Speaking of Al Borges, he was just let go this week as the OC of UT-San Antonio.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Seems like your assessment of Baldwin is a bit harsh. I'm not sure you can make a credible argument that our offensive starters are 3-star across the board. The reason we aren't scoring is not because of the coordinator, but because many of our starting players just aren't able to execute a normal offense. That doesn't change with a new coordinator and doesn't change with money. It changes with building the team from the ground up. Now if your argument was that Baldwin's track record will make it impossible for him to get the recruits, then perhaps a change of staff is the only option.

---

Disagree with your comment, "The reason we aren't scoring is not because of the coordinator, but because many of our starting players just aren't able to execute a normal offense. That doesn't change with a new coordinator and doesn't change with money."

Many of us fans were saying we didn't have defensive players under Dykes. Wilcox/DeRuyter took the same players and made us into a defensive beast of a team. Similarly, Dykes took similar players that we have had the past two years and we were much better on offense. Coaches matter... a LOT!

Rumor that USC is the leading candidate for Kingsbury. That would suck really bad.

travelingbears said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Seems like your assessment of Baldwin is a bit harsh. I'm not sure you can make a credible argument that our offensive starters are 3-star across the board. The reason we aren't scoring is not because of the coordinator, but because many of our starting players just aren't able to execute a normal offense. That doesn't change with a new coordinator and doesn't change with money. It changes with building the team from the ground up. Now if your argument was that Baldwin's track record will make it impossible for him to get the recruits, then perhaps a change of staff is the only option.

---

Disagree with your comment, "The reason we aren't scoring is not because of the coordinator, but because many of our starting players just aren't able to execute a normal offense. That doesn't change with a new coordinator and doesn't change with money."

Many of us fans were saying we didn't have defensive players under Dykes. Wilcox/DeRuyter took the same players and made us into a defensive beast of a team. Similarly, Dykes took similar players that we have had the past two years and we were much better on offense. Coaches matter... a LOT!

---

Yep, look at Tedford/Cortez in 2002 with the same players from 2001. Made Boller $millions.

We're not starting the same amount of walk-ons on that side of the ball though. Of all the starters on the D, the only one I can think of that's a walk-on is Ashtyn, and he's faster than our former 5* WR. It's also important to note that the starters that were Sonny's recruits were obviously young 3 years ago. The coaching has improved them leaps and bounds but some improvement should have occurred simply due to experience.

I think on the O side we have Laird, Daltoso, and Ooms starting, and when Duncan and Noa were out we had walk-ons rotating in at WR.

Looks like Helton agrees that Kliff makes a good OC.

Sigh

tim94501 said:

---

Sigh

---

I wouldn't be surprised if he's back on the market for another job next year. After Helton gets fired. Though, I suppose there is the possibility that SC would offer him both the interim head coaching position and the Head Coach position after that.

85Bear said:

---

Looks like Helton agrees that Kliff makes a good OC.

---

Does he run the ball at all? If not, any good running backs currently committed to USC?

Curious how much SC has to pay. kingsbury's texh buyout is 1/2 his yearly salary for 2019 and 2020. So he has two years of $2millon coming his way from TTU.

If his USC check reduces the TTU check, then USC can pay him a lot less. It also means Kingsbury would be pretty insensitive to pay as a OC (no OC makes over 2 million in CFB I believe), so he can just go where he wants to and probably where the talent is the best move.

Now if they run air raid/hurry up, what will happen to the USC defense?

Interestingly, I would surmise running more plays favors the team with more depth, on defense in addition to offense. While Dykes sold that system as a way to over come recruiting defficiencies, it actually might have been more effective for a team with a lot more depth. Like USC.

Not complete yet...Considering other offers

Honestly. Even Saban has realized that with the best talent in conference, while a run heavy pro set is the most risk averse scheme, you can absolutely bury people with a pass heavy spread / air raid approach.

Tua operates a pure Run and shoot system in HS, which arguably prepared him very well to succeed as a passer. That game winner against Georgia was straight run and shoot 100%, look off the safety, throw the divide.

The word now is the LA Rams want to sign Kingsbury as an offensive assistant. As renewed lifelong Rams fan, I like that.

After Dykes, we shouldn't want people with zero ties to the region and a less than a 50% chance they stick around if successful. Only at SC with the built in recruiting dominance, name in lights factor, and money will someone like Kingsbury work for any length of time. They all want to migrate to the NFL or somewhere where football is more important.

I'd rather have awesome California recruiting and a mediocre scheme than some offensive mastermind vagabond. Right now we have substandard recruiting and no scheme other than "multiple".

rafterfan180 said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

71Bear said:

---

tim94501 said:

---

Recently fired Texas Tech HC was a hell of a qb and can put points on the board with 3 star talent. Also known as a great recruiter. Baldwin can't be our OC if we are going to be an actual contender. We might win a few games but if we want to be serious about winning he can't be the guy.

