The coaches don't want to "give up" on him because they don't want to admit they made a bad choice and/or they can not coach him over the hump. It's very hard for a coach or a teacher to give up on a player or a student - especially when you know something well. I've had similar experiences at work where I really should cut someone lose, but figure I can coach them up. They have lost their objectivity in this case to the detriment of the team. BM could contribute in a limited, well defined role where we use his legs and on rare occasions, as a surprise, he throws; but he looks like a fish out of water as a general QB - and Baldwin sees that as a challenge. The mistake is he's putting his own ego and the success of 1 kid ahead of the team.
Baldwin will continue to play BM
4,624 Views |
45 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by CalGrad95
Bill Walsh finally benched Steve Deberg and went with a young 3rd round pick who wasn't anything special (at the time). He said Deberg would play just good enough to lose you the game. The good coaches admit their mistakes. If Baldwin can't do this he needs to be fired. Hopefully Wilcox is the type of coach who can admit a bad hire.
Exactly! That's funny. I remember screaming at the TV after a Deberg pick that they had a National Championship Qb on the bench.82gradDLSdad said:
Bill Walsh finally benched Steve Deberg and went with a young 3rd round pick who wasn't anything special (at the time). He said Deberg would play just good enough to lose you the game. The good coaches admit their mistakes. If Baldwin can't do this he needs to be fired. Hopefully Wilcox is the type of coach who can admit a bad hire.
If he weren't so fumble-prone, I'd say put him at tailback/H-back in 3rd down situations. He is a dynamic runner, and I don't mind a running back who is a threat to pass, but there need to be clear rules.
What I see in B-Mac is 1) someone who probably needs to put on 10-20 lbs in the weight room (probably not an idea that thrills his baseball coaches), and 2) someone that really needs an off season of 1 on 1 work with a quarterback guru who can improve his decision making. He's a gifted athlete, but he is not capable of playing QB at this level at this time.
What I see in B-Mac is 1) someone who probably needs to put on 10-20 lbs in the weight room (probably not an idea that thrills his baseball coaches), and 2) someone that really needs an off season of 1 on 1 work with a quarterback guru who can improve his decision making. He's a gifted athlete, but he is not capable of playing QB at this level at this time.
I like the 3rd down idea. We desperately need some explosiveness in the backfield. He really looks like a WR emergency quarterback. Tough to teach decision making and feel in the pocket. He's a project I would want my opponent to have!SoFlaBear said:
If he weren't so fumble-prone, I'd say put him at tailback/H-back in 3rd down situations. He is a dynamic runner, and I don't mind a running back who is a threat to pass, but there need to be clear rules.
What I see in B-Mac is 1) someone who probably needs to put on 10-20 lbs in the weight room (probably not an idea that thrills his baseball coaches), and 2) someone that really needs an off season of 1 on 1 work with a quarterback guru who can improve his decision making. He's a gifted athlete, but he is not capable of playing QB at this level at this time.
I missed the part where Baldwin got promoted to Head Coach?pappysghost said:
The coaches don't want to "give up" on him because they don't want to admit they made a bad choice and/or they can not coach him over the hump. It's very hard for a coach or a teacher to give up on a player or a student - especially when you know something well. I've had similar experiences at work where I really should cut someone lose, but figure I can coach them up. They have lost their objectivity in this case to the detriment of the team. BM could contribute in a limited, well defined role where we use his legs and on rare occasions, as a surprise, he throws; but he looks like a fish out of water as a general QB - and Baldwin sees that as a challenge. The mistake is he's putting his own ego and the success of 1 kid ahead of the team.
If Wilcox agreed with you even the slightest, then where is the change? I'm not defending Baldwin particularly, but I love how Wilcox seems to get a pass on this whole 2 QB issue.
I'd be cool with giving BMac 4 or 5 gadget plays a game. Try to get him in space, where all he has to do is run. Have him catch a bubble screen, or roll out on every play so he doesn't have a defensive line in front of him and he can either throw without touch or run, perhaps have him run a misdirection play (like against NC). But for the love of everything holy, do not let him run the base offense from the QB position.SoFlaBear said:
If he weren't so fumble-prone, I'd say put him at tailback/H-back in 3rd down situations. He is a dynamic runner, and I don't mind a running back who is a threat to pass, but there need to be clear rules.
What I see in B-Mac is 1) someone who probably needs to put on 10-20 lbs in the weight room (probably not an idea that thrills his baseball coaches), and 2) someone that really needs an off season of 1 on 1 work with a quarterback guru who can improve his decision making. He's a gifted athlete, but he is not capable of playing QB at this level at this time.
