Bear_Territory said:

---

Any theories on why Leach succeeds when Dykes with similar scheme and imo superior talent failed...Leach actually cares about defense?

---

He occasionally fields a team above mediocre.

ducky23 said:

---

If I have to see another picture of Bryce love flexing his non-existent muscles....

---

Is there a game tomorrow night?

Wow, Sc defense didn't look like the no. 15 defense in the nation or WSU's offense is really good.

Objectively we should root for the teams in the South to beat our north division rivals. But given this is SC here I'm still managing to be disappointed.

Sebastabear said:

---

Objectively we should root for the teams in the South to beat our north division rivals. But given this is SC here I'm still managing to be disappointed.

---

I was going to be happy either way. Objectively, this is best for Cal.

Bear_Territory said:

---

Any theories on why Leach succeeds when Dykes with similar scheme and imo superior talent failed...Leach actually cares about defense?

---

Leach has 3 noticeable differences when you compare him to Dykes.

1) Leach isn't looking to leave WSU. He's found a school that doesn't demand 10-2 seasons all the time and that is extremely happy with his record of developing players. This allows him to be far more comfortable about recruiting players who would be considered "projects". These are the type of players who play little for 3 seasons, but have breakout redshirt junior seasons. WSU's defense is filled with this kind of player.

2) Leach has been at WSU for a long time and has built a foundation that allows him to recruit the type of players he needs on both offense and defense. He got the offense fixed first and then started getting defensive players. His offense is still superior, but he gets gamers who want to do their best on defense. (However, the USC game did make it clear that WSU's DBs are horrible this year.

3) Leach isn't having to compete with the "ghost" of the "Best head coach the program has ever had" in Tedford. Before him the program had been struggling to distance itself from Oregon State. This means he doesn't get constant negative press and a lot of fan hate. Dykes did, and it definitely had an impact on recruiting.

I think the short answer is that Leach is simply better at teaching the "system". Neither guy qualifies as defensively oriented but Leach did find a gem in Alex Grinch. In the end, they both have had tendencies to find unlikely ways to lose games they shouldn't, hence the coining of the phrase "Couged it!".

Dykes in his 4 years at Cal: 19 wins. Leach in his first 4 years at WSU: 21 wins. Dykes at Cal vs Leach at WSU. 2 wins, 2 losses. It's hard to say which coach did a better job. Leach gets a slight edge based on the above.

oski003 said:

---

Dykes in his 4 years at Cal: 19 wins. Leach in his first 4 years at WSU: 21 wins. Dykes at Cal vs Leach at WSU. 2 wins, 2 losses. It's hard to say which coach did a better job. Leach gets a slight edge based on the above.

---

Leach also can recruit basically whoever he wanted, not the same at Cal (that said for academic players, Cal does sell fairly well). Still, Leach does have the advantage of a much higher number of recruits he can pursue.

oski003 said:

---

Dykes in his 4 years at Cal: 19 wins. Leach in his first 4 years at WSU: 21 wins. Dykes at Cal vs Leach at WSU. 2 wins, 2 losses. It's hard to say which coach did a better job. Leach gets a slight edge based on the above.

---

Cal plays USC and UCLA every year and had more difficult OOC schedule every year, easily accounting for 2 fewer wins over 4 years.

Leach and Sonny are fine for teams like Texas Tech, WSU and SMU that are overshadowed by other teams in the region and need to be "competitive" with lesser talent. However, the same systems that make them "competitive" imposes a ceiling. Cal aspires to more, we at least want to have the possibility of developing into a power team, as we did in late Snyder and early-mid Tedford years. Right now we have a chance of building that with Wilcox.

The biggest thing about Leach is that he can recruit and develop QBs for his system. Dykes is nowhere near Leach in this regard. After Goff, he scrambled to get Davis Webb for a year while continuously whiffing on high school QB recruits.

Considering that Pullman is the least attractive place to play in the Pac-12 by far (you are literally in one the armpits of America), Leach does a masterful sales job to get recruits out there.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The biggest thing about Leach is that he can recruit and develop QBs for his system. Dykes is nowhere near Leach in this regard. After Goff, he scrambled to get Davis Webb for a year while continuously whiffing on high school QB recruits.

