Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Haha good one. Thanks, we all needed a laugh.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Well, they might have scored more than 14 if that is what you say, but oh my, we would have 50+ pinned on us.

---

Yes, that's what I'm saying.....last year's offense with this year's defense. I'm not laughing but crying.

If we would have scored 35 they woulda had 60. Get real.

Disappointed. Of course. But this was more competitive than any of the four lost under Dykes. By miles. Thankfully our team has a talented head coach. Go Bears!

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Sonny's offense might have scored more points, but his defense would have given up at least 40, so we would have lost by a far bigger margin.

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Sorry Blue but don't think you were at the game. Sunny coaching this team loses by three TD's. No D and without Goff or Webb his offense would be nothing.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Love would still be running. Holding them to 17 was amazing.

---

None of Dykes' defenses would have tackled Love enough to put his ankle at risk.

Golden One said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Sonny's offense might have scored more points, but his defense would have given up at least 40, so we would have lost by a far bigger margin.

---

I agree......but I said further that offense with this season defense would have won. Wilcox coaching
of course......

ducky23 said:

---

I liked the old blueblood better

---

I liked the older long gone posters (they could read and comprehend)

NVBear78 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Sorry Blue but don't think you were at the game. Sunny coaching this team loses by three TD's. No D and without Goff or Webb his offense would be nothing.

---

I never said Sonny was coaching. Sonny's offense with Wilcox's defense and...and Wilcox coaching....Cal would have won.....today's BG

I was thinking a Dykes team would have lost something like 49-28, but that would be with the current lineup. In fact a Dykes team in late November would have been heavily injury-laden, especially on defense, given the number of plays they were required to run every game. So you would have had a depleted and demoralized defense trying to slow down furd's ground game. The score would have been in the 60s, and that;s only because Furd would have put in their walk-ons by the beginning of the 4th qtr. Love and co with 400yds+ rushing, in a game with 40 min of trash time.

Dykes never understood the fatal flaw of his approach, the fact that his defense would get worn out from the number of snaps they had to run. He could have pulled it off with a very aggressive, gambling D that would concede big plays but also create turnovers and pummel opponents QBs, but he run instead BBDB defenses that sustained long drives and high attrition.

Cal88 said:

---

I was thinking a Dykes team would have lost something like 49-28, but that would be with the current lineup. In fact a Dykes team in late November would have been heavily injury-laden, especially on defense, given the number of plays they were required to run every game. So you would have had a depleted and demoralized defense trying to slow down furd's ground game. The score would have been in the 60s, and that;s only because Furd would have put in their walk-ons by the beginning of the 4th qtr. Love and co with 400yds+ rushing, in a game with 40 min of trash time.

Dykes never understood the fatal flaw of his approach, the fact that his defense would get worn out from the number of snaps they had to run. He could have pulled it off with a very aggressive, gambling D that would concede big plays but also create turnovers and pummel opponents QBs, but he run instead BBDB defenses that sustained long drives and high attrition.

---

I have no doubt what you posit would be very true.....but....what if Wilcox had sonny's offense of last year and his current defense .....Cal might have won today, don't you think?

Blueblood said:

---

.....but....what if Wilcox had sonny's offense of last year and his current defense .....Cal might have won today, don't you think?

---

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas." (Don Meredith)

NVBear78 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I was thinking a Dykes team would have lost something like 49-28, but that would be with the current lineup. In fact a Dykes team in late November would have been heavily injury-laden, especially on defense, given the number of plays they were required to run every game. So you would have had a depleted and demoralized defense trying to slow down furd's ground game. The score would have been in the 60s, and that;s only because Furd would have put in their walk-ons by the beginning of the 4th qtr. Love and co with 400yds+ rushing, in a game with 40 min of trash time.

Dykes never understood the fatal flaw of his approach, the fact that his defense would get worn out from the number of snaps they had to run. He could have pulled it off with a very aggressive, gambling D that would concede big plays but also create turnovers and pummel opponents QBs, but he run instead BBDB defenses that sustained long drives and high attrition.

---

I have no doubt what you posit would be very true.....but....what if Wilcox had sonny's offense of last year and his current defense .....Cal might have won today, don't you think?

---

Blue, Blue, Blue. Sorry but the point you are missing vs those who attend every game in person is that if Dykes were coaching this years offense WITH THIS YEARS HEALTHY PLAYERS he would have scored less than we did tonight. No Goff, no Webb, no Robertson, no Hudson, no Watson no experienced OLineman equal no Bueno under Sunny.