I agree. I should have said Beau and Wilcox. I think Beau's title is assistant head coach, whatever that means.mbBear said:I missed the part where Baldwin got promoted to Head Coach?pappysghost said:
The coaches don't want to "give up" on him because they don't want to admit they made a bad choice and/or they can not coach him over the hump. It's very hard for a coach or a teacher to give up on a player or a student - especially when you know something well. I've had similar experiences at work where I really should cut someone lose, but figure I can coach them up. They have lost their objectivity in this case to the detriment of the team. BM could contribute in a limited, well defined role where we use his legs and on rare occasions, as a surprise, he throws; but he looks like a fish out of water as a general QB - and Baldwin sees that as a challenge. The mistake is he's putting his own ego and the success of 1 kid ahead of the team.
If Wilcox agreed with you even the slightest, then where is the change? I'm not defending Baldwin particularly, but I love how Wilcox seems to get a pass on this whole 2 QB issue.
By the way, someone (I think it was Moraga) asked him why use BM from the 12 when he has a known proclivity for turnovers. Wilcox didn't really answer the question. He said we need to use BM because we can't continue to rely on 17-18 play drives to score.
Well at that point we had no need for a chunk play or 17-18 plays. At worst we already had a FG. The thing we didn't need was a TO. So you put in the guy that not only could do that but usually does that. The decision to put him in and his response at the presser made no sense.
Well at that point we had no need for a chunk play or 17-18 plays. At worst we already had a FG. The thing we didn't need was a TO. So you put in the guy that not only could do that but usually does that. The decision to put him in and his response at the presser made no sense.
Wilcox outlined his thinking on this during the brief press conference after the game.
He said Brandon is the most explosive player on the team and the offense needed to go down the field and get some chunk plays.
Wilcox seems to be resisting the idea that the identity of this team should be elite defense coupled with ball security offense. Let the defense try to get takeaways and the offense runs and gets high percentage pass plays that take time off the clock and shorten the game. With a good punter, you also try to play the field position game and eek out a couple field goals that way.
They (Baldwin and Wilcox) basically became impatient with this grind it out approach and tried to go for the jugular and ended up cutting themselves.
Frustrating mistake but the thought process on the road against a top 10 team is neither insane nor incompetent. If we are at home maybe they make a different decision.
Sometimes when you gamble you lose. Just because you lose 4 hands in a row doesn't make a gambler stop believing that the next try he won't get a winning hand.
He said Brandon is the most explosive player on the team and the offense needed to go down the field and get some chunk plays.
Wilcox seems to be resisting the idea that the identity of this team should be elite defense coupled with ball security offense. Let the defense try to get takeaways and the offense runs and gets high percentage pass plays that take time off the clock and shorten the game. With a good punter, you also try to play the field position game and eek out a couple field goals that way.
They (Baldwin and Wilcox) basically became impatient with this grind it out approach and tried to go for the jugular and ended up cutting themselves.
Frustrating mistake but the thought process on the road against a top 10 team is neither insane nor incompetent. If we are at home maybe they make a different decision.
Sometimes when you gamble you lose. Just because you lose 4 hands in a row doesn't make a gambler stop believing that the next try he won't get a winning hand.
Not sure your rationalization, if true, is a positive to the coaching staff.evanluck said:
Wilcox outlined his thinking on this during the brief press conference after the game.
He said Brandon is the most explosive player on the team and the offense needed to go down the field and get some chunk plays.
Wilcox seems to be resisting the idea that the identify of the team should be elite defense coupled with ball security offense. Let the defense try to get takeaways and the offense runs and gets high percentage pass plays that take time off the clock and shorten the game. With a good punter, you also try to play the field position game and eek out a couple field goals that way.
They (Baldwin and Wilcox) basically became impatient with this grind it out approach and tried to go for the jugular and ended up cutting themselves.
Frustrating mistake but the thought process on the road against a top 10 team is neither insane nor incompetent. If we are at home maybe they make a different decision.
Sometimes when you gamble you lose. Just because you lose 4 hands in a row doesn't make a gambler stop believing that the next try he won't get a winning hand.
evanluck said:
Wilcox outlined his thinking on this during the brief press conference after the game.
He said Brandon is the most explosive player on the team and the offense needed to go down the field and get some chunk plays.
