tim94501 said:

---

Does Alabama's offense suffer because of how good their defense is?

---

Until this year, many would have said yes. That being said, I don't think our offense is suffering because of our defense.

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Here is Dykes' last recruiting class:

https://cal.rivals.com/commitments/football/

His five star recruit has zero receptions for the year.

His four star recruits are, by and large, busts.

He has a few three star and two star recruits that have become good players for us.

Try and sell me that that was a good job recruiting.

---

wow really smh... 90% of this defensive personal was recruited by dykes staff does that mean SD and his staff could not recruit? ... the best players on the defense were recruited by Burns and Tate and Art pulled JK

---

Just for the record, 46% of the defensive players (per calbears.com) are true sophomores, redshirt freshmen or true freshmen. That means they were signed during the Wilcox era.

---

Virtually all of the key contributors on defense are Dykes' recruits. Way to selectively manipulate the stats.

Thanks Sonny Dykes!!!

You were great for Cal in the end.

Cupboard definitely not bare!!!!

---

Since people decidedly don't want to have a fact-based discussion about this, I'll provide the links for you that you're all too lazy to find for yourself.

2013 Class (Dykes 1) (6th in conference)
2014 Class (Dykes 2) (12th in conference)
2015 Class (Dykes 3) (6th in conference)
2016 Class (Dykes 4) (7th in conference)

Explain to me which of these classes were good.

GMP said:

---

tim94501 said:

---

Does Alabama's offense suffer because of how good their defense is?

---

Until this year, many would have said yes.

---

BearSD said:

---

Yogi Bear 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....

---

Constantly shuffling? They've had two full seasons and their unit was worse in Year 2 than Year 1 with most of the same players returning. They need to be held accountable for the lack of production of their unit.

---

We're just going to ignore that the starting QB was injured before the season started, hasn't played since the first half of week 1, and the other QBs are not even close to being average Pac-12 starting QBs? And the team has managed to win 7 games despite that.

No coaching can turn the QBs we have into Goff or Rodgers. Probably not even into Kevin Riley.

It's very likely that leaning on the "minimize mistakes and let the defense win the game" approach is the best that can be done this season. The most credible criticism of the staff's handling of the offense is that they probably should have turned to this approach at least 2 games earlier.

---

Bowers QBR (2017) - 122.1
Garbers QBR (2018) - 128.9

Please educate me on how Bowers would have made a large difference in the fortunes of this offense.

BearSD said:

---

Yogi Bear 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....

---

Constantly shuffling? They've had two full seasons and their unit was worse in Year 2 than Year 1 with most of the same players returning. They need to be held accountable for the lack of production of their unit.

---

We're just going to ignore that the starting QB was injured before the season started, hasn't played since the first half of week 1, and the other QBs are not even close to being average Pac-12 starting QBs? And the team has managed to win 7 games despite that.

No coaching can turn the QBs we have into Goff or Rodgers. Probably not even into Kevin Riley.

It's very likely that leaning on the "minimize mistakes and let the defense win the game" approach is the best that can be done this season. The most credible criticism of the staff's handling of the offense is that they probably should have turned to this approach at least 2 games earlier.

---

Garbers has a better completion percentage and a better QB rating than Bowers had last year. And he is a big positive running whereas Bowers was a big negative. People act like our offense was good last year. We were terrible. Only OSU was worse, but they made big improvements this year. Now we are the worst. The big difference is Laird. Last year he averaged 5.9 ypc. This year he is averaging 4.1 ypc. However, a big part of that is his 1 ypc on first down out of the spread. Teams crowd the box and we repeatedly run Laird up the middle anyway. 5 OL cannot block 9 guys. Last year, Laird would see that and bounce outside for a good gain (bailing out the bad play call) but he seems to have lost a step (due to his earlier injury?). What works is running off tackle behind McMorris, or faking Laird up the middle and running Garbers outside, but we seem to think that we can only do that once a game as a "trick."

calumnus said:

---

We are 112th on offense out of 129 teams. We are LAST in the PAC-12 in offense. Just two years ago we were FIRST and looking forward to seeing our young OL improve as they matured.

