https://n.rivals.com/news/overachiever-or-underachiever-ranking-all-power-five-teams

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

https://n.rivals.com/news/overachiever-or-underachiever-ranking-all-power-five-teams

---

I wholeheartedly agree!

Translation: We had enough horses to do better, but oooh that coaching staff...

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

https://n.rivals.com/news/overachiever-or-underachiever-ranking-all-power-five-teams

---

It boils down to this. When we had future NFL draft picks on the roster, we didn't have a quarterback. When we had a quarterback we had few future draft picks.

In 2005 Cal was clearly a top 5 team if not a top 1 team nationally if you factored in every positon but 1. If Rodgers had stayed (which was never going to happen), there would be a 100 foot statue of Tedford next to Memorial Stadium right now.

The final five years of the Tedford regime; the four years of Sonny; and, one year of JW. What was it about Tedford's five years that caused us to underachieve? The year 2007 was a watershed season. We went from potentially being number one in the country to dropping six in a row after we lost to OSU at home. I think the failure to recruit offensive linemen played a big part in our subsequent losses. Kevin Riley was an adequate QB, but certainly not a Rodgers, Longshore or Goff. Without sufficient protection an adequate QB becomes less accurate, more hurried and ultimately ineffective. Then, there's the thing about Tedford refusing to play a freshman in favor of an upperclassman. The predictability of Tedford's offense and his extreme conservatism in playcalling. Even though most will agree Jeff Tedford was a fine man and a good representative of this university, he remained our coach for one or two seasons too long.

We all know about Sonny and his reluctance to intervene in a completely inadequate defense. I can agree with everyone about Buh, but I really believed Art Kaufman would make a difference. He didn't! Tommy Tuberville was right when he dumped Kaufman. He was our defensive coordinator at the UCLA game at the Rose Bowl in 2015, which I thought was one of the most embarrassing moments I ever experienced watching a Cal game. I left early in the third quarter.

JW hasn't had a chance to really prove what he and his staff are capable of. I very much like the emphasis on defense that was missing throughout the previous five years (including JT's last year). I am hopeful that we can stand up to the Trojans and the Cardinal as never before. I like the running backs and tight ends he has recruited thus far. It's time to end those losing streaks and build a winning tradition based on toughness. No longer the doormat of the Conference, no longer a sure win for opponents and to strike fear into other Pac12 teams. That is Wilcox's mission.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

The "what if" game is very boring. I couldn't care less about Desean's toe, Nate's ankle, or Aaron leaving. There's no certainty even with the "what ifs" that Cal would have succeeded.

I'm more worried about this that can be controlled, like hiring a basketball coach who isn't remotely qualified.

---

That isn't the point I was making with my what if. My point is what is underachieving? We had a lot of draft picks and a lot of good players. But this method of counting up the number of good players just doesn't work when you factor in the quarterback is by far the most important position. Outside of any year Rodgers played, I would trade any player, including Marshawn or Desean, that got drafted from a Tedford squad for Dave Barr or Mike Pawlawski and I guarantee you we have a better record. Whether you want to say we underachieved because we didn't have a QB or because we didn't have a QB it wasn't really underachieving, doesn't matter to me, but the QB position is why we failed.

As for the Dykes era, I don't think we had that many draft picks to say we underachieved for those years based on draft picks. But in that era we had the QBs but we didn't have enough around them.

Put this in perspective, before Tedford Cal rarely got the talent. Then Tedford got the talent but Cal ran into a big Toejam Cheating Machine run by Cheatie Pete of U$C. Sure this is "what if" BS...but if U$C didn't cheat, Cal would have done much better. If you vacate the U$C wins and recalculate Cal as the Pac-12 champ, Cal does better. Just Cal's luck that U$C cheated once again...and the ding dongs got caught.

Conversely given Cal's previous record before Tedford, the utterly crappy condition of stadium and the "infamously" tough academics and I'd say the opposite, Cal over-achieved. Went from nothing to something very fast. Lucked out on Rodgers. Just got the side draft of cheats.

No surprise, but pains us to see it regardless... Would like to see such based upon recruiting classes too.

Cal can recruit the middle of the conference with a mediocre to unproven or even poor HC. Just by being Cal, or "Berkeley" to some, along with all that makes California and the Bay Area so desirable...

With a good to great HC, one getting results on the field, big wins, bowl appearances, we can recruit the upper third or even quarter of the Pac-12.

The HC is the most important talent on the team. His staff is paramount too; and not just who he selects or tries to secure, but actually hires. When qualified, desirable coordinators and assistants want to work with the HC, that speaks volumes, for me at least. We have that now, finally. The player talent follows, for the same reasons...