Wilcox seems to be resisting the idea that the identify of the team should be elite defense coupled with ball security offense. Let the defense try to get takeaways and the offense runs and gets high percentage pass plays that take time off the clock and shorten the game. With a good punter, you also try to play the field position game and eek out a couple field goals that way.
They (Baldwin and Wilcox) basically became impatient with this grind it out approach and tried to go for the jugular and ended up cutting themselves.
Frustrating mistake but the thought process on the road against a top 10 team is neither insane nor incompetent. If we are at home maybe they make a different decision.
Sometimes when you gamble you lose. Just because you lose 4 hands in a row doesn't make a gambler stop believing that the next try he won't get a winning hand.
True. The gambling is fine in the right context. It was insane to gamble in that particular situation. You don't need to leverage BM at that point with his known TO tendency. You have a FG pretty much locked up. We didn't need a "spark" at that point; ball security was the #1 priority. It's such a lack of judgement on both Baldwin and Wilcox to try something risky there. Unfortunately playing BM these days is the high risk in itself.
OK, but one does not need to be a Sabermetrician to do the numbers on turnovers directly attributable to McIlwain - both lost fumbles and picks. Sometimes a gambler needs to see the cards are running against him and either pick another game or leave with enough to start again another day.evanluck said:
Sometimes when you gamble you lose. Just because you lose 4 hands in a row doesn't make a gambler stop believing that the next try he won't get a winning hand.
I totally agree. That same impatience is what led to the Peterson mistake the week before. I'm concerned about Wilcox here. Yes, BM is an explosive runner, but he's not a good passer at all, and as we have seen over and over he's a turnover machine. He is so clearly a fish out of water it worries me Wilcox can not see this. The pass BM threw to the left sideline under duress that was almost picked should have been enough to shut BM down for the night.evanluck said:
Wilcox outlined his thinking on this during the brief press conference after the game.
He said Brandon is the most explosive player on the team and the offense needed to go down the field and get some chunk plays.
Wilcox seems to be resisting the idea that the identify of the team should be elite defense coupled with ball security offense. Let the defense try to get takeaways and the offense runs and gets high percentage pass plays that take time off the clock and shorten the game. With a good punter, you also try to play the field position game and eek out a couple field goals that way.
They (Baldwin and Wilcox) basically became impatient with this grind it out approach and tried to go for the jugular and ended up cutting themselves.
Frustrating mistake but the thought process on the road against a top 10 team is neither insane nor incompetent. If we are at home maybe they make a different decision.
Sometimes when you gamble you lose. Just because you lose 4 hands in a row doesn't make a gambler stop believing that the next try he won't get a winning hand.
Whenever he is in the game, the other team knows it's a run and last night Washington State stuffed him every time.pappysghost said:
The coaches don't want to "give up" on him because they don't want to admit they made a bad choice and/or they can not coach him over the hump. It's very hard for a coach or a teacher to give up on a player or a student - especially when you know something well. I've had similar experiences at work where I really should cut someone lose, but figure I can coach them up. They have lost their objectivity in this case to the detriment of the team. BM could contribute in a limited, well defined role where we use his legs and on rare occasions, as a surprise, he throws; but he looks like a fish out of water as a general QB - and Baldwin sees that as a challenge. The mistake is he's putting his own ego and the success of 1 kid ahead of the team.
Bad example. Walsh never thought of DeBerg as anything but a stop-gap, and he had always intended for Montana to be the starter; he was just waiting until Montana had a bit more seasoning and the team around him improved enough so he wouldn't be killed (remember, they went 2-14, then 6-10, then won the SB).82gradDLSdad said:
Bill Walsh finally benched Steve Deberg and went with a young 3rd round pick who wasn't anything special (at the time). He said Deberg would play just good enough to lose you the game. The good coaches admit their mistakes. If Baldwin can't do this he needs to be fired. Hopefully Wilcox is the type of coach who can admit a bad hire.
mcilwain will 100% without a doubt in my mind be booed in his own stadium against his rival when he gets put in against furd. Not by a small group of people either.pappysghost said:
The coaches don't want to "give up" on him because they don't want to admit they made a bad choice and/or they can not coach him over the hump. It's very hard for a coach or a teacher to give up on a player or a student - especially when you know something well. I've had similar experiences at work where I really should cut someone lose, but figure I can coach them up. They have lost their objectivity in this case to the detriment of the team. BM could contribute in a limited, well defined role where we use his legs and on rare occasions, as a surprise, he throws; but he looks like a fish out of water as a general QB - and Baldwin sees that as a challenge. The mistake is he's putting his own ego and the success of 1 kid ahead of the team.