---

Our 2018 offense is damn poor, the worst in the conference, yards per play and scoring.

Two years ago (2016 season), our offense was 3rd best in scoring, far behind the two best scoring teams. Yards per play, we were average, like 6th best in the Pac-12. Points per play, terrible.

86+ offensive plays a game and the corresponding inefficient yardage a game does not equate to our 2016 offense being the best. Far from it.

We averaged 34 PPG in the SD era. In any given season, that's typically 3rd to 5th in the Pac-12. When looking at Pac-12 scoring, we scored a little over 30 PPG over those 4 years; and that is average point production for Pac-12 offenses. The aforementioned efficiency numbers for the offense were worse.

The great facade of the Bear Raid lives.

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Here is Dykes' last recruiting class:

https://cal.rivals.com/commitments/football/

His five star recruit has zero receptions for the year.

His four star recruits are, by and large, busts.

He has a few three star and two star recruits that have become good players for us.

Try and sell me that that was a good job recruiting.

---

wow really smh... 90% of this defensive personal was recruited by dykes staff does that mean SD and his staff could not recruit? ... the best players on the defense were recruited by Burns and Tate and Art pulled JK

---

Just for the record, 46% of the defensive players (per calbears.com) are true sophomores, redshirt freshmen or true freshmen. That means they were signed during the Wilcox era.

---

It should always be the case that 40-50% of your players are in their first two years in the program. Wilcox has leaned towards defensive recruits. Significantly, Wilcox recruits have generally not beat out the upper classmen, who are the stars of this defense. However, the benefits of great coaching and scheming on the defensive side are obvious.

"Coaching may by part of the equation but the bulk of any shortcoming is always the talent level."

Doesn't our defensive improvement indicate the exact opposite of this? Coaching trump's recruiting?

okaydo said:

---

---

In athletics, where did the idea of "working hard" equate with success come from? I could have been the hardest-working player on the team in my college days and I still would have been the worst player by miles.

Working hard plus talent equals success.

I guess it is time again for Tommy LaSorda's great quote (paraphrasing)......

If working hard meant anything, I could get a f... truck driver to play for me. I don't want a f..... truck driver. I want a guy with some f....... talent.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

"Coaching may by part of the equation but the bulk of any shortcoming is always the talent level."

Doesn't our defensive improvement indicate the exact opposite of this? Coaching trump's recruiting?

---

If coaching were that important, why is it that teams like Alabama and Clemson are so darn good. Because they have the best players. Absolutely, coaching is a key ingredient to winning but you could put Nick Saban in charge at UTEP with their current talent level and they would still be among the the worst teams in the country.

IMO, where coaching makes the biggest difference is in identifying and tapping into inherent talent from guys who have not been successful playing for other coaches. Of course, if a player does not possess that inherent talent, even the greatest coach would not make a difference. Talent will always supersede coaching.

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Here is Dykes' last recruiting class:

https://cal.rivals.com/commitments/football/

His five star recruit has zero receptions for the year.

His four star recruits are, by and large, busts.

He has a few three star and two star recruits that have become good players for us.

Try and sell me that that was a good job recruiting.

---

wow really smh... 90% of this defensive personal was recruited by dykes staff does that mean SD and his staff could not recruit? ... the best players on the defense were recruited by Burns and Tate and Art pulled JK

---

Just for the record, 46% of the defensive players (per calbears.com) are true sophomores, redshirt freshmen or true freshmen. That means they were signed during the Wilcox era.

---

Virtually all of the key contributors on defense are Dykes' recruits. Way to selectively manipulate the stats.

Thanks Sonny Dykes!!!

You were great for Cal in the end.

Cupboard definitely not bare!!!!