That all said, we have sufficient talent to win now, and win more than most people think, IMO. Coaching matters, a lot. At some point last season, the Cougars were tied with Stanford for most conference wins overs several seasons. The Cougs! They recruit the bottom of the conference (10th-12th). From what I recall (don't want to find my post at this time), their recruiting classes averaged 11th best over the previous four years. The other Washington school, UW, made the Championship game with a roster comprised of recruiting classes that were like 5th or 6th in the conference. There are other examples in the Pac-12, current and historical...

HCs who can do more with less are worthy of note. I had posted before that SD's success at La Tech was built upon recruiting classes that were generally the best in that conference. In La Tech's banner 2012 season that got SD hired at Cal, La Tech finished 3rd in the conference standings. I was concerned as it seemed like underachievement, and also, if that is the best he can do with top conference talent, which we are unlikely take away from Southern Cal, we should not expect the same results. And the recruiting class rankings for Cal under SD meandered around the middle of the conference, to slightly below...

I have some high expectations for the 2018 season.

Hey at least Wilcox has committed to recruit in the home base of the Bay Area and California. That alone should bring some payoff. California has sent the most talent to the NFL for a while now. Getting back to recruiting that talent should go a long way.

Look on the bright side. We now have hard data to PROVE that we are true, dyed-in-the-wool, long-suffering football fans. We aren't just lamenting our poor stature out of some dashed entitled pride (like $C fanbois). We're almost 60 years from a damn Rose Bowl (RIP) and then we have a previous decade of proven P5 futility. We stand head and shoulders above the rest of the conference - newcomers, and all - and the rest of the P5 when it comes to sucking!

No one compares to us!

OaktownBear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

https://n.rivals.com/news/overachiever-or-underachiever-ranking-all-power-five-teams

---

It boils down to this. When we had future NFL draft picks on the roster, we didn't have a quarterback. When we had a quarterback we had few future draft picks.

In 2005 Cal was clearly a top 5 team if not a top 1 team nationally if you factored in every positon but 1. If Rodgers had stayed (which was never going to happen), there would be a 100 foot statue of Tedford next to Memorial Stadium right now.

---

100 foot tall, or 100 foot wide? (I kid, sorry Tedford).

-kap

kaplanfx said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

https://n.rivals.com/news/overachiever-or-underachiever-ranking-all-power-five-teams

---

It boils down to this. When we had future NFL draft picks on the roster, we didn't have a quarterback. When we had a quarterback we had few future draft picks.

In 2005 Cal was clearly a top 5 team if not a top 1 team nationally if you factored in every positon but 1. If Rodgers had stayed (which was never going to happen), there would be a 100 foot statue of Tedford next to Memorial Stadium right now.

---

100 foot tall, or 100 foot wide? (I kid, sorry Tedford).

-kap

---

8>0 oooOOOHHHH.....that was nasty good!

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. Didn't. All that matters now is the 2018 season.

The fact I that our recruiting position was no such that you would say we overachieved. We had decent recruiting classes and put a lot of guys into the NFL who did very well. That was coaching, having smart kids who made it through Cal, and the occasional top prospect who did well here also (Marshawn, DeSean, etc).

No one thought we would be a top 5 or 10 team based on our recruiting.

Cal always had had a large number of kids go to the NFL because we get driven kids who are smart and Cal play in the league. Who really thought that Shane Vareen would be a 10 year player?

Oski87 said:

---

The fact I that our recruiting position was no such that you would say we overachieved. We had decent recruiting classes and put a lot of guys into the NFL who did very well. That was coaching, having smart kids who made it through Cal, and the occasional top prospect who did well here also (Marshawn, DeSean, etc).

No one thought we would be a top 5 or 10 team based on our recruiting.

Cal always had had a large number of kids go to the NFL because we get driven kids who are smart and Cal play in the league. Who really thought that Shane Vareen would be a 10 year player?

---

Shane Vareen was a 4 star recruit, the #5 running back in the country according to Rivals.

Nearly every year since Boller we have recruited an Elite 11 QB or had one or more on the roster.

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

The fact I that our recruiting position was no such that you would say we overachieved. We had decent recruiting classes and put a lot of guys into the NFL who did very well. That was coaching, having smart kids who made it through Cal, and the occasional top prospect who did well here also (Marshawn, DeSean, etc).

No one thought we would be a top 5 or 10 team based on our recruiting.

Cal always had had a large number of kids go to the NFL because we get driven kids who are smart and Cal play in the league. Who really thought that Shane Vareen would be a 10 year player?

---

Nearly every year since Boller we have recruited an Elite 11 QB or had one or more on the roster.

