socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

.. Cal should be focused on OLine who are your best students and also the hardest to identify out of high school and the most subject to development, so you can equalize your recruiting disadvantage some there vs. wide receivers where the top guys tend to be obvious. Linebackers and tight ends tend to be smart guys who can do a lot of things for you. These are the things Cal should be focused on. You need to control the ball on offense to counteract your depth disadvantage, not play against the teeth of your depth disadvantage. You can do that with Olineman and you can do that by relying on more complexity in a slower scheme rather than simplicity in a faster scheme.

Flat out, bad scheme for Cal. I'm not saying bad scheme. I'm saying bad scheme for Cal. What Cal did under Dykes was entirely predictable when he was hired. (he had a lot of the same issues at LaTech, a school that is better suited for his scheme). It should have been obvious we would have poor defenses. What was clear to me from the hire was Sandy was not interested in conference championships. She thought she could get 7 or 8 wins and Cal fans would love the high flying offense. She miscalculated on the first, so Cal fans quickly tired of the second. And much of the reason for the miscalculation was that the personnel mix needed for the scheme is not the mix Cal is best at obtaining.

---

Thanks! As the OP I also find this compelling. Question for the tuned in peanut gallery....has wilcox seemed to make any headway on on this track?

---

Well, if you take a look at our commit list, we have 5 OL commits and 3 LB commits AND we are pulling from our recruiting territory.

socaltownie said:

---

The tempts the mind to believe that Sonny and Tony were right....that Cal will NEVER have good line play in the modern Pac-12 era and that you go undersized, spread, and then you go with very wide splits. You essentially minimize size disadvantages by playing with the whole field - . By going spread you force guys out of the box - allowing running backs to get to the second level by running into space. By widening the splits you make it easier to assign double teams and react.

---

My opinion:

No, they are not necessarily right or wrong. We've seen Cal recruit and have strong OL's during the Tedford era, there's no reason to think we can't do that again. Of course, those OL's were not good enough to beat elite teams. Then again, SD/TF's OL's largely couldn't beat anyone.

I think both styles are capable of working at Cal. Maybe Cal has intrinsic limitations which means 10 win type seasons are our ceiling. Either way - either style - can work if the coach is competent. I'm 1000% convinced SD is well short of competent so the air raid style was never going to work under him (just like the pro-set stuff wasn't going to work under Tedford at the end).

We are running a variation of the same system now. I think the current coaches are light years better. We will be better when the depth improves, etc.

Posters here are nuts. The new coaches haven't has even one year to install their systems. They haven't had opportunity to coach any of "their" recruits. This is rebuilding; Rome wasn't built in a day.

We had very good line play under early tedford and still decent line play late. Sonny got a bunch of smaller lineman as his 3 star types. Feel like he got some guys with limited potential. Think we need to find more big kid types like we have in this class and then develop them. They're projects but if someone like Friis or Owens develops, thats basically your mainstay on the line.

socaltownie said:

---

and, perhaps, Wilcox is fixing this.
But what we have seen the past 3 games is that NEITHER our defensive or offensive lines are up to Pac-12 "snuff". They simply are not.

---

Don't forget that Dykes & his staff are the ones who failed to recruit and then coach players more capable of competing against the top Pac-12 teams. Job hunting during recruiting season does tend to drive away the better prospects.

Wilcox clearly does not buy into the myth that Cal can't recruit well and compete successfully in the Pac-12. That is exactly what he is doing now. It will take several recruiting cycles.

What southseasbear said. Cal had some great OL guys from Snyder through Tedford. Right now things are down, but Sonny had a lot to do with that. Sonny and Tony didn't even know how to line up offensive linemen. Since that team is gone, that part of the team is likely to improve.

Thanks for your post.
Once again we have a bunch of posters arguing that none of these he coaches are any good. That Cal can't recruit for a number of reasons and that we will never be any good.
Why? Because we have been soundly beaten by some very good teams. What will be the outcry this week when we get beaten by another very good team?
I don't know what they were expecting Wilcox to do. Perform miracles with a defense that was next to last in CFB last year and after we had to start a brand new QB this year with no playing time. And with a depleted OL.
Add to that the fact that Williams's delay in hiring Wilcox put Wilcox behind the 8-ball in recruiting.
Then came injuries to the best RB and the best WR.
Hey man but no excuses are permitted here.
When the season started I expected that with all the handicaps Cal would win probably 3 games. With a little luck 4. With more luck 5. And with a miracle 6.
That assumed that our big stars at RB and WR would stay healthy.
I did not expect to beat USC, UW, WSU, UO, Furd.
I expected to beat OSU, Weber, UA.
I thought it was possible not probable to beat Miss,
I thought it was possible with a long stretch we might be able to beat one or two of UNC
Colo, ucla.
We are on track.
The problems are the bears are too thin and the QB is too inexperienced and has little protection from an OL that can't protect or open running lanes.
Cal is often able to play with really good teams like USC and UW for 3 quarters then we run out of gas.
The QB shows brief flashes of brilliance but the receivers drop touchdown passes. Or the QB overthrows the receivers.
Again What were the complainers expecting?