---

You missed the point. My comments was in response to a poster who foolishly suggested that 90% of the defensive players were recruited by Dykes. Given that he has been gone for two years, it is obvious that percentage was wrong so why use it? I made no comment regarding the talent level of the players recruited by Dykes.

MilleniaBear said:

---

+1. Add to that the OC probably is running low risk O now due to early season TOs. We are not seeing the real Baldwin this year. Minimizing risk has made the O predictable.

---

Ok ... what was the excuse last year then?

Kingsbury would be an excellent hire.

The pro-Baldwin arguments here are the best arguments I've seen for firing him.

Baldwin's offense for two years running has been garbage. His recruiting has been terrible. He's brought literally nothing to the table for Cal athletics.

The arguments for keeping him are as bad as Badwin's offense, a bunch of nonsense about Cal being a defense-first team.

Cal ISN'T a Defense-first team. Wilcox is NOT a Defense-first coach. Just because he's getting by with what he has doesn't mean this was his grand design - try actually LISTENING to the coach and WATCHING what's going on.

Why was Baldwin moved to the booth if Wilcox was satisfied with the offense? Why was Baldwin's favorite QB McIlwain taken out of the rotation COMPLETELY by Wilcox, over Baldwin's objection? Why would Wilcox REPEATEDLY say he is absolutely NOT happy with the state of Cal's offense if he was satisfied with Cal's horrible offense.

Wilcox has been one of the harshest critics of the Cal offense, while trying to keep the confidence of the players up. But read between the lines, he's NOT happy with crappy and this is NOT part of his grand design.

The only argument Baldwin supporters can make is somehow an offense that can't convert third downs helps the defense is STUPID, RIDICULOUS and beyond baffling. NO, an offense that goes three and out almost every series is NOT helping the defense - do you people know ANYTHING about football at all?

On what planet in what universe is GIVING THE BALL TO THE OTHER TEAM QUICKLY helpful to your defense?

Yes, lower-scoring offenses can sometimes help. But those offenses control the ball. They run. And the SCORE, just more methodically and while taking lots of time off the clock. See UW, see Furd, see Utah, see the good Big 10 schools. Those offenses are all CONSIDERABLY better than Cal's and FAR more efficient. Because they run well, they convert easy third downs, they make plays and the SCORE POINTS!

No, an offense that can't move the ball, doesn't control TOP and doesn't score ISN'T helping the defense. What kind of idiot would think this awful Cal offense that can't do anything was INTENTIONAL?? We have some really, really stupid football fans.

And arguing that Cal should keep Baldwin because, Sonny Dykes is THE stupidest reason I've ever heard to retain an assistant coach. You don't like Dykes, Dykes had a good offense, therefore a good OC is BAD and we should keep the worst OC Cal has ever had, worse than the Holmoe years?!? Keep talking like that and I'm going to have Cal rescind your degree, that logic is an embarrassment to people with even moderately below-average intelligence - and you went to CAL?!?

Some of you fans need to stop taking stupid pills. You can't have graduated from Cal and be this dumb.

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.

Uthaithani said:

---

Kingsbury would be an excellent hire.

---

Should we take bets on how much he's going to make at UNC? Over a million is my guesstimate, though it might be less due to his TT buyout.

If Cal dropped that kind of cash on an OC (+ extra for offensive assistants), it opens up a lot of excellent hires.

calumnus said:

---

Garbers has a better completion percentage and a better QB rating than Bowers had last year.

---

Is there a more meaningless stat than QB rating? The Bears scored a lot more points on offense last season. And of course, last year's offense had the same coordinator as this year's. It wasn't a great offense by any means, but last year's offense plus this year's defense would have at least 2 more wins.

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.

---

You forget that one look at BB's offense scared off Cal's best offensive players. It's BB's fault there's only "3-star across the board." So yes the fact that Cal is not scoring is because of the coordinator. To add insult to injury, BB can't recruit any offensive talent...