---

Hiring Kingsbury would be an absolute disaster, second only in the recent past, to hiring Dykes. Wilcox is on track to produce a solid winning program at Cal. Defense first, offense next. Instead of constantly shuffling coaches, the answer to "how to get better" is recruit better players and that is what Wilcox is currently trying to accomplish....

---

I agree with you but this staff recruits like the Dykes, seemingly ignoring one side of the ball. My recollection last year is the excuse for a relative lack of skill position recruits was something like "there weren't that many guys the staff liked" plus a few misses. Okay, so you'd expect them to load up on skill players this year. But look at this years class. All kinds of D players, OL, a QB and just a couple of skill players. It's like looking at a Wisconsin class. At some point the staff has to prioritize what it doesn't have.

---

Stop. Please just stop. Dykes' staff at Cal recruited both sides of the ball VERY WELL. Quite a few 4-star and highly regarded 3-star defensive players came to Cal during Dykes recruiting classes. The names that roll off your tongue for this awesome Defense we have now were ALL Dykes recruits. He recruited very well here - he just couldn't find anyone competent to coach defense at ANY coaching position. He recruited players much better than he coached or recruited defensive coaches.

What names roll off the tongue on our D right now? Bynum, Weaver, Kunashyk, Palmer, Bequette, Hawkins, Davis, Rambo, Johnson .... all Dykes recruits.

Defensive coaching was perhaps the worst I have ever seen at Cal - but defensive recruiting was not the problem.

---

You are way off. NONE of the names you dropped were 4* recruits on any site. That you think so highly of those Dykes recruit now is a testament to WILCOX'S DEFENSIVE STAFF COACHING UP 2 and 3* players.

---

This is the point that seems to have been missed in the discussion.

Dykes recruits playing with their hair on fire on defense is as good of an endorsement for good coaching as you will find.

My opinion of Baldwin and the assistants on that side of the ball, except Greatwood, has really gone south this season. The juxtaposition of the progress on defense and the regression on offense is too stark to ignore.

Mmm kay

The NFL and CFB continue to merge and blur, at least on offense. That's why the Rams are interested in Kingsbury.

95bears said:

---

After Dykes, I don't want any more Texas / Southeast people with zero ties to the region and a less than a 50% chance they stick around if successful. Only at SC with the built in recruiting dominance, name in lights factor, and money will someone like that work for any length of time.

I'd rather have awesome recruiting and a mediocre scheme than some offensive mastermind vagabond. Right now we have substandard recruiting and no scheme. We need someone who has a chance of coming in, righting the offensive ship, and actually liking the Bay Area and Cal.

---

Well Sonny's defensive recruits sure look pretty good under Wilcox's staff's tutelage.

I don't have a problem blaming Sonny for having one foot out the door or Baldwin following his family back to Eastern Washington. But we definitely need coaches who buys-in to what Cal is about and like the area. Otherwise, how do they sell Cal to recruits? Indeed, this may be an issue for some of the offensive staff. Cal and the Bay Area admittedly are not a fit for everyone, whether players or coaches. Fro example, DeRuyter was the perfect fit. He gets it. That said, Wilcox seems to have sense about who is a fit, and I hope he adjusts his coaching roster accordingly.

tim94501 said:

---

Recently fired Texas Tech HC was a hell of a qb and can put points on the board with 3 star talent. Also known as a great recruiter. Baldwin can't be our OC if we are going to be an actual contender. We might win a few games but if we want to be serious about winning he can't be the guy.

---

Baldwin has a better resume IMO. Including beating D1a with AA talent.

It's the guys under him that are failing at development. Swapping Baldwin out without solving the systemic issues didn't work with Dykes. It won't work here.

LunchTime said:

---

tim94501 said:

---

Recently fired Texas Tech HC was a hell of a qb and can put points on the board with 3 star talent. Also known as a great recruiter. Baldwin can't be our OC if we are going to be an actual contender. We might win a few games but if we want to be serious about winning he can't be the guy.

---

Baldwin has a better resume IMO. Including beating D1a with AA talent.

It's the guys under him that are failing at development. Swapping Baldwin out without solving the systemic issues didn't work with Dykes. It won't work here.

---

If the OC is removed, is there anything that says all of his assistants get to remain at Cal? Isn't it up to the HC to say who stays or goes? If he brings in a new OC who wants to bring in his own assistants, why would Cal have to retain the previous OC's assistants?

Personal Perspective

So you want to keep bb and Edwards?

Kingsbury is way out of Cal's price range.

Lots of posts here but let me add.

You saw the problems in our offense on one play. Our RB was chased down when he has a lead and a head of steam. That is our featured Offensive threat. Nearly (every?) other TB in the league scores on that play.

