https://www.nfl.com/draft/tracker/prospects/allPositions?college=California&page=1&status=ALL

In most years, Cal has been well represented in the NFL draft. This year, not so much.

Downs sans injury would be on that list. Maybe Allensworth as well. But I think this is likely a fair assessment of Cal's draft prospects.

Downs and Allensworth might get picked up in 6 and 7 but that's basically it.

Cal returns a lot of starters and was a very young team last year. So the rankings do make sense. Downs is NFL caliber when healthy.

UCBerkGrad said:

---

https://www.nfl.com/draft/tracker/prospects/allPositions?college=California&page=1&status=ALL

In most years, Cal has been well represented in the NFL draft. This year, not so much.

---

And the guy is a transfer...

This is projected to be only the second time since 1990 that fewer than two Bears were selected in the draft.

This explains why Cal has been so bad the last last several years - no top end talent. As has been said many times, it takes talent to win. Until Cal starts signing a couple premier players every year, they will wallow in the middle of the conference.

Speaking of draft prospects:

packawana said:

---

Downs and Allensworth might get picked up in 6 and 7 but that's basically it.

---

I think Looney's gonna go in that range as well. Haven't seen too many people mock him anywhere outside of round 7 despite a solid, though not stellar, combine performance and a good Pro Day. But hey, it could just be because Cal's not a media darling this year and some NFL scout really fell in love with him.

If I were an owner/gm I'd pick Downs rd.4, unless his injury is more serious than reported.

Meanwhile, Uduh & Brewins have 7 each. Furds have 6, same as South-Central & Cougs. Bears have as many as the Fightin' Beavs, so there's that.

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

Any guess as who would be worthy of being drafted in 2019? My guess:

Likely: Kunaszyk, DRob (if he elects to leave)
Chance: Laird, Hudson, Mekari, Wharton, Funches, Ooms

93Bear said:

---

Any guess as who would be worthy of being drafted in 2019? My guess:

Likely: Kunaszyk, DRob (if he elects to leave)
Chance: Laird, Hudson, Mekari, Wharton, Funches, Ooms

---

Maybe add safety Hawkins onto the Chance list.

Am I delusional in thinking that Downs and Allensworth have a shot along with Looney to be in the late rounds this year?

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

In short, the Sonny effect.

Vic Enwere has a shot

93Bear said:

---

Any guess as who would be worthy of being drafted in 2019? My guess:

Likely: Kunaszyk, DRob (if he elects to leave)
Chance: Laird, Hudson, Mekari, Wharton, Funches, Ooms

---

Regarding four of the six on the "chance" list: Do you mean like I have a "chance" of winning the lotter this week?

Big C said:

---

93Bear said:

---

Any guess as who would be worthy of being drafted in 2019? My guess:

Likely: Kunaszyk, DRob (if he elects to leave)
Chance: Laird, Hudson, Mekari, Wharton, Funches, Ooms

---

Regarding four of the six on the "chance" list: Do you mean like I have a "chance" of winning the lotter this week?

---

Assuming you buy a ticket, some chance greater than zero, yes.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

---

Say what?

Jim Mora at UCLA:

• 46-32 (59%) all against FBS opponents
• 29-24 in conference (55%)

Sonny Dykes at Cal:

• 19-30 (39%)
• 16-30 against FBS opponents (35%)
• 10-26 in conference (28%)

If you want to argue Sonny wasn't that much worse than Mora because UCLA gets better talent based on location and reputation regardless of recruiting prowess, I could see that. But Mora's performance in absolute terms eats Sonny's lunch.

I do agree on the larger point about the correlation between drafts and program success not always being strong.

Jury is out on Wilcox but I am cautiously optimistic.

OneKeg said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

---

Say what?

Jim Mora at UCLA:

• 46-32 (59%) all against FBS opponents
• 29-24 in conference (55%)

Sonny Dykes at Cal:

• 19-30 (39%)
• 16-30 against FBS opponents (35%)
• 10-26 in conference (28%)

If you want to argue Sonny wasn't that much worse than Mora because UCLA gets better talent based on location and reputation regardless of recruiting prowess, I could see that. But Mora's performance in absolute terms eats Sonny's lunch.

I do agree on the larger point about the correlation between drafts and program success not always being strong.

Jury is out on Wilcox but I am cautiously optimistic.

---

Mora (like Tedford) is a tale of two coaches. His first three years were excellent, but Sonny's last three years compare favorably with Mora's last three years.

calumnus said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

---

Say what?