Beau needs to go. The offense CANNOT get any worse. In fact, it is the worst in the PAC-12. According to your logic, Cal must have the worst offensive talent in the conference. We all know this isn't true.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

Kingsbury would be an excellent hire.

---

Should we take bets on how much he's going to make at UNC? Over a million is my guesstimate, though it might be less due to his TT buyout.

If Cal dropped that kind of cash on an OC (+ extra for offensive assistants), it opens up a lot of excellent hires.

---

This is where the rubber meets the road, though. It's not about "Cal" or "North Carolina" paying seven figures to a coordinator. It happens when boosters supply the money to do that.

Uthaithani said:

---

Kingsbury would be an excellent hire.

The pro-Baldwin arguments here are the best arguments I've seen for firing him.

Baldwin's offense for two years running has been garbage. His recruiting has been terrible. He's brought literally nothing to the table for Cal athletics.

The arguments for keeping him are as bad as Badwin's offense, a bunch of nonsense about Cal being a defense-first team.

Cal ISN'T a Defense-first team. Wilcox is NOT a Defense-first coach. Just because he's getting by with what he has doesn't mean this was his grand design - try actually LISTENING to the coach and WATCHING what's going on.

Why was Baldwin moved to the booth if Wilcox was satisfied with the offense? Why was Baldwin's favorite QB McIlwain taken out of the rotation COMPLETELY by Wilcox, over Baldwin's objection? Why would Wilcox REPEATEDLY say he is absolutely NOT happy with the state of Cal's offense if he was satisfied with Cal's horrible offense.

Wilcox has been one of the harshest critics of the Cal offense, while trying to keep the confidence of the players up. But read between the lines, he's NOT happy with crappy and this is NOT part of his grand design.

The only argument Baldwin supporters can make is somehow an offense that can't convert third downs helps the defense is STUPID, RIDICULOUS and beyond baffling. NO, an offense that goes three and out almost every series is NOT helping the defense - do you people know ANYTHING about football at all?

On what planet in what universe is GIVING THE BALL TO THE OTHER TEAM QUICKLY helpful to your defense?

Yes, lower-scoring offenses can sometimes help. But those offenses control the ball. They run. And the SCORE, just more methodically and while taking lots of time off the clock. See UW, see Furd, see Utah, see the good Big 10 schools. Those offenses are all CONSIDERABLY better than Cal's and FAR more efficient. Because they run well, they convert easy third downs, they make plays and the SCORE POINTS!

No, an offense that can't move the ball, doesn't control TOP and doesn't score ISN'T helping the defense. What kind of idiot would think this awful Cal offense that can't do anything was INTENTIONAL?? We have some really, really stupid football fans.

And arguing that Cal should keep Baldwin because, Sonny Dykes is THE stupidest reason I've ever heard to retain an assistant coach. You don't like Dykes, Dykes had a good offense, therefore a good OC is BAD and we should keep the worst OC Cal has ever had, worse than the Holmoe years?!? Keep talking like that and I'm going to have Cal rescind your degree, that logic is an embarrassment to people with even moderately below-average intelligence - and you went to CAL?!?

Some of you fans need to stop taking stupid pills. You can't have graduated from Cal and be this dumb.

---

Wow... if you had a track record of commentary that made some sense, people might actually give you the benefit of the doubt. Sadly, that is not the case. Your diatribes are ceaseless (heck, I thought I was unrelenting re: Wilcox's predecessor but you make me look like a neophyte when it comes to negativity ).

Bottom line: Kingsbury isn't coming to Cal. The reasons are too numerous to cite here, beginning with the fact that he would be a poor "fit" (oops, there I go again with reminding people how important "fit" is at Cal).

And yes, I did graduate from Cal, and no, Baldwin is not the worst OC Cal has ever had. Personally, I do not see Baldwin as the problem. I see other factors as the issue. Besides, I guess you don't remember Al Borges...

71Bear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Here is Dykes' last recruiting class:

https://cal.rivals.com/commitments/football/

His five star recruit has zero receptions for the year.