---

Kiss those days goodbye.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

The fact I that our recruiting position was no such that you would say we overachieved. We had decent recruiting classes and put a lot of guys into the NFL who did very well. That was coaching, having smart kids who made it through Cal, and the occasional top prospect who did well here also (Marshawn, DeSean, etc).

No one thought we would be a top 5 or 10 team based on our recruiting.

Cal always had had a large number of kids go to the NFL because we get driven kids who are smart and Cal play in the league. Who really thought that Shane Vareen would be a 10 year player?

---

Nearly every year since Boller we have recruited an Elite 11 QB or had one or more on the roster.

---

Kiss those days goodbye.

---

Muahhh kisses

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

The fact I that our recruiting position was no such that you would say we overachieved. We had decent recruiting classes and put a lot of guys into the NFL who did very well. That was coaching, having smart kids who made it through Cal, and the occasional top prospect who did well here also (Marshawn, DeSean, etc).

No one thought we would be a top 5 or 10 team based on our recruiting.

Cal always had had a large number of kids go to the NFL because we get driven kids who are smart and Cal play in the league. Who really thought that Shane Vareen would be a 10 year player?

---

Shane Vareen was a 4 star recruit, the #5 running back in the country according to Rivals.

Nearly every year since Boller we have recruited an Elite 11 QB or had one or more on the roster.

---

And how did that work out for the Bears? In fact, the only HS QB Tedford recruited who was successful was a guy he never coached - Goff. The rest were fair to middlin'........

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

The fact I that our recruiting position was no such that you would say we overachieved. We had decent recruiting classes and put a lot of guys into the NFL who did very well. That was coaching, having smart kids who made it through Cal, and the occasional top prospect who did well here also (Marshawn, DeSean, etc).

No one thought we would be a top 5 or 10 team based on our recruiting.

Cal always had had a large number of kids go to the NFL because we get driven kids who are smart and Cal play in the league. Who really thought that Shane Vareen would be a 10 year player?

---

Shane Vareen was a 4 star recruit, the #5 running back in the country according to Rivals.

Nearly every year since Boller we have recruited an Elite 11 QB or had one or more on the roster.

---

And how did that work out for the Bears? In fact, the only HS QB Tedford recruited who was successful was a guy he never coached - Goff. The rest were fair to middlin'........

---

Hence, the reason for this thread. It is a myth that we did not recruit well (have highly ranked players) over most of the last 18 years. And even when it was lower ranked guys that were finds or developed into NFL players, it is still true that we underperformed relative to the talent on the team. But yes, the failure at developing QBs under Tedford (in a very QB dependent system) was one of the biggest reasons we were ranked #1 in underperformance relative to the talent on the team.

Our end of season rankings through the telford years was about equivalent to our recruiting rankings. Our season rankings in the Sonny years was less than our recruiting rankings, but not by that much.

The fact is that our NFL talent has far outshone our recruiting rankings over the past 40 to 50 years. Is that bad coaching, or is that the fact that smart kids who work hard make it in the NFL, and dumb kids with a lot fo talent who get babied because they are 5 star recruits do not necessarily make it over the course of time?

I mean, Cal is the place for NFL special teams players - punters, kickers, long snappers. All of those guys are walk ons until they gel.

We have had a lot of quality guys who have done well because of coaching - running backs (with a great RB coach played above their rankings). QBs in the NFL - 3 first rounders in the last 17 years. Even Boller lasted 10 years.

They may have been 4 star recruits but most four star recruits are not 10 year NFL players.

People who decide to come to Cal, who can play football here, who can graduate from here - they have a much better shot at being a success in any field.

Do not denigrate the degree by saying we underperformed. We performed and our alumni continue to do well wherever they go.

Oski87 said:

---

Our end of season rankings through the telford years was about equivalent to our recruiting rankings. Our season rankings in the Sonny years was less than our recruiting rankings, but not by that much.

The fact is that our NFL talent has far outshone our recruiting rankings over the past 40 to 50 years. Is that bad coaching, or is that the fact that smart kids who work hard make it in the NFL, and dumb kids with a lot fo talent who get babied because they are 5 star recruits do not necessarily make it over the course of time?

I mean, Cal is the place for NFL special teams players - punters, kickers, long snappers. All of those guys are walk ons until they gel.

We have had a lot of quality guys who have done well because of coaching - running backs (with a great RB coach played above their rankings). QBs in the NFL - 3 first rounders in the last 17 years. Even Boller lasted 10 years.

They may have been 4 star recruits but most four star recruits are not 10 year NFL players.

People who decide to come to Cal, who can play football here, who can graduate from here - they have a much better shot at being a success in any field.

Do not denigrate the degree by saying we underperformed. We performed and our alumni continue to do well wherever they go.