I love Laird - but that in a nutshell is our problem. This offense was HORRICIALLY slow. People just packed the box, went single cover with one safety over the top and then said, "Beat us". Lacking speed or seperation we could not - especially when our OL could not provide Chase a pocket for more than 2.5 seconds.

Now I am not saying BB didn't make mistakes. He should have started Garbers the whole year. But if you understand football, you understand that this Offense was without weapons.

Oh and to the "But We coached up the D" crowd. I didn't see fundamental errors on Offense (unlike Dykes defense). As the old saying goes - "you can't coach speed")

Watching defenses pack 14 men in the box is always going to equal trouble

going4roses said:

---

Watching defenses pack 14 men in the box is always going to equal trouble

---

You know what I mean

CB cover the 2 WR
1 Safety plays a center field help reading the QB eyes
The rest (8) are wihin 7 yeards of the LOS.

One of the reasons we would run spread and empty BF was to try to spread out and get guys OUT of the box.

socaltownie said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Watching defenses pack 14 men in the box is always going to equal trouble

---

You know what I mean

CB cover the 2 WR
1 Safety plays a center field help reading the QB eyes
The rest (8) are wihin 7 yeards of the LOS.

One of the reasons we would run spread and empty BF was to try to spread out and get guys OUT of the box.

---

Only that rarely worked, as the opponents' defense rarely ever respected the deep threat since they knew on 1st down, there was about 50+% chance Baldwin's calling a run play with Laird up the middleeven im spread formation.

socaltownie said:

---

Lots of posts here but let me add.

You saw the problems in our offense on one play. Our RB was chased down when he has a lead and a head of steam. That is our featured Offensive threat. Nearly (every?) other TB in the league scores on that play.

I love Laird - but that in a nutshell is our problem. This offense was HORRICIALLY slow. People just packed the box, went single cover with one safety over the top and then said, "Beat us". Lacking speed or seperation we could not - especially when our OL could not provide Chase a pocket for more than 2.5 seconds.

Now I am not saying BB didn't make mistakes. He should have started Garbers the whole year. But if you understand football, you understand that this Offense was without weapons.

Oh and to the "But We coached up the D" crowd. I didn't see fundamental errors on Offense (unlike Dykes defense). As the old saying goes - "you can't coach speed")

---

I can agree with this, but the fundamental task of an offensive coaching staff is to recruit players. This separates college from the NFL. We can't use an NFL lens to analyze our team here: if our coaches can't coach speed, then you recruit speed. And our staff hasn't done that.

BearEatsTacos said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Lots of posts here but let me add.

You saw the problems in our offense on one play. Our RB was chased down when he has a lead and a head of steam. That is our featured Offensive threat. Nearly (every?) other TB in the league scores on that play.

I love Laird - but that in a nutshell is our problem. This offense was HORRICIALLY slow. People just packed the box, went single cover with one safety over the top and then said, "Beat us". Lacking speed or seperation we could not - especially when our OL could not provide Chase a pocket for more than 2.5 seconds.

Now I am not saying BB didn't make mistakes. He should have started Garbers the whole year. But if you understand football, you understand that this Offense was without weapons.

Oh and to the "But We coached up the D" crowd. I didn't see fundamental errors on Offense (unlike Dykes defense). As the old saying goes - "you can't coach speed")

---

I can agree with this, but the fundamental task of an offensive coaching staff is to recruit players. This separates college from the NFL. We can't use an NFL lens to analyze our team here: if our coaches can't coach speed, then you recruit speed. And our staff hasn't done that.

---

Ashtyn Davis had a faster 100 m time than Demetris Robertson and was converted from WR. Maybe have a discussion about having him play both ways? We are deep at safety.

Brandon McIlwain is fast, a great athlete. Move him to the slot?

Maybe go with a power run game and use McMorris as a blocking/receiving HB more than a few plays each game?

01Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Watching defenses pack 14 men in the box is always going to equal trouble

---

You know what I mean

CB cover the 2 WR
1 Safety plays a center field help reading the QB eyes
The rest (8) are wihin 7 yeards of the LOS.

One of the reasons we would run spread and empty BF was to try to spread out and get guys OUT of the box.

---

Only that rarely worked, as the opponents' defense rarely ever respected the deep threat since they knew on 1st down, there was about 50+% chance Baldwin's calling a run play with Laird up the middleeven im spread formation.

---

Exactly. Of course the intent of running a spread is to spread out the defense. If they do, you can run up the middle. But if you don't have threats at WR and the defense doesn't spread out, don't keep running up the middle for 1 yard, 5 linemen against 7 or 9 expecting something to change.

If you fake a run up the middle, you now have the defense bottled up in the middle of the field. If you then throw a quick WR screen, or have the QB move outside the pocket on a bootleg with open space to run or throw.

Or use an HB and TEs in your spread and run outside, where the defense isn't. Get the defense moving in one direction and burn them with a reverse.

Anything but run up the middle from spread when the defense does not spread.