I won't do it, but I know it's coming.
Oh well.
I think everyone was asking why he was in there in that situation, and I'm wondering if maybe Garbers was a bit banged up at that point. There was a roughing the passer penalty on Garbers on that drive. Can't recall. Did he leave the game right after the penalty, or did he run on an ensuing play and get hit pretty hard? If indeed he was a bit hurt that's something the coaches might not want to admit. You know, "We had very little faith in Brandon, but the other guy was hurt, so what else could we do?" Not a good answer. When Garbers did get back in on that last three and out he looked terrible. Two long passes, when the receivers went short and all we needed was to move the chains and get a field goal chance at the end or at least take the game to OT. Three and out was the recipe for defeat. Very frustrating ending to a game where the opponent stumbled enough to give us every chance to win.KoreAmBear said:
You don't need to leverage BM at that point with his known TO tendency. You have a FG pretty much locked up. We didn't need a "spark" at that point; ball security was the #1 priority. It's such a lack of judgement on both Baldwin and Wilcox to try something risky there. Unfortunately playing BM these days is the high risk in itself.
I don't even agree he is a dynamic runner. If the line makes a huge gap he can run in a straight line well. I haven't seen any elusiveness or power or ability to get yards after contact consistently, and he lacks ball security.SoFlaBear said:
If he weren't so fumble-prone, I'd say put him at tailback/H-back in 3rd down situations. He is a dynamic runner, and I don't mind a running back who is a threat to pass, but there need to be clear rules.
What I see in B-Mac is 1) someone who probably needs to put on 10-20 lbs in the weight room (probably not an idea that thrills his baseball coaches), and 2) someone that really needs an off season of 1 on 1 work with a quarterback guru who can improve his decision making. He's a gifted athlete, but he is not capable of playing QB at this level at this time.
I get people want to be nice to one of our guys, but the mental gymnastics to try and find a way he can contribute are silly. He is fast, but he can't translate that to the game the way a Best could.
So Wilcox should be fired? That is a bad answer even for coach speak.KoreAmBear said:
By the way, someone (I think it was Moraga) asked him why use BM from the 12 when he has a known proclivity for turnovers. Wilcox didn't really answer the question. He said we need to use BM because we can't continue to rely on 17-18 play drives to score.
Well at that point we had no need for a chunk play or 17-18 plays. At worst we already had a FG. The thing we didn't need was a TO. So you put in the guy that not only could do that but usually does that. The decision to put him in and his response at the presser made no sense.
Basic game theory: Wilcox and Baldwin want to play "winning" football. By that I mean they want to call the shot, dictate the game with plays and players, and win. The opposite would be "reactive" or "losing" football, letting the opponent lose the game, make gains/scores off what is given or left by the opponent.
The easiest sport to see this is tennis, baseline hitter waiting for an error vs. serve and volley attack guy.
The thing with FB, you need the talent to pull this off. BMac obviously has ball security issues but it would seem he's the best option. I think Wilcox and Baldwin have to go to play grind it out, no big plays FB...until the talent arrives. Might not win but you won't lose game you're in.
I think I understand what Wilcox wants in the long term; shut down defense...coupled with big play ability on offense. Getting close on D, not close on offense.
The easiest sport to see this is tennis, baseline hitter waiting for an error vs. serve and volley attack guy.
The thing with FB, you need the talent to pull this off. BMac obviously has ball security issues but it would seem he's the best option. I think Wilcox and Baldwin have to go to play grind it out, no big plays FB...until the talent arrives. Might not win but you won't lose game you're in.
I think I understand what Wilcox wants in the long term; shut down defense...coupled with big play ability on offense. Getting close on D, not close on offense.
My recollection of Bill Walsh is that he loved taking credit for the good times but when things turned south he would criticize players in the press.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Think this comes down to Wilcox (Baldwin) making a clear mistake which he is not going to admit to.
What is the disadvantage of having a rookie head coach? Maybe it's right here - Wilcox too caught up in the emotion of the game. Doesn't have the experience to recognize BMac should be on the sideline in that situation. (Mc just made boneheaded play on near pik trying to throw ball out of bounds - did Wilcox need to see more??)
Hell, can't remember game announcers being so openly critical of an offensive game plan. "What's he (Mac) doing in the game?" They were shaking their heads over our last play calling set. It was bad and it was patently obvious.
Beat SC!