His four star recruits are, by and large, busts.

He has a few three star and two star recruits that have become good players for us.

Try and sell me that that was a good job recruiting.

---

wow really smh... 90% of this defensive personal was recruited by dykes staff does that mean SD and his staff could not recruit? ... the best players on the defense were recruited by Burns and Tate and Art pulled JK

---

Just for the record, 46% of the defensive players (per calbears.com) are true sophomores, redshirt freshmen or true freshmen. That means they were signed during the Wilcox era.

---

Virtually all of the key contributors on defense are Dykes' recruits. Way to selectively manipulate the stats.

Thanks Sonny Dykes!!!

You were great for Cal in the end.

Cupboard definitely not bare!!!!

---

You missed the point. My comments was in response to a poster who foolishly suggested that 90% of the defensive players were recruited by Dykes. Given that he has been gone for two years, it is obvious that percentage was wrong so why use it? I made no comment regarding the talent level of the players recruited by Dykes.

---

Foolish? Hmm I think you are smart enough to know that i meant the defensive starters no? Forgive the typo/lack of clarity but I totally get you hate dykes so your reaction was expected

82gradDLSdad said:

---

"Coaching may by part of the equation but the bulk of any shortcoming is always the talent level."

Doesn't our defensive improvement indicate the exact opposite of this? Coaching trump's recruiting?

---

If coaching trumped recruiting, Alabama wouldn't be so dominant. Saban's other programs weren't this dominant. And maybe our offense wouldn't be quite so bad.

rafterfan180 said:

---

Beau needs to go. The offense CANNOT get any worse. In fact, it is the worst in the PAC-12. According to your logic, Cal must have the worst offensive talent in the conference. We all know this isn't true.

---

I don't think we know this isn't true at all. In fact, I think it's highly likely that it is true. But Baldwin has still been a bad coordinator.

going4roses said:

---

71Bear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

N
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.

---

Here is Dykes' last recruiting class:

https://cal.rivals.com/commitments/football/

His five star recruit has zero receptions for the year.

His four star recruits are, by and large, busts.

He has a few three star and two star recruits that have become good players for us.

Try and sell me that that was a good job recruiting.

---

wow really smh... 90% of this defensive personal was recruited by dykes staff does that mean SD and his staff could not recruit? ... the best players on the defense were recruited by Burns and Tate and Art pulled JK

---

Just for the record, 46% of the defensive players (per calbears.com) are true sophomores, redshirt freshmen or true freshmen. That means they were signed during the Wilcox era.

---

Virtually all of the key contributors on defense are Dykes' recruits. Way to selectively manipulate the stats.

Thanks Sonny Dykes!!!

You were great for Cal in the end.

Cupboard definitely not bare!!!!

---

You missed the point. My comments was in response to a poster who foolishly suggested that 90% of the defensive players were recruited by Dykes. Given that he has been gone for two years, it is obvious that percentage was wrong so why use it? I made no comment regarding the talent level of the players recruited by Dykes.

---

Foolish? Hmm I think you are smart enough to know that i meant the defensive starters no? Forgive the typo/lack of clarity but I totally get you hate dykes so your reaction was expected

---

I dislike Wilcox's predecessor but I dislike the misuse of statistics even more.

Nice try.....

Say what you will about Kliff Kingsbury, but the guy could recruit and develop QBs like no one else in college football today: He had Johnny Manziel, Case Keemun, Baker Mayfield, Davis Webb, and Patrick Mahomes

Yogi Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

tim94501 said:

---

Does Alabama's offense suffer because of how good their defense is?

---

Until this year, many would have said yes.

---

---

Ha. But seriously:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/alabamas-offense-is-now-as-terrifying-as-its-defense/

The offense has not always been this good.

GranadaHillsBear said:

---

Say what you will about Kliff Kingsbury, but the guy could recruit and develop QBs like no one else in college football today: He had Johnny Manziel, Case Keemun, Baker Mayfield, Davis Webb, and Patrick Mahomes

---

Sounds like JT in the early days as OC and head coach.

