Was this recent? Didn't Moraga just say that he was working hard to get past that?nwbear84 said:
He was suspended from the program for conduct detrimental to the team so he probably wasn't going to play anyway since he couldn't get his act together. Besides, why reward someone who can't look a gift horse in the mouth. Let him go. Hopefully, for his sake, he learns from this and does better down the road. A tough lesson, but I'm glad the coaching staff drew a hard line. Good for them.
Stovall transfers to Arizona Western
11,236 Views |
65 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Goobear
CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
The offense should be better this season. That should help. DRob being healthy for a full year will be key.CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
Unlikely Baldwin will be around for too mush longer, before being promoted somewhere, so an important challenge will be getting a really good OC to follow him.
As to this staff not recruiting skill positions, looks like Remigio has a skill set much like Stovall, and Adams, Castles, and the other RB aren't just "fillers" either. It takes a while to rebuild, and Cal is a challenge, but the idea that Stovall leaving shows Wilcox and staff will ultimately fail is a bit much.
82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
That's basically what Harbaugh and Tedford did (Holmoe tried to do). The key is good playcalling to make up for the lack of playmakers. We should also look to bring in JC skill players to get started (Aaron Rodgers and JJ Arrington).
We have some excellent skill position players coming in out of the recruiting class. (From this thread) it appears Stovall ran into some issues & the staff just maintained a firm line, which is an indication of consistency about recruiting the right kind of players and having clear boundaries about what is acceptable and what isn't, with no exceptions/double standard for talent.
That's all to the positive in my book, and after Tedford (later years) & Dykes a sorely needed culture change.
That's all to the positive in my book, and after Tedford (later years) & Dykes a sorely needed culture change.
TROJAN WAD??
Tedford actually had terrific skill players. He should've/could've done better if he hadn't gone so conservative later in his tenure and also lost his touch with QBs.
Not necessarily. You need to show some creativity or "pizzazz" with your scheme/style to excite quality skill players. I've seen too many Ray Wilsey type teams in my time......solid defense, solid O-line play and no one82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
who can pass, run with, or catch a football with authority, playing in a system that is simply boring.
CalBarn said:
Tedford actually had terrific skill players. He should've/could've done better if he hadn't gone so conservative later in his tenure and also lost his touch with QBs.
Tedford inherited some good skill players, but brought in top JC talent in year 2 and 3. It wasn't until years 3 and 4 that he was bringing in the top high school skill positions recruitsand yes, we were stacked with top skill position players (although QB seemed to elude us).
That's the biggest challenge when you have a defensive minded head coach. The brains behind your offense keep moving on. Hopefully JW can continue to learn and develop his knowledge of the game so it won't be a disaster everytime an OC leaves. It was incredible to me that Dykes could never bring in a suitable DC when he had the offense skills to rack up points. But I've seen the opposite more often.....defensive-minded coaches like Nolan and Singletary of the Niners who never got the memo the forward pass had been legalized. Not only do teams like that lose, they are painfully boring to watch.Big C said:The offense should be better this season. That should help. DRob being healthy for a full year will be key.CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
Unlikely Baldwin will be around for too mush longer, before being promoted somewhere, so an important challenge will be getting a really good OC to follow him.
71Bear said:It makes perfect sense. If he transferred directly to another FBS program, he would not be eligible to play until 2019. This way, he can play in 2018 at the JC level and transfer to an FBS program and still play in 2019.concernedparent said:
Academics? Can't see this making sense otherwise.
He loses nothing in terms of being eligible to play for an FBS program and gains the opportunity to put something in film in 2018.
A lot of guys do this - it is the smart route.....
I am a bit confused. If he goes to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. If he does not go to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. The only advantage in going to JC level is that he can play at JC level in 2018.
I his playing at JC level all that great.
I know that AR took that route but it was only because he did not receive an offer from an acceptable Div 1 school.
His decision makes no sense unless he had a big problem that arose very recently so that he did not have enough time to find an acceptable transfer school.
Grades is a socially acceptable type of problem. I did not want to jump to another type of problem that is less socially acceptable that indicates othe type of problems.
CalBarn said:Not necessarily. You need to show some creativity or "pizzazz" with your scheme/style to excite quality skill players. I've seen too many Ray Wilsey type teams in my time......solid defense, solid O-line play and no one82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
who can pass, run with, or catch a football with authority, playing in a system that is simply boring.