---

I agree...but that was not the point of the OP.....Wilcox would have won had he had last year's offense, esp. QB. I don't have to attend every game to think this.

Blueblood said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Well, they might have scored more than 14 if that is what you say, but oh my, we would have 50+ pinned on us.

---

Yes, that's what I'm saying.....last year's offense with this year's defense. I'm not laughing but crying.

---

No, I want the 75 offense with the 91 defense.
Your thread title might have been just a tad deceiving.

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

That is either the best use of sarcasm or the most suspect opinion of the year.

Blueblood said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I was thinking a Dykes team would have lost something like 49-28, but that would be with the current lineup. In fact a Dykes team in late November would have been heavily injury-laden, especially on defense, given the number of plays they were required to run every game. So you would have had a depleted and demoralized defense trying to slow down furd's ground game. The score would have been in the 60s, and that;s only because Furd would have put in their walk-ons by the beginning of the 4th qtr. Love and co with 400yds+ rushing, in a game with 40 min of trash time.

Dykes never understood the fatal flaw of his approach, the fact that his defense would get worn out from the number of snaps they had to run. He could have pulled it off with a very aggressive, gambling D that would concede big plays but also create turnovers and pummel opponents QBs, but he run instead BBDB defenses that sustained long drives and high attrition.

---

I have no doubt what you posit would be very true.....but....what if Wilcox had sonny's offense of last year and his current defense .....Cal might have won today, don't you think?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by Sonny's offense of last year. If you mean his scheme along with Webb, Robertson, Watson, Muhammad, and Stovall, I agree fully. If you mean Sonny's scheme with this year's end of the year personnel, I'm not at all convinced. I've got no quarrel with BB's scheme--good run/pass balance--but the personnel is lacking (btw, I'm not criticizing SD's offense either).

Blueblood said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Sorry Blue but don't think you were at the game. Sunny coaching this team loses by three TD's. No D and without Goff or Webb his offense would be nothing.

---

I never said Sonny was coaching. Sonny's offense with Wilcox's defense and...and Wilcox coaching....Cal would have won.....today's BG

---

I plead guilty to a reading and comprehension fail. It was the Guinness talking.

His D would have given up 40+ points.

ducky23 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Last year's Bears offense would have beaten these furds....

I don't have a good feeling about Cal beating ucla either.

---

Sorry Blue but don't think you were at the game. Sunny coaching this team loses by three TD's. No D and without Goff or Webb his offense would be nothing.

---

I never said Sonny was coaching. Sonny's offense with Wilcox's defense and...and Wilcox coaching....Cal would have won.....today's BG

---

I plead guilty to a reading and comprehension fail. It was the Guinness talking.

---

Eh, the op is still wrong because he doesn't take into account personnel (which has been covered already) or pace of play.

You can't just say, oh dykes would have scored x amount of points more and this years defense would have held furd to 17 points. It doesn't work that way.

Dykes' offenses weren't actually that efficient. Their points per possession weren't that high, relative to the rest of the league.

So yes. Dykes probably does score more than 14 points. But on many more possessions. Which in turn tires out our defense and gives more possessions to furd. So they probably score way more than 17 as well. Even against a Wilcox led defense.

---

Dykes' offense was efficient enough with Webb....or put it this way, Webb would have won this game today!

So Blue, we are finally in agreement. Last year's offense and players with this year's Defense and Coaching would have won. You need to change the title though...

p.s. this year's offensive coaching staff with last year's players also would have won.

NVBear78 said:

---

So Blue, we are finally in agreement. Last year's offense and players with this year's Defense and Coaching would have won. You need to change the title though...

p.s. this year's offensive coaching staff with last year's players also would have won.

---

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I mis-posted, my bad.

Could you do me a favor though....could you get your color Crayola's and draw chazz, LunchTime, etc. and
draw them a picture so they can understand too....

Blueblood said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

So Blue, we are finally in agreement. Last year's offense and players with this year's Defense and Coaching would have won. You need to change the title though...

p.s. this year's offensive coaching staff with last year's players also would have won.

---

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I mis-posted, my bad.

Could you do me a favor though....could you get your color Crayola's and draw chazz, LunchTime, etc. and
draw them a picture so they can understand too....

---