Yesterday left a lot of questions open about the offense. The most confusing to me was why we didn't have any other back run the ball?

Why? What possible logic? Laird is going to get injured if he has this many touches each game. And we learned about our running backs.

One thing is probably true - we can disregard all reporting from spring and fall practices. It's just lip service. Which to be honest is all you can expect.

Agree, of course, although not sure about the "lip service" part. If we were able to split time between three QBs, what the heck was up with running backs? Each time we began a new series, I kept waiting for Dancy or Clark (or somebody else) to come in. Not only that, they kept running Laird into the line and he kept getting pounded. He might not make it past Columbus Day, continuing like that.

Agreed, too. In general, it was not a good day to assess the new talent on offense (other than QB). The participation for new guys was pretty much: Moe Ways, 1 reception.

The only thing I can surmise is that the coaches were overly afraid of a fumble and wanted the ball in sure hands. But even that doesn't really hold water when you're up 3 scores late in the 3rd.

These coaches are perfect. Go away, hatters.

Not exactly a satisfying win yesterday, as bad as that sounds, I admit...

For a first game, just five penalties is nice to see. Zero turn-overs too, especially. Coupled with generally solid, fundamental play, we can compete and win some games where we otherwise would not with this roster.

If the D can be as stingy as we saw most of the UNC game, and opportunistic also, the offense coming-around would be very welcome... A +4 TO margin is damn sweet. JT's Bulldogs at +7 yesterday is pretty amazing... If our O would have produced as I had hoped, a little better than the end of 2017, this would have been a much higher scoring game for us; and very comfortable win.

Heck, our offense, Bowers, the passing game, were quite a bit more effective last year in NC! Unless the Tarheel D proves to be some juggernaut, there is reason for concern.

As I had noted before our game with UNC, their recruiting classes the previous years were notably higher ranked than ours (average stars). I felt that was evident at times. From that same perspective, advantage Cal next Saturday night in Provo.

It was pretty obvious the NC defense was just waiting for Laird to carry the ball. CAL needed some other ball carriers and more mis-direction, NC had those 4 cement post just drooling and waiting.

Four takeaways, no turnovers on offense, strong defensive play will win a lot of games.

That said, clearly Wilcox was not happy about O-Line play & pulling Bowers is all we need to see with respect to his play. 4th Q defense letdown also clearly peeved Wilcox.

Wilcox will not throw anyone under the bus in interviews. When he says "everyone needs improvement" that's code for "we played like ***t, and I won't accept that."

Bear19 said:

---

Four takeaways, no turnovers on offense, strong defensive play will win a lot of games.

That said, clearly Wilcox was not happy about O-Line play & pulling Bowers is all we need to see with respect to his play. 4th Q defense letdown also clearly peeved Wilcox.

Wilcox will not throw anyone under the bus in interviews. When he says "everyone needs improvement" that's code for "we played like ***t, and I won't accept that."

---

Agreed, very much.

I usually listen to the postgame on KGO, but was unable to yesterday. Was hoping to hear what he had to say...

I however imagine him as you describe.

my opinion laird was carrying the ball too many times. need to see more of dancy and clark. got to be pretty boring. when you start playing defensively momentum swings and you are in trouble. its as bad as the prevent defense.

Cal89 said:

---

Not exactly a satisfying win yesterday, as bad as that sounds, I admit...

For a first game, just five penalties is nice to see. Zero turn-overs too, especially. Coupled with generally solid, fundamental play, we can compete and win some games where we otherwise would not with this roster.

If the D can be as stingy as we saw most of the UNC game, and opportunistic also, the offense coming-around would be very welcome... A +4 TO margin is damn sweet. JT's Bulldogs at +7 yesterday is pretty amazing... If our O would have produced as I had hoped, a little better than the end of 2017, this would have been a much higher scoring game for us; and very comfortable win.

Heck, our offense, Bowers, the passing game, were quite a bit more effective last year in NC! Unless the Tarheel D proves to be some juggernaut, there is reason for concern.

As I had noted before our game with UNC, their recruiting classes the previous years were notably higher ranked than ours (average stars). I felt that was evident at times. From that same perspective, advantage Cal next Saturday night in Provo.

---

Vanilla. If that's all you need to win, why vary...until it almost isn't.

The UNC D, especially the line, is big, strong, fast, and aggressive. They'll keep them in a lot of games. Their O line, too (I hope).

grumpybear said:

---

It was pretty obvious the NC defense was just waiting for Laird to carry the ball. CAL needed some other ball carriers and more mis-direction, NC had those 4 cement post just drooling and waiting.

---

Clearly the UNC defense was ready for Laird and keyed on stopping his runs. also keyed on Noa who was given double and triple coverage.
Most disappointing was the Cal Oline. Poor run blocking and pass protection
Bowers was mildly disappointing missed open receivers (and he still can't throw the deep ball accurately). But some blame is also on the receivers who dropped too many passes.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

grumpybear said:

---

It was pretty obvious the NC defense was just waiting for Laird to carry the ball. CAL needed some other ball carriers and more mis-direction, NC had those 4 cement post just drooling and waiting.

---

Clearly the UNC defense was ready for Laird and keyed on stopping his runs. also keyed in Noa who was given double and triple coverage.
Most disappointing was the Cal Oline. Poor run blocking and pass protection
Bowers was mildly disappointing missed open receivers (and he still can't throw the deep ball accurately). But some blame is also on the receivers who dropped too many passes.

---

In fairness to the oline, if you have to block l8 or 9 guys in the box, and run up the middle every time, its going to be tough sledding. Some type of passing to keep the defense honest is needed. .

Isn't it obvious to everyone that the playbook was purposely limited?

wifeisafurd said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

grumpybear said:

---

It was pretty obvious the NC defense was just waiting for Laird to carry the ball. CAL needed some other ball carriers and more mis-direction, NC had those 4 cement post just drooling and waiting.

---

Clearly the UNC defense was ready for Laird and keyed on stopping his runs. also keyed in Noa who was given double and triple coverage.
Most disappointing was the Cal Oline. Poor run blocking and pass protection
Bowers was mildly disappointing missed open receivers (and he still can't throw the deep ball accurately). But some blame is also on the receivers who dropped too many passes.

---

In fairness to the oline, if you have to block l8 or 9 guys in the box, and run up the middle every time, its going to be tough sledding. Some type of passing to keep the defense honest is needed. .

---

You need to get those big bodies moving in the wrong direction. If they stuff the box to stop Laird, we should be running play-action to Laird and then passing to wide open tight ends over the top.