I don't know about showing pizazz. Dykes showed plenty and we still didn't recruit well enough to win. You do need to have a winning record, in league too, to recruit but I don't think you need any more pizazz than that. The fact that you had to go back to Wilsey to find a team that played good defense but didn't win (did they have a good o-line?) sort of proves my point. Teams with good defenses and strong o-lines can control the ball and really need only a bare minimum of skill talent to win. Now I hope that is what JW is building because we aren't even there yet.
The answer is that he can play if he goes the JC route (as opposed to transferring directly to an FBS school in which case he could not play immediately). As noted, this is a very common occurrence for players who believe they need to put something on film thus increasing their chances of transferring to a solid P5 program vis a vis a crappy lesser school.GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:It makes perfect sense. If he transferred directly to another FBS program, he would not be eligible to play until 2019. This way, he can play in 2018 at the JC level and transfer to an FBS program and still play in 2019.concernedparent said:
Academics? Can't see this making sense otherwise.
He loses nothing in terms of being eligible to play for an FBS program and gains the opportunity to put something in film in 2018.
A lot of guys do this - it is the smart route.....
I am a bit confused. If he goes to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. If he does not go to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. The only advantage in going to JC level is that he can play at JC level in 2018.
I his playing at JC level all that great.
I know that AR took that route but it was only because he did not receive an offer from an acceptable Div 1 school.
His decision makes no sense unless he had a big problem that arose very recently so that he did not have enough time to find an acceptable transfer school.
Grades is a socially acceptable type of problem. I did not want to jump to another type of problem that is less socially acceptable that indicates othe type of problems.
71Bear said:The answer is that he can play if he goes the JC route (as opposed to transferring directly to an FBS school in which case he could not play immediately). As noted, this is a very common occurrence for players who believe they need to put something on film thus increasing their chances of transferring to a solid P5 program vis a vis a crappy lesser school.GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:It makes perfect sense. If he transferred directly to another FBS program, he would not be eligible to play until 2019. This way, he can play in 2018 at the JC level and transfer to an FBS program and still play in 2019.concernedparent said:
Academics? Can't see this making sense otherwise.
He loses nothing in terms of being eligible to play for an FBS program and gains the opportunity to put something in film in 2018.
A lot of guys do this - it is the smart route.....
I am a bit confused. If he goes to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. If he does not go to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. The only advantage in going to JC level is that he can play at JC level in 2018.
I his playing at JC level all that great.
I know that AR took that route but it was only because he did not receive an offer from an acceptable Div 1 school.
His decision makes no sense unless he had a big problem that arose very recently so that he did not have enough time to find an acceptable transfer school.
Grades is a socially acceptable type of problem. I did not want to jump to another type of problem that is less socially acceptable that indicates othe type of problems.
Maybe you are correct.
But IMO if he could play and if he had made up his mind before he would have found a good FBS school long before now.
To me the fact that he is going to a JC is evidence that his decision is due to recently occurring facts.
Since we are near a the end of a semester those facts could be grade related. Or as other people have pointed out there could be other recent facts.
To me those facts have more to do with Stovall than to do with the coaxes or Cal.
Which former Cal great transferred from Arizona Western?
joeroth12.com
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:The answer is that he can play if he goes the JC route (as opposed to transferring directly to an FBS school in which case he could not play immediately). As noted, this is a very common occurrence for players who believe they need to put something on film thus increasing their chances of transferring to a solid P5 program vis a vis a crappy lesser school.GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:It makes perfect sense. If he transferred directly to another FBS program, he would not be eligible to play until 2019. This way, he can play in 2018 at the JC level and transfer to an FBS program and still play in 2019.concernedparent said:
Academics? Can't see this making sense otherwise.
He loses nothing in terms of being eligible to play for an FBS program and gains the opportunity to put something in film in 2018.
A lot of guys do this - it is the smart route.....
I am a bit confused. If he goes to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. If he does not go to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. The only advantage in going to JC level is that he can play at JC level in 2018.
I his playing at JC level all that great.
I know that AR took that route but it was only because he did not receive an offer from an acceptable Div 1 school.
His decision makes no sense unless he had a big problem that arose very recently so that he did not have enough time to find an acceptable transfer school.
Grades is a socially acceptable type of problem. I did not want to jump to another type of problem that is less socially acceptable that indicates othe type of problems.
Maybe you are correct.
But IMO if he could play and if he had made up his mind before he would have found a good FBS school long before now.