Considering that Pullman is the least attractive place to play in the Pac-12 by far (you are literally in one the armpits of America), Leach does a masterful sales job to get recruits out there.

---

Yes, this is the other side of it. All else being equal, it should be easier to recruit to Cal than WSU. Yet it's not clear Dykes was better.

sycasey said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The biggest thing about Leach is that he can recruit and develop QBs for his system. Dykes is nowhere near Leach in this regard. After Goff, he scrambled to get Davis Webb for a year while continuously whiffing on high school QB recruits.

Considering that Pullman is the least attractive place to play in the Pac-12 by far (you are literally in one the armpits of America), Leach does a masterful sales job to get recruits out there.

---

Yes, this is the other side of it. All else being equal, it should be easier to recruit to Cal than WSU. Yet it's not clear Dykes was better.

---

The answer to "Leach v Dykes" is "neither."

sycasey said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The biggest thing about Leach is that he can recruit and develop QBs for his system. Dykes is nowhere near Leach in this regard. After Goff, he scrambled to get Davis Webb for a year while continuously whiffing on high school QB recruits.

Considering that Pullman is the least attractive place to play in the Pac-12 by far (you are literally in one the armpits of America), Leach does a masterful sales job to get recruits out there.

---

Yes, this is the other side of it. All else being equal, it should be easier to recruit to Cal than WSU. Yet it's not clear Dykes was better.

---

No, it's pretty difficult to recruit a qb to Cal when you have a freshman or sophomore Goff. Recruits want to play right away or be at a powerhouse. He did whiff the next year though but got a grad transfer qb who was drafted.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The biggest thing about Leach is that he can recruit and develop QBs for his system. Dykes is nowhere near Leach in this regard. After Goff, he scrambled to get Davis Webb for a year while continuously whiffing on high school QB recruits.

Considering that Pullman is the least attractive place to play in the Pac-12 by far (you are literally in one the armpits of America), Leach does a masterful sales job to get recruits out there.

---

Yes, this is the other side of it. All else being equal, it should be easier to recruit to Cal than WSU. Yet it's not clear Dykes was better.

---

No, it's pretty difficult to recruit a qb to Cal when you have a freshman or sophomore Goff. Recruits want to play right away or be at a powerhouse. He did whiff the next year though but got a grad transfer qb who was drafted.

---

Dykes' recruiting on the offensive side was not a problem. The defensive side was too little, too late.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The biggest thing about Leach is that he can recruit and develop QBs for his system. Dykes is nowhere near Leach in this regard. After Goff, he scrambled to get Davis Webb for a year while continuously whiffing on high school QB recruits.

Considering that Pullman is the least attractive place to play in the Pac-12 by far (you are literally in one the armpits of America), Leach does a masterful sales job to get recruits out there.

---

Yes, this is the other side of it. All else being equal, it should be easier to recruit to Cal than WSU. Yet it's not clear Dykes was better.

---

No, it's pretty difficult to recruit a qb to Cal when you have a freshman or sophomore Goff. Recruits want to play right away or be at a powerhouse. He did whiff the next year though but got a grad transfer qb who was drafted.

---

Dykes' recruiting on the offensive side was not a problem. The defensive side was too little, too late.

---

Dykes' recruiting on the offensive side WAS a problem. He completely neglected the offensive line and that is still an issue today. However, his defensive recruiting seems to have been better than his coaching.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The biggest thing about Leach is that he can recruit and develop QBs for his system. Dykes is nowhere near Leach in this regard. After Goff, he scrambled to get Davis Webb for a year while continuously whiffing on high school QB recruits.

Considering that Pullman is the least attractive place to play in the Pac-12 by far (you are literally in one the armpits of America), Leach does a masterful sales job to get recruits out there.

---

Yes, this is the other side of it. All else being equal, it should be easier to recruit to Cal than WSU. Yet it's not clear Dykes was better.

---

No, it's pretty difficult to recruit a qb to Cal when you have a freshman or sophomore Goff. Recruits want to play right away or be at a powerhouse. He did whiff the next year though but got a grad transfer qb who was drafted.

---

Recruiting is more than QBs.