really poor outlook for coaches and players to have. They should go into every game thinking victory.

But this is a discussion of fan expectations of the coach and "what it says if". My opinion is that I don't put a win metric on a coach in his first year. I can easily imagine a scenario where 3 wins makes me very happy and another where I think 7 wins turned out not great. Yes, everyone has question marks, but ours are huge. Two major ones, though not nearly the only:

1. On defense - Our defense has been pathetic. We can improve tremendously here and still be poor. I am extremely confident we will improve. The fundamentals were terrible under the old staff. The scheme was awful. The coaches did not put our players in the best position to succeed. I expect all three will change. The big question is the personnel. We clearly are not starting with top ten level personnel. However, I think that with solid development and good scheme it may prove that we had maybe average personnel made awful by a bad coaching staff rather than awful personnel made more awful by a bad coaching staff. I don't think we will know, however until they are put in a position to succeed and do what they do. It could be we have a rebuild to get to mediocre or it could be something very manageable to achieve this year.

2. At QB - c'mon we just don't know what we have. Webb walked in last year and wasn't even challenged by the guys already here. I'm sorry. Webb is not that good. Winning the job is one thing. No competition is another. Coaches just can't conjure quality QB's.

So, what if everything about this team says 8 win team, but the quarterback position basically loses 3+ games for us? (Can happen. See 2005.) Or what if we see a defense that plays fundamentally sound and a scheme that pressures the offense, but they just get out - athleted to often? Or, what if (like in 2003), we are really struggling early - what with new schemes on both sides of the ball, a new QB, etc. - but we put it together and by the last third of the season our defense starts to gel and we find our QB for 2018? (note, it is very possible the first guy to start at QB won't ultimately prove to be the starter of the future).

On the flip side, what if it turns out the QB is awesome out of the gate, and everything else sucks? We lead the conference in penalties, unsportsmanlike, turnovers, but our future first round pick drags us to 6 wins against the bottom half of the schedule? Can't say I'm happy about that.

Year 2, he has a chance to see his personnel and react to it. I expect 5 conference wins. Year 1, the cards are dealt. If he plays that hand well, I'm happy. If plays that hand incompetently - he accidentally drops his cards on the table showing he has nothing and then keeps raising, I'm not happy.

---

I'd love to hear what specifically makes you feel good about winning 3 games after we've won 12 the previous two seasons? That's a big step back for a team with more experience and depth than the previous two. And if we win 7, I can't wait to read the narrative as to how that would be disappointing for you. The notion that we'll know when we see it despite the results is overblown. Yes, it was great that Dykes teams played hard for 4 quarters after watching Tedford's last few crews quit in games. No doubt, seeing a defense that plays with confidence, heart and pride will be a welcome change after the last four years. But mostly, it's about doing what is needed to do on offense, defense and STs to win games.

As to the QBs, I just don't get the hand wringing. Not only has Beau Baldwin always found a solid QB even at the FCS level (guys who put up 40+ on P5 schools) and never not had one, we've seen Bowers and Forest play in practice and Spring Games for two years now and guess what, they look pretty damn good. In my lifetime, I've never seen a Cal QB who wasn't good in practice be good in games nor one who was good in practice suck in games. It translates. I'm not saying Bowers or Forest is the 2nd coming, rather that if they get time to throw with the skill talent around them, they're going to be clearly in the top 3rd of Cal QBs in this millenium. I think Cal fans are hung up on Dykes getting Webb as some sort of an indictment on our current group. Webb was a 3rd round NFL pick. He had a proven track record at a Power 5 team. The only way you don't take him when you have only unproven players is if one of those unproven players has been Joe Montana like in practice (1 in 10k). Head football coaches optimize for winning in the near term and minimizing downside risk. Always.