AGREE
To me the fact that he is going to a JC is evidence that his decision is due to recently occurring facts.
AGREE
Since we are near a the end of a semester those facts could be grade related. Or as other people have pointed out there could be other recent facts.
SINCE I HAVE NO IDEA RE: HIS ACADEMICS, IT IS POSSIBLE, HOWEVER, IF I HAD TO GUESS, HIS TRANSFER RELATES TO YOUR SECOND SENTENCE.
To me those facts have more to do with Stovall than to do with the coaxes or Cal.
AGREE
run2win said:
Which former Cal great transferred from Arizona Western?
That would be Chuck Muncie.
Good knowledge, guys! Muncie was a senior my freshman year at Cal and I didn't know that (I knew he was a JC transfer, but I didn't know from where.).NYCGOBEARS said:run2win said:
Which former Cal great transferred from Arizona Western?
That would be Chuck Muncie.
Harry Vance Muncie, correct.
joeroth12.com
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
Muncie went to Arizona Western to play basketball - football only happened because the football coach asked Chuck to try out.
joeroth12.com
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
And oddly enough, today marks the 5th anniversary of Chuck's death.
joeroth12.com
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
X: @calgridiron
Facebook: California Gridiron
As I think about this moreI hope this either signals or drives us to play a lot more sets with a TE (Hudson) and McMorris at H-back. The base play being power running with Laird or passing off play-action.
The reason Dykes lost was because he totally neglected the defensive side of the ball, not because he couldn't recruit offensively. Receivers would have no qualms playing for Dykes. But back to the main premise---you need skill players to be a top-notch team. Frankly, I think your idea of needing "a bare minimum of skill talent to win" is garbage. FYI, I mentioned Wilsey for just the opposite reason, which obviously you couldn't figure out---that this is pretty much the way it's always been, with few exceptions. [By the way, when when was the last time a Cal team won with only a good defense?!!? My comment certainly doesn't prove your point---just the opposite!] Look at the Pac-12 historically. Let's take the Tedford era, when we were actually competitive (is that recent enough for you?). USC dominated us and certainly they had great skill players---they were solid at pretty much all positions, but they certainly didn't succeed with "only a bare minimum of skill talent to win." Oregon then grew to dominance with great speed and skill players. Even looking at Cal, our best years historically were when we had great skill players. More recently Stanford zoomed past us.....and they've done it with far more than just defense and O-line play. They've had 5 runners-up for the Heisman since 2009.82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Not necessarily. You need to show some creativity or "pizzazz" with your scheme/style to excite quality skill players. I've seen too many Ray Wilsey type teams in my time......solid defense, solid O-line play and no one82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
who can pass, run with, or catch a football with authority, playing in a system that is simply boring.
I don't know about showing pizazz. Dykes showed plenty and we still didn't recruit well enough to win. You do need to have a winning record, in league too, to recruit but I don't think you need any more pizazz than that. The fact that you had to go back to Wilsey to find a team that played good defense but didn't win (did they have a good o-line?) sort of proves my point. Teams with good defenses and strong o-lines can control the ball and really need only a bare minimum of skill talent to win. Now I hope that is what JW is building because we aren't even there yet.
Big time programs have big time players. For Cal to be big time, JW will need to hit on some real talent offensively. Defense and O-line play alone won't cut it in this day and age.
The game is totally different today than it was in Willsey's era. To win today, you need superior talent on both lines, solid D backs and a dynamic offense.CalBarn said:The reason Dykes lost was because he totally neglected the defensive side of the ball, not because he couldn't recruit offensively. Receivers would have no qualms playing for Dykes. But back to the main premise---you need skill players to be a top-notch team. Frankly, I think your idea of needing "a bare minimum of skill talent to win" is garbage. FYI, I mentioned Wilsey for just the opposite reason, which obviously you couldn't figure out---that this is pretty much the way it's always been, with few exceptions. [By the way, when when was the last time a Cal team won with only a good defense?!!? My comment certainly doesn't prove your point---just the opposite!] Look at the Pac-12 historically. Let's take the Tedford era, when we were actually competitive (is that recent enough for you?). USC dominated us and certainly they had great skill players---they were solid at pretty much all positions, but they certainly didn't succeed with "only a bare minimum of skill talent to win." Oregon then grew to dominance with great speed and skill players. Even looking at Cal, our best years historically were when we had great skill players. More recently Stanford zoomed past us.....and they've done it with far more than just defense and O-line play. They've had 5 runners-up for the Heisman since 2009.82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Not necessarily. You need to show some creativity or "pizzazz" with your scheme/style to excite quality skill players. I've seen too many Ray Wilsey type teams in my time......solid defense, solid O-line play and no one82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
who can pass, run with, or catch a football with authority, playing in a system that is simply boring.