KoreAmBear said:

---

GranadaHillsBear said:

---

Say what you will about Kliff Kingsbury, but the guy could recruit and develop QBs like no one else in college football today: He had Johnny Manziel, Case Keemun, Baker Mayfield, Davis Webb, and Patrick Mahomes

---

Sounds like JT in the early days as OC and head coach.

---

Well first of all, most of JT's QB's that were drafted in the first round were tremendous busts. Secondly, once he wasn't at Oregon anymore, we discovered that he was a terrible QB recruiter.

Uthaithani said:

---

Kingsbury would be an excellent hire.

The pro-Baldwin arguments here are the best arguments I've seen for firing him.

Baldwin's offense for two years running has been garbage. His recruiting has been terrible. He's brought literally nothing to the table for Cal athletics.

The arguments for keeping him are as bad as Badwin's offense, a bunch of nonsense about Cal being a defense-first team.

Cal ISN'T a Defense-first team. Wilcox is NOT a Defense-first coach. Just because he's getting by with what he has doesn't mean this was his grand design - try actually LISTENING to the coach and WATCHING what's going on.

Why was Baldwin moved to the booth if Wilcox was satisfied with the offense? Why was Baldwin's favorite QB McIlwain taken out of the rotation COMPLETELY by Wilcox, over Baldwin's objection? Why would Wilcox REPEATEDLY say he is absolutely NOT happy with the state of Cal's offense if he was satisfied with Cal's horrible offense.

Wilcox has been one of the harshest critics of the Cal offense, while trying to keep the confidence of the players up. But read between the lines, he's NOT happy with crappy and this is NOT part of his grand design.

The only argument Baldwin supporters can make is somehow an offense that can't convert third downs helps the defense is STUPID, RIDICULOUS and beyond baffling. NO, an offense that goes three and out almost every series is NOT helping the defense - do you people know ANYTHING about football at all?

On what planet in what universe is GIVING THE BALL TO THE OTHER TEAM QUICKLY helpful to your defense?

Yes, lower-scoring offenses can sometimes help. But those offenses control the ball. They run. And the SCORE, just more methodically and while taking lots of time off the clock. See UW, see Furd, see Utah, see the good Big 10 schools. Those offenses are all CONSIDERABLY better than Cal's and FAR more efficient. Because they run well, they convert easy third downs, they make plays and the SCORE POINTS!

No, an offense that can't move the ball, doesn't control TOP and doesn't score ISN'T helping the defense. What kind of idiot would think this awful Cal offense that can't do anything was INTENTIONAL?? We have some really, really stupid football fans.

And arguing that Cal should keep Baldwin because, Sonny Dykes is THE stupidest reason I've ever heard to retain an assistant coach. You don't like Dykes, Dykes had a good offense, therefore a good OC is BAD and we should keep the worst OC Cal has ever had, worse than the Holmoe years?!? Keep talking like that and I'm going to have Cal rescind your degree, that logic is an embarrassment to people with even moderately below-average intelligence - and you went to CAL?!?

Some of you fans need to stop taking stupid pills. You can't have graduated from Cal and be this dumb.

---

Epic

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Garbers has a better completion percentage and a better QB rating than Bowers had last year.

---

Is there a more meaningless stat than QB rating? The Bears scored a lot more points on offense last season. And of course, last year's offense had the same coordinator as this year's. It wasn't a great offense by any means, but last year's offense plus this year's defense would have at least 2 more wins.

---

The QB is not the entire offense. Laird 5.9 ypc last year versus Laird 4.1 Ypc this year is a big factor. Robertson and Stoval partial years and Noa full year helped too.

71Bear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

Kingsbury would be an excellent hire.

The pro-Baldwin arguments here are the best arguments I've seen for firing him.