CalHoopFan;842844014 said:

---

I'd love to hear what specifically makes you feel good about winning 3 games after we've won 12 the previous two seasons? That's a big step back for a team with more experience and depth than the previous two. And if we win 7, I can't wait to read the narrative as to how that would be disappointing for you. The notion that we'll know when we see it despite the results is overblown. Yes, it was great that Dykes teams played hard for 4 quarters after watching Tedford's last few crews quit in games. No doubt, seeing a defense that plays with confidence, heart and pride will be a welcome change after the last four years. But mostly, it's about doing what is needed to do on offense, defense and STs to win games.

As to the QBs, I just don't get the hand wringing. Not only has Beau Baldwin always found a solid QB even at the FCS level (guys who put up 40+ on P5 schools) and never not had one, we've seen Bowers and Forest play in practice and Spring Games for two years now and guess what, they look pretty damn good. In my lifetime, I've never seen a Cal QB who wasn't good in practice be good in games nor one who was good in practice suck in games. It translates. I'm not saying Bowers or Forest is the 2nd coming, rather that if they get time to throw with the skill talent around them, they're going to be clearly in the top 3rd of Cal QBs in this millenium. I think Cal fans are hung up on Dykes getting Webb as some sort of an indictment on our current group. Webb was a 3rd round NFL pick. He had a proven track record at a Power 5 team. The only way you don't take him when you have only unproven players is if one of those unproven players has been Joe Montana like in practice (1 in 10k). Head football coaches optimize for winning in the near term and minimizing downside risk. Always.

---

Top 3rd? Here is a list of Cal's starting a QB's since 2000...

Boller
Rodgers
Longshore
Riley
Maynard
Goff
Davis

Given this year's QB will be the eighth name on that list, your suggestion implies either Forrest or Bowers will be in the Top 3 of the list, assuming solid OL play (a big assumption).

Here is my ranking of those 8:

Rodgers
Boller
Goff
Longshore
Davis
Riley
Maynard

In order to squeeze into the Top 3, Forrest/Bowers would have to be better than at least one of the following: Boller, Rodgers, Goff. Do you really believe that is probable? If so, wow!

Note: I am operating on the assumption that you were referencing starting QB's in your comment.

I wouldn't say awful. I would say that he certainly wasn't achieving his potential. Given the overall less sterling nature of the overall group listed, I'll stand by his 2nd place ranking. Of course, I was never a big fan of Goff. I don't think he could handle the pressure of the bright lights (see Utah). He was more comfortable when the spotlight was off. Longshore was fine until he felt pressure from the defense, then he was lost. He was a terrific QB when given time to simply stand and throw. Webb crumpled when the going got tough. He is the most overrated QB in the group. Riley and Maynard were well below average.

Excellent analysis. Agree 100%.

BearGoggles;842843183 said:

---

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).

---

Boller over Goff?
Longshore over Davis?

I'd say: Rodgers > Goff > Davis > Boller > Riley > Longshore > Maynard.

Boller had a great senior year after years of mediocrity.
Riley & Longshore had talent, but in the end were not properly developed and regressed.

71Bear;842844024 said:

---

...
Given this year's QB will be the eighth name on that list, your suggestion implies either Forrest or Bowers will be in the Top 3 of the list, assuming solid OL play (a big assumption).

Here is my ranking of those 8:

Rodgers
Boller
Goff
Longshore
Davis
Riley
Maynard

In order to squeeze into the Top 3, Forrest/Bowers would have to be better than at least one of the following: Boller, Rodgers, Goff. Do you really believe that is probable? If so, wow!

Note: I am operating on the assumption that you were referencing starting QB's in your comment.

---

MoragaBear;842844026 said:

---

Boller was awful till his senior year.

---

When he completed 53% of his passes- the only time over 50%

After all these years I still think it's unfair to talk about Longshore's legacy without speaking in terms of pre and post injury. Pre injury Longshore was only behind Rodgers and Goff.

dajo9;842844037 said:

---

After all these years I still think it's unfair to talk about Longshore's legacy without speaking in terms of pre and post injury. Pre injury Longshore was only behind Rodgers and Goff.