I don't know about showing pizazz. Dykes showed plenty and we still didn't recruit well enough to win. You do need to have a winning record, in league too, to recruit but I don't think you need any more pizazz than that. The fact that you had to go back to Wilsey to find a team that played good defense but didn't win (did they have a good o-line?) sort of proves my point. Teams with good defenses and strong o-lines can control the ball and really need only a bare minimum of skill talent to win. Now I hope that is what JW is building because we aren't even there yet.
Big time programs have big time players. For Cal to be big time, JW will need to hit on some real talent offensively. Defense and O-line play alone won't cut it in this day and age.
Truth. Plain & simple.71Bear said:
The game is totally different today than it was in Willsey's era. To win today, you need superior talent on both lines, solid D backs and a dynamic offense.
The '71 team's wins over u$c in the Coliseum and furd in the Big Game remain near the top of best game memories for me.
71Bear said:The game is totally different today than it was in Willsey's era. To win today, you need superior talent on both lines, solid D backs and a dynamic offense.CalBarn said:The reason Dykes lost was because he totally neglected the defensive side of the ball, not because he couldn't recruit offensively. Receivers would have no qualms playing for Dykes. But back to the main premise---you need skill players to be a top-notch team. Frankly, I think your idea of needing "a bare minimum of skill talent to win" is garbage. FYI, I mentioned Wilsey for just the opposite reason, which obviously you couldn't figure out---that this is pretty much the way it's always been, with few exceptions. [By the way, when when was the last time a Cal team won with only a good defense?!!? My comment certainly doesn't prove your point---just the opposite!] Look at the Pac-12 historically. Let's take the Tedford era, when we were actually competitive (is that recent enough for you?). USC dominated us and certainly they had great skill players---they were solid at pretty much all positions, but they certainly didn't succeed with "only a bare minimum of skill talent to win." Oregon then grew to dominance with great speed and skill players. Even looking at Cal, our best years historically were when we had great skill players. More recently Stanford zoomed past us.....and they've done it with far more than just defense and O-line play. They've had 5 runners-up for the Heisman since 2009.82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Not necessarily. You need to show some creativity or "pizzazz" with your scheme/style to excite quality skill players. I've seen too many Ray Wilsey type teams in my time......solid defense, solid O-line play and no one82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
Because he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
who can pass, run with, or catch a football with authority, playing in a system that is simply boring.
I don't know about showing pizazz. Dykes showed plenty and we still didn't recruit well enough to win. You do need to have a winning record, in league too, to recruit but I don't think you need any more pizazz than that. The fact that you had to go back to Wilsey to find a team that played good defense but didn't win (did they have a good o-line?) sort of proves my point. Teams with good defenses and strong o-lines can control the ball and really need only a bare minimum of skill talent to win. Now I hope that is what JW is building because we aren't even there yet.
Big time programs have big time players. For Cal to be big time, JW will need to hit on some real talent offensively. Defense and O-line play alone won't cut it in this day and age.
Yes, like Wisconsin.
1970 not 1971....Bear19 said:Truth. Plain & simple.71Bear said:
The game is totally different today than it was in Willsey's era. To win today, you need superior talent on both lines, solid D backs and a dynamic offense.
The '71 team's wins over u$c in the Coliseum and furd in the Big Game remain near the top of best game memories for me.