Jim Mora at UCLA:

• 46-32 (59%) all against FBS opponents
• 29-24 in conference (55%)

Sonny Dykes at Cal:

• 19-30 (39%)
• 16-30 against FBS opponents (35%)
• 10-26 in conference (28%)

If you want to argue Sonny wasn't that much worse than Mora because UCLA gets better talent based on location and reputation regardless of recruiting prowess, I could see that. But Mora's performance in absolute terms eats Sonny's lunch.

I do agree on the larger point about the correlation between drafts and program success not always being strong.

Jury is out on Wilcox but I am cautiously optimistic.

---

Mora (like Tedford) is a tale of two coaches. His first three years were excellent, but Sonny's last three years compare favorably with Mora's last three years.

---

So Mora's worst years were equal to Sonny's best years. Got it.

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

---

Drafts may not correlate to mid-level success but they do correlate to success at the highest level of the sport.

Here are the Top 10 programs in terms of number #1 draft choices since the draft was instituted in 1936....

USC
Ohio State
Notre Dame
Miami
Alabama
Florida
Tennessee
Michigan
Texas
Oklahoma
Florida State

That is a roster of the best programs in the country over the long term.

Once again, it supports the idea that you must sign big-time playmakers every year. A bunch of three stars will not permit you to advance to the highest level on a consistent basis. If Cal ever hopes to become a regular member of the elite, they must begin signing a couple five stars every season.

dajo9 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

---

Say what?

Jim Mora at UCLA:

• 46-32 (59%) all against FBS opponents
• 29-24 in conference (55%)

Sonny Dykes at Cal:

• 19-30 (39%)
• 16-30 against FBS opponents (35%)
• 10-26 in conference (28%)

If you want to argue Sonny wasn't that much worse than Mora because UCLA gets better talent based on location and reputation regardless of recruiting prowess, I could see that. But Mora's performance in absolute terms eats Sonny's lunch.

I do agree on the larger point about the correlation between drafts and program success not always being strong.

Jury is out on Wilcox but I am cautiously optimistic.

---

Mora (like Tedford) is a tale of two coaches. His first three years were excellent, but Sonny's last three years compare favorably with Mora's last three years.

---

So Mora's worst years were equal to Sonny's best years. Got it.

---

Or it means Mora did better with inherited players and not so well with his own. Sonny was Sonny... perhaps somewhat better with his own players than with those he inherited.

dajo9 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

---

Say what?

Jim Mora at UCLA:

• 46-32 (59%) all against FBS opponents
• 29-24 in conference (55%)

Sonny Dykes at Cal:

• 19-30 (39%)
• 16-30 against FBS opponents (35%)
• 10-26 in conference (28%)

If you want to argue Sonny wasn't that much worse than Mora because UCLA gets better talent based on location and reputation regardless of recruiting prowess, I could see that. But Mora's performance in absolute terms eats Sonny's lunch.

I do agree on the larger point about the correlation between drafts and program success not always being strong.

Jury is out on Wilcox but I am cautiously optimistic.

---

Mora (like Tedford) is a tale of two coaches. His first three years were excellent, but Sonny's last three years compare favorably with Mora's last three years.

---

So Mora's worst years were equal to Sonny's best years. Got it.

---

Mora brought in 3 Top 15 classses from 2013-2017 and basically did the same as Sonny. In comparison Sonny got some bang for his buck (one 50s class, three mid 30s classes). I think that looks favorably on Sonny.

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Agreed.

The bare cupboard was Sonny Dykes' parting gift to the program and university.

71Bear said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Proof positive for how badly the Bears were sinking during the four years before Coach Willcox, and how dire the talent pool had become. Also proof that the Wilcox crew did a pretty good job of coaching in 2017. Better days are ahead.

---

Eh drafts don't necessarily correlate with program success. Sonny basically performed as well as Mora did and clearly UCLA had better talent. Essentially, you can have a successful college football program and not have a lot of draft picks, and vice versa. If anything it proves that Sonny is probably a better coach than Mora.

---

Drafts may not correlate to mid-level success but they do correlate to success at the highest level of the sport.

Here are the Top 10 programs in terms of number #1 draft choices since the draft was instituted in 1936....

USC
Ohio State
Notre Dame
Miami
Alabama
Florida
Tennessee
Michigan
Texas
Oklahoma
Florida State

That is a roster of the best programs in the country over the long term.

Once again, it supports the idea that you must sign big-time playmakers every year. A bunch of three stars will not permit you to advance to the highest level on a consistent basis. If Cal ever hopes to become a regular member of the elite, they must begin signing a couple five stars every season.

---

I agree with you, 10,000%. Good players make good coaches. Elite players make elite coaches. Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. That's the name of the game.