Baldwin's offense for two years running has been garbage. His recruiting has been terrible. He's brought literally nothing to the table for Cal athletics.

The arguments for keeping him are as bad as Badwin's offense, a bunch of nonsense about Cal being a defense-first team.

Cal ISN'T a Defense-first team. Wilcox is NOT a Defense-first coach. Just because he's getting by with what he has doesn't mean this was his grand design - try actually LISTENING to the coach and WATCHING what's going on.

Why was Baldwin moved to the booth if Wilcox was satisfied with the offense? Why was Baldwin's favorite QB McIlwain taken out of the rotation COMPLETELY by Wilcox, over Baldwin's objection? Why would Wilcox REPEATEDLY say he is absolutely NOT happy with the state of Cal's offense if he was satisfied with Cal's horrible offense.

Wilcox has been one of the harshest critics of the Cal offense, while trying to keep the confidence of the players up. But read between the lines, he's NOT happy with crappy and this is NOT part of his grand design.

The only argument Baldwin supporters can make is somehow an offense that can't convert third downs helps the defense is STUPID, RIDICULOUS and beyond baffling. NO, an offense that goes three and out almost every series is NOT helping the defense - do you people know ANYTHING about football at all?

On what planet in what universe is GIVING THE BALL TO THE OTHER TEAM QUICKLY helpful to your defense?

Yes, lower-scoring offenses can sometimes help. But those offenses control the ball. They run. And the SCORE, just more methodically and while taking lots of time off the clock. See UW, see Furd, see Utah, see the good Big 10 schools. Those offenses are all CONSIDERABLY better than Cal's and FAR more efficient. Because they run well, they convert easy third downs, they make plays and the SCORE POINTS!

No, an offense that can't move the ball, doesn't control TOP and doesn't score ISN'T helping the defense. What kind of idiot would think this awful Cal offense that can't do anything was INTENTIONAL?? We have some really, really stupid football fans.

And arguing that Cal should keep Baldwin because, Sonny Dykes is THE stupidest reason I've ever heard to retain an assistant coach. You don't like Dykes, Dykes had a good offense, therefore a good OC is BAD and we should keep the worst OC Cal has ever had, worse than the Holmoe years?!? Keep talking like that and I'm going to have Cal rescind your degree, that logic is an embarrassment to people with even moderately below-average intelligence - and you went to CAL?!?

Some of you fans need to stop taking stupid pills. You can't have graduated from Cal and be this dumb.

---

Wow... if you had a track record of commentary that made some sense, people might actually give you the benefit of the doubt. Sadly, that is not the case. Your diatribes are ceaseless (heck, I thought I was unrelenting re: Wilcox's predecessor but you make me look like a neophyte when it comes to negativity ).

Bottom line: Kingsbury isn't coming to Cal. The reasons are too numerous to cite here, beginning with the fact that he would be a poor "fit" (oops, there I go again with reminding people how important "fit" is at Cal).

And yes, I did graduate from Cal, and no, Baldwin is not the worst OC Cal has ever had. Personally, I do not see Baldwin as the problem. I see other factors as the issue. Besides, I guess you don't remember Al Borges...

---

Borges was very successful at UCLA but could not save Holmoe from himself. Doug Cosbie? He was terrible.

The difference here is that all those schools have talent. We're starting multiple walk-ons and we just shifted from a totally different offensive system for chrissakes.

And before anyone brings up the idea that Baldwin scared off our best players, can anyone actually corroborate that? We know why we lost Robertson, Stovall, and Johnson unless someone has some inside knowledge that they should be telling us. Now current recruiting doesn't match up the same star power on the offensive side either but I'd hazard a guess that current recruits are still better than some of our starters when developed.

Well .... nevermind

At this point what's done is done

Sometimes newer coaches apparently want their own players thus things happen if there is not the desired buy in for whatever reason , the defense didn't experience the same talent drain. Bb/Edwards vs Spav/peeler are different coaches- personalities- different skill sets

JW work it out!!!