Yep, like Wisconsin - their line play on both sides of the ball is definitely superior and they have elite skill players in their offensive backfield and a solid defensive backfield.....82gradDLSdad said:71Bear said:The game is totally different today than it was in Willsey's era. To win today, you need superior talent on both lines, solid D backs and a dynamic offense.CalBarn said:The reason Dykes lost was because he totally neglected the defensive side of the ball, not because he couldn't recruit offensively. Receivers would have no qualms playing for Dykes. But back to the main premise---you need skill players to be a top-notch team. Frankly, I think your idea of needing "a bare minimum of skill talent to win" is garbage. FYI, I mentioned Wilsey for just the opposite reason, which obviously you couldn't figure out---that this is pretty much the way it's always been, with few exceptions. [By the way, when when was the last time a Cal team won with only a good defense?!!? My comment certainly doesn't prove your point---just the opposite!] Look at the Pac-12 historically. Let's take the Tedford era, when we were actually competitive (is that recent enough for you?). USC dominated us and certainly they had great skill players---they were solid at pretty much all positions, but they certainly didn't succeed with "only a bare minimum of skill talent to win." Oregon then grew to dominance with great speed and skill players. Even looking at Cal, our best years historically were when we had great skill players. More recently Stanford zoomed past us.....and they've done it with far more than just defense and O-line play. They've had 5 runners-up for the Heisman since 2009.82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Not necessarily. You need to show some creativity or "pizzazz" with your scheme/style to excite quality skill players. I've seen too many Ray Wilsey type teams in my time......solid defense, solid O-line play and no one82gradDLSdad said:CalBarn said:Right you are! Sometime soon we need to start winning some recruiting battles for some stud skill players on offense. I know people are excited about our O-line recruits but we simply won't do much without better athletes at the skill positions. I am hoping like crazy JW can be the guy at Cal and allay my fears about hiring a defensive guy as head coach. We won't be much better off than we were with Dykes if we lose games with scores likeOneKeg said:Not that I agree with the insult - I'm cool with all parties here. Life's too short to start getting overly bitter about sports. But I think the censored word starts with a "d", ends with a "che" and has a "ou" in the middle. Not really sure why BI censors it.TheSouseFamily said:beartothebone said:
NBecause he's an obnoxious ******wad that likes to occasionally enlighten us simpletons with his pearls of drivel.
Trying to think of a six letter obscenity that goes with wad and I can't think of one.
The funny thing is when I quoted your quote of him, it actually uncensored the word inside the quoted quote while in edit mode, confirming what I already thought was the word used.
As for Stovall, he is a talent and we'll miss him. Thankfully at the slot, we still have Noa, Hawkins, Bankhead, maybe Remiggio (sp?). But in general we need to have a good offensive year so we can recruit some studs at WR (hopefully ones that more aligned with Cal and the coaching staff). QB too.
21-10 or 24-17 instead of 51-45 or 42-38......except we'll just be more boring. I've been hearing about how great this staff is supposed to be in recruiting. I just hope they start showing it on the offensive side of the ball. Some say you have to win first before you can recruit, but that's like a Catch-22.....we aren't going to win much without the talent. You have to be great at what you do (coaching) and great at convincing young men that you CAN build a program. They can't just look at us and think, "All they know and emphasize is defense." It can be done. We have an excellent example right across the Bay. I know he's hated here, but when Harbaugh showed up at Stanford they were in desperate, dire straits......and he was able to build and grow a great program there despite years of little success and lack of talent. If JW is really the guy he needs to start winning some of these battles and he needs to start winning them right away. Otherwise we face 2-3-4 more mediocre years and we'll have to start all over again. Don't get me wrong......I am pulling like mad for JW to succeed. I don't want to go through these wasted cycles again and again and then start from scratch.. Somehow our coaching staff needs to start attracting better skill players to Cal and convince them we will be a serious player. Come on, JW, we're pulling for you! Go Bears!!
We certainly need to recruit but I'll say this, you can build a really good team with a good defense and offensive line. If we do this the other recruits will come.
who can pass, run with, or catch a football with authority, playing in a system that is simply boring.
I don't know about showing pizazz. Dykes showed plenty and we still didn't recruit well enough to win. You do need to have a winning record, in league too, to recruit but I don't think you need any more pizazz than that. The fact that you had to go back to Wilsey to find a team that played good defense but didn't win (did they have a good o-line?) sort of proves my point. Teams with good defenses and strong o-lines can control the ball and really need only a bare minimum of skill talent to win. Now I hope that is what JW is building because we aren't even there yet.
Big time programs have big time players. For Cal to be big time, JW will need to hit on some real talent offensively. Defense and O-line play alone won't cut it in this day and age.
Yes, like Wisconsin.
Based on the article published on this site a few days before his transfer, I think it is clear that something happened recently.GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:The answer is that he can play if he goes the JC route (as opposed to transferring directly to an FBS school in which case he could not play immediately). As noted, this is a very common occurrence for players who believe they need to put something on film thus increasing their chances of transferring to a solid P5 program vis a vis a crappy lesser school.GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:It makes perfect sense. If he transferred directly to another FBS program, he would not be eligible to play until 2019. This way, he can play in 2018 at the JC level and transfer to an FBS program and still play in 2019.concernedparent said:
Academics? Can't see this making sense otherwise.