What is the disadvantage of having a rookie head coach? Maybe it's right here - Wilcox too caught up in the emotion of the game. Doesn't have the experience to recognize BMac should be on the sideline in that situation. (Mc just made boneheaded play on near pik trying to throw ball out of bounds - did Wilcox need to see more??)
Hell, can't remember game announcers being so openly critical of an offensive game plan. "What's he (Mac) doing in the game?" They were shaking their heads over our last play calling set. It was bad and it was patently obvious.
Beat SC!
I gotta believe the Mcllwain experiment is over.
Then again, if Garbers is clearly not getting things done, or also turning the ball over (his pick-almost-six was bad), then who knows.
But overall, if the defense can continue to play lights out, then a conservative clock-eating offense might be our best strategy
Then again, if Garbers is clearly not getting things done, or also turning the ball over (his pick-almost-six was bad), then who knows.
But overall, if the defense can continue to play lights out, then a conservative clock-eating offense might be our best strategy
I gotta believe same. JW and BB certainly know the fan disenchantment. Not that they will so coach, but Cal fans being happy is part of their reward system ultimately. Some of the playing choices have been borderline ridiculous even knowing they are trying to give certain things a chance to succeed. It ain't working.HoopDreams said:
I gotta believe the Mcllwain experiment is over.
Then again, if Garbers is clearly not getting things done, or also turning the ball over (his pick-almost-six was bad), then who knows.
But overall, if the defense can continue to play lights out, then a conservative clock-eating offense might be our best strategy
Right. Without a doubt, you could avoid ever losing in blackjack just by continuing to double your bet on your previous losing hand. You HAVE to win a hand at some point. Problem is, you run out of money and / or don't have the nerve to keep doing that, and you eventually walk away from the table and live to see another day and learn a lesson in the process.evanluck said:
Sometimes when you gamble you lose. Just because you lose 4 hands in a row doesn't make a gambler stop believing that the next try he won't get a winning hand.
And yes, I'm using a metaphor to make a point here :-)
we need more athletes and speed like mcilwain. we have a problem with good skill position players.
Is he really that dynamic? Especially now that the passing side has been beyond exposed? I remember he had the sweet draw against Oregon for a td. Maybe something similar against UA. But is he really that good at running?
As long as McIllwain has incriminating pictures of the coaching staff, I expect he'll keep playing. It's the only reason I can think of at this point.HoopDreams said:
I gotta believe the Mcllwain experiment is over.
Then again, if Garbers is clearly not getting things done, or also turning the ball over (his pick-almost-six was bad), then who knows.
But overall, if the defense can continue to play lights out, then a conservative clock-eating offense might be our best strategy
I think McElwain must have compromat on Baldwin. That's the only explanation I have for playing a guy who just as often passes it to the other team as to his own. He is completely unreliable. How he was playing quarterback at that point in time is inconceivable to me.
Physically gifted, but seems to get fuzzy thinking under stress. Check his hs and SC films. I don't see any crisp decision-making anywhere and his arm is only so so. He's a wr.SoFlaBear said:
If he weren't so fumble-prone, I'd say put him at tailback/H-back in 3rd down situations. He is a dynamic runner, and I don't mind a running back who is a threat to pass, but there need to be clear rules.
What I see in B-Mac is 1) someone who probably needs to put on 10-20 lbs in the weight room (probably not an idea that thrills his baseball coaches), and 2) someone that really needs an off season of 1 on 1 work with a quarterback guru who can improve his decision making. He's a gifted athlete, but he is not capable of playing QB at this level at this time.
In almost 50 years of watching football I can't think of a single example where quarterbacks were swapped so freely mid drive? I remember Brunnel and Hobart at UW playing together on a NC team, but not all this mid drive stuff. There is no logic to what they're doing which makes it more frustrating. If BM is so good, then start him-oh, I forgot, we tried that. I would love to have a private chat with the coaches on this. I worry now Garbers will get pissed off and transfer.
Garbers already burned his redshirt, so unlikely he'll transfer.
I doubt he plays anymore this year. If he does, I am turning off the tv.
Go Bears!
That's one of the ironies in all this- he could help us more at wr or rb! It's mind boggling to me that two coaches that have been around the game for so long can't see it. My original premise is the only explanation that makes any sense to me.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Complete Sweep of Washington On Senior Day
by Cal Athletics
Bears Defeat Cardinal To Take Season Series
by Cal Athletics
The Rodcast: Cal Portal
by Rod Benson