---

Excellent points. A young man who goes through the Cal Football program has learned that everything is not going to be handed to him. He has learned to manage his time and take care of his academics. He has learned that everybody he meets is not going to genuflect before him and he has learned to deal with different types of people and different ways of thinking about life.

In short, he is probably better prepared to deal with the uncertainty and independence that is life after college... even in the NFL.

Oski87 said:

---

Our end of season rankings through the telford years was about equivalent to our recruiting rankings. Our season rankings in the Sonny years was less than our recruiting rankings, but not by that much.

The fact is that our NFL talent has far outshone our recruiting rankings over the past 40 to 50 years. Is that bad coaching, or is that the fact that smart kids who work hard make it in the NFL, and dumb kids with a lot fo talent who get babied because they are 5 star recruits do not necessarily make it over the course of time?

I mean, Cal is the place for NFL special teams players - punters, kickers, long snappers. All of those guys are walk ons until they gel.

We have had a lot of quality guys who have done well because of coaching - running backs (with a great RB coach played above their rankings). QBs in the NFL - 3 first rounders in the last 17 years. Even Boller lasted 10 years.

They may have been 4 star recruits but most four star recruits are not 10 year NFL players.

People who decide to come to Cal, who can play football here, who can graduate from here - they have a much better shot at being a success in any field.

Do not denigrate the degree by saying we underperformed. We performed and our alumni continue to do well wherever they go.

---

You are overstating the academic piece of the equation. Cal has sent a lot of guys to the NFL because they are talented footballers. In terms of their overall record, Cal has not done equally as well because of depth issues. Cal has NEVER been as deep as SC. Therefore, when a stellar player goes down, Cal is cooked. On the other hand, SC just calls up the next guy. Academics have nothing to do with it. That is nothing but an excuse. Always has been and hopefully always will not be - maybe Wilcox can prove that, like Stanford, you can field a superior team without resorting to the tired mantra - we can't win because our guys are too smart......

Academics plays no role ? At Berkeley? hmm

So I guess money/commitment to winning plays no role ?

going4roses said:

---

Academics plays no role ? At Berkeley? hmm

So I guess money/commitment to winning plays no role ?

---

As noted... "Academics have nothing to do with it" meaning academics have nothing to do with Cal's lack of success on the field or the ability to produce NFL players. That has been an excuse that far too many Cal alums have leaned on for far too long. Very few Cal footballers have majored in the subject areas that truly set Cal apart from its peer institutions. In fact, most Cal players major in subject areas that are no more stringent than other schools that are successful in football AND provide a solid education.

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Academics plays no role ? At Berkeley? hmm

So I guess money/commitment to winning plays no role ?

---

As noted... "Academics have nothing to do with it" meaning academics have nothing to do with Cal's lack of success on the field or the ability to produce NFL players. That has been an excuse that far too many Cal alums have leaned on for far too long. Very few Cal footballers have majored in the subject areas that truly set Cal apart from its peer institutions. In fact, most Cal players major in subject areas that are no more stringent than other schools that are successful in football AND provide a solid education.

---

Our academics can be a negative or they can be a positive. Our "liberal reputation" can be a negative or it can be a positive. It is all how it is sold and finding the players for whom it is a positive. There are world class players like Jalen Brown and Demetris Robertson who are attracted to Cal from the other side of the country and sign despite the w/l record. We just need to find more of them and take better advantage of their talents while they are here. I also think we need to take better advantage of the excellence of California JC football while it lasts. Finally, as we see with Laird and with many walk-on before him (Ahonatu, Uwaezuoke, Fujita...) the prospect of a Cal degree and chance to play in the Pac-12 allows us to bring in a lot of great non-scholarship players with good academics who are overlooked by other programs. There is no excuse for us not to have depth.

However, we do need to have coaches who are flexible enough to alter their strategy based on the talent available in any given season, game or play. It is just a fact of college sports.

we need coaches who can recruit. they go hand in hand. kaufman was a terrible recruiter. you need "horses" to get w's. im hopeful that jw and staff will find some speed and athletes to allow us to compete with other pac 12 programs.

calgo430 said:

---

we need coaches who can recruit. they go hand in hand. kaufman was a terrible recruiter. you need "horses" to get w's. im hopeful that jw and staff will find some speed and athletes to allow us to compete with other pac 12 programs.

---

Especially true that you need athletes on defense. Offense, to a much greater degree, can be schemed for advantages and away from weakness. Whereas, your opponent is certain to target your weaknesses on defense, over and over again. Cornerback is a ridiculously difficult position-you have to keep up with a guy with track speed who knows where the play is going all while he is running forward and you are running backwards-and if there is the slightest contact, you will be the one who gets flagged. It is no coincidence that Bill Walsh, known as an offensive guru, began the 49er dynasty by using all his top draft picks on DBs.