He loses nothing in terms of being eligible to play for an FBS program and gains the opportunity to put something in film in 2018.
A lot of guys do this - it is the smart route.....
I am a bit confused. If he goes to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. If he does not go to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. The only advantage in going to JC level is that he can play at JC level in 2018.
I his playing at JC level all that great.
I know that AR took that route but it was only because he did not receive an offer from an acceptable Div 1 school.
His decision makes no sense unless he had a big problem that arose very recently so that he did not have enough time to find an acceptable transfer school.
Grades is a socially acceptable type of problem. I did not want to jump to another type of problem that is less socially acceptable that indicates othe type of problems.
Maybe you are correct.
But IMO if he could play and if he had made up his mind before he would have found a good FBS school long before now.
To me the fact that he is going to a JC is evidence that his decision is due to recently occurring facts.
Since we are near a the end of a semester those facts could be grade related. Or as other people have pointed out there could be other recent facts.
To me those facts have more to do with Stovall than to do with the coaxes or Cal.
But that doesn't change Stovall's analysis. Stovall already redshirted last year (and didn't play much). So if he transfers to D-1, he sits out a year which he loses (can't redshirt the transfer year because he already did last year) and then has 2 years to play 2. And some schools may hesitate to take a transfer who hasn't played in two years.
On the other hand, if he goes JC, he can play immediately and then transfer - still with 2 to play 2. Bottom line, JC offers him a chance to play football in a year that he wouldn't be able to play in D-1. He can also transfer in the spring to D-1. Seems like an obvious choice.
Exactly!BearGoggles said:Based on the article published on this site a few days before his transfer, I think it is clear that something happened recently.GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:The answer is that he can play if he goes the JC route (as opposed to transferring directly to an FBS school in which case he could not play immediately). As noted, this is a very common occurrence for players who believe they need to put something on film thus increasing their chances of transferring to a solid P5 program vis a vis a crappy lesser school.GivemTheAxe said:71Bear said:It makes perfect sense. If he transferred directly to another FBS program, he would not be eligible to play until 2019. This way, he can play in 2018 at the JC level and transfer to an FBS program and still play in 2019.concernedparent said:
www Academics? Can't see this making sense otherwise.
He loses nothing in terms of being eligible to play for an FBS program and gains the opportunity to put something in film in 2018.
A lot of guys do this - it is the smart route.....
I am a bit confused. If he goes to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. If he does not go to JC he can play at Div 1 level in 2019. The only advantage in going to JC level is that he can play at JC level in 2018.
I his playing at JC level all that great.
I know that AR took that route but it was only because he did not receive an offer from an acceptable Div 1 school.
His decision makes no sense unless he had a big problem that arose very recently so that he did not have enough time to find an acceptable transfer school.
Grades is a socially acceptable type of problem. I did not want to jump to another type of problem that is less socially acceptable that indicates othe type of problems.
Maybe you are correct.
But IMO if he could play and if he had made up his mind before he would have found a good FBS school long before now.
To me the fact that he is going to a JC is evidence that his decision is due to recently occurring facts.
Since we are near a the end of a semester those facts could be grade related. Or as other people have pointed out there could be other recent facts.
To me those facts have more to do with Stovall than to do with the coaxes or Cal.
But that doesn't change Stovall's analysis. Stovall already redshirted last year (and didn't play much). So if he transfers to D-1, he sits out a year which he loses (can't redshirt the transfer year because he already did last year) and then has 2 years to play 2. And some schools may hesitate to take a transfer who hasn't played in two years.
On the other hand, if he goes JC, he can play immediately and then transfer - still with 2 to play 2. Bottom line, JC offers him a chance to play football in a year that he wouldn't be able to play in D-1. He can also transfer in the spring to D-1. Seems like an obvious choice.
At the end of the day if you are the coach and have tried to get him onboard for over a year and he goes in the opposite direction again (from being on the same page as has been communicated to him over and over again)...what would you do? I think it comes down to that..
Featured Stories
See All
No. 3 Bears Advance To NCAA Championship Finals
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football Spring Practice Day 13 (Free)
by Jim McGill
Cal Men's Gymnastics Sends 10 To NCAA Final
by Cal Athletics
Ott and Endries Step Up For Cal Football's Reading Challenge
by Bradley Connelly