---

True. Tedford should have rested him for another game or two so he could heal; playing him and allowing him to throw a pick-six in the fourth quarter of every game ultimately destroyed his confidence.

southseasbear;842844039 said:

---

True. Tedford should have rested him for another game or two so he could heal; playing him and allowing him to throw a pick-six in the fourth quarter of every game ultimately destroyed his confidence.

---

Yes, but he still gave us that miracle pass to win the bowl game against Miami.

dajo9;842844040 said:

---

Yes, but he still gave us that miracle pass to win the bowl game against Miami.

---

He and Riley were terribly inconsistent. Riley had the almost perfect performance in the bowl game against Air Force.

71Bear;842844024 said:

---

Boller
Goff

---

Boller ahead of Goff is just ridiculous. He was awful for three seasons (admittedly with not a great amount of support) and then adequate for one year. Accuracy was always his downfall.

Goff had his flaws, but he was much better than Boller without question. That sounds like some extension of your hatred of Dykes and your reluctance to admit for years that Holmoe was an awful coach bleeding over into your evaluation of them as players.

71Bear;842844024 said:

---

Top 3rd? Here is a list of Cal's starting a QB's since 2000...

Boller
Rodgers
Longshore
Riley
Maynard
Goff
Davis

Given this year's QB will be the eighth name on that list, your suggestion implies either Forrest or Bowers will be in the Top 3 of the list, assuming solid OL play (a big assumption).

Here is my ranking of those 8:

Rodgers
Boller
Goff
Longshore
Davis
Riley
Maynard

In order to squeeze into the Top 3, Forrest/Bowers would have to be better than at least one of the following: Boller, Rodgers, Goff. Do you really believe that is probable? If so, wow!

Note: I am operating on the assumption that you were referencing starting QB's in your comment.

---

You forgot Mansion and Robertson both of whom started quite a few games. I'm not nearly as high on Boller as a college QB as you - He completed 47.8% of his passes at Cal with a 108 QBR. Awful. Even his senior season, which is the only one that wasn't terrible was worse statistically than Zach Maynard and Kevin Riley's best years. So for me, based on what I've seen in practice I rate our guys this year below only Rodgers, Goff, Longshore and Webb. Perhaps top 3rd was a slight exaggeration. More like 5th of 11.

CalHoopFan;842844108 said:

---

You forgot Mansion and Robertson both of whom started quite a few games. I'm not nearly as high on Boller as a college QB as you - He completed 47.8% of his passes at Cal with a 108 QBR. Awful. Even his senior season, which is the only one that wasn't terrible was worse statistically than Zach Maynard and Kevin Riley's best years. So for me, based on what I've seen in practice I rate our guys this year below only Rodgers, Goff, Longshore and Webb. Perhaps top 3rd was a slight exaggeration. More like 5th of 11.

---

Fair enough. 5th out of the group that has been identified is possible given the overall quality of the bunch. With the most exception of Rodgers, this has not been a terrific 15 years for quarterbacks at Cal.

Stats is only one measurement for a QB. As we saw in the Dykes era, pinball numbers do not equate to wins. Goff and Webb produced a lot of stats but were disappointing in pressure situations. For example, Pawlawski was a far better QB than either Goff or a Webb because he produced under fire. OTOH, Mike P.'s stats were not nearly as grandiose. Forrest and Bowers do have a chance to be be guys we remember because they could be guys that can handle pressure. We shall see........

71Bear;842844131 said:

---

For example, Pawlawski was a far better QB than either Goff or a Webb because he produced under fire.

---

No he wasn't. He just played on a better team. Ken Dorsey did all kinds of great things for Miami, but washed out quickly with the pros because he wasn't as good as the rest of his team.

I never rate how good a guy was at Cal by how he did in the pros. They are two completely different sets of data. Pawlawski was a winner. He had a kick ass attitude that was infectious. Goff and Webb never displayed that same attitude on the field. For example, in Goff's one opportunity on the big stage in Salt Lake, he choked.