Trade! Sonny gets Bowers (his recruit) and we get this guy. Although I like Bowers too much to sentence him to Texas Waco

calumnus said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Last year, we were ranked 54th in the country in third down conversations at 40.9%. This year, we dropped to 97th place, at 35.5%.

People ranked below us are looking for new offensive coordinators.

---

Food for thought indeed.

---

I'd be interested in a stat of our average 3rd down distance, last year versus this. Or how many times we converted running last year versus this. My sense is that last year Laird's 5.9 ypc helped us have more makeable 3rd downs, and when we did need a tough catch Wharton, and especially Noa, delivered.

---

What you don't seem to get is that Laird's 5.9 ypc and subsequent drop this year had more to do with teams stuffing the box because our passing game was ineffective and because the OC's lack of trust in the passing game caused him to go more run heavy on first and second downs. Having a passing game helps open up the running game (which in turn opens up the passing game more).

One of the ways the run game helps the passing game is by forcing the defense overload to play the run. Well, the defenses did that, not because our running game was more than mediocre but because it was a lot better than our passing game. Throwing with 8 men in the box is supposed to be easy. We got those looks incessantly and couldn't make defenses pay. We never made them back off so Laird could have room to run.

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Last year, we were ranked 54th in the country in third down conversations at 40.9%. This year, we dropped to 97th place, at 35.5%.

People ranked below us are looking for new offensive coordinators.

---

Food for thought indeed.

---

I'd be interested in a stat of our average 3rd down distance, last year versus this. Or how many times we converted running last year versus this. My sense is that last year Laird's 5.9 ypc helped us have more makeable 3rd downs, and when we did need a tough catch Wharton, and especially Noa, delivered.

---

What you don't seem to get is that Laird's 5.9 ypc and subsequent drop this year had more to do with teams stuffing the box because our passing game was ineffective and because the OC's lack of trust in the passing game caused him to go more run heavy on first and second downs. Having a passing game helps open up the running game (which in turn opens up the passing game more).

One of the ways the run game helps the passing game is by forcing the defense overload to play the run. Well, the defenses did that, not because our running game was more than mediocre but because it was a lot better than our passing game. Throwing with 8 men in the box is supposed to be easy. We got those looks incessantly and couldn't make defenses pay. We never made them back off so Laird could have room to run.

---

To underscore your point, our coaches lack of trust in the passing game was a result of 9 interceptions over a 3 game period mid-season. All games we lost.

I don't think the poor offense falls all on QB.

There seemed to be an awful lot of dropped passed, tough catches that "needed" to be made but weren't, and incorrect routes (or QB/WR miscommunications). I can't think of a stat that would reflect this.

I think the WR/TE positions need to step up and make plays.

bluehenbear said:

---

I don't think the poor offense falls all on QB.

There seemed to be an awful lot of dropped passed, tough catches that "needed" to be made but weren't, and incorrect routes (or QB/WR miscommunications). I can't think of a stat that would reflect this.

I think the WR/TE positions need to step up and make plays.

---

You have a good point, but even had we better WRs and TEs, we'd still lose the Arizona game. A better QB most probably would have won that game.

IssyBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Last year, we were ranked 54th in the country in third down conversations at 40.9%. This year, we dropped to 97th place, at 35.5%.

People ranked below us are looking for new offensive coordinators.

---

Food for thought indeed.

---

I'd be interested in a stat of our average 3rd down distance, last year versus this. Or how many times we converted running last year versus this. My sense is that last year Laird's 5.9 ypc helped us have more makeable 3rd downs, and when we did need a tough catch Wharton, and especially Noa, delivered.

---

What you don't seem to get is that Laird's 5.9 ypc and subsequent drop this year had more to do with teams stuffing the box because our passing game was ineffective and because the OC's lack of trust in the passing game caused him to go more run heavy on first and second downs. Having a passing game helps open up the running game (which in turn opens up the passing game more).

One of the ways the run game helps the passing game is by forcing the defense overload to play the run. Well, the defenses did that, not because our running game was more than mediocre but because it was a lot better than our passing game. Throwing with 8 men in the box is supposed to be easy. We got those looks incessantly and couldn't make defenses pay. We never made them back off so Laird could have room to run.

---

To underscore your point, our coaches lack of trust in the passing game was a result of 9 interceptions over a 3 game period mid-season. All games we lost.

---

Honestly, I get that, but I think Garbers needed the same opportunity that McIlwain had to make plays.

It is hard to argue with being in the middle of a football season, on a three game losing streak, your toughest part of your schedule coming up, and making adjustments to maximize wins. Whatever I think of the offense, we started winning when we put it all on the defense. During the season, you gotta just win. We did that as well as can be expected. I do think it came at a cost to developing the offense because players don't develop in the offense when you shut down so much of the play book. But this isn't pop warner. If the best way to win was shut it down and just avoid turnovers, so be it.

But a bowl game is an exhibition game. So exhibit. There is nothing to lose here. You have weeks to prepare. Take the handcuffs off and see what this offense can do. During the season, I'd rather win 12-10. For this game, I'd rather lose 30-28 if we do it fighting on offense even if it produces some costly mistakes.

OaktownBear said:

---

IssyBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Last year, we were ranked 54th in the country in third down conversations at 40.9%. This year, we dropped to 97th place, at 35.5%.

People ranked below us are looking for new offensive coordinators.

---

Food for thought indeed.

---

I'd be interested in a stat of our average 3rd down distance, last year versus this. Or how many times we converted running last year versus this. My sense is that last year Laird's 5.9 ypc helped us have more makeable 3rd downs, and when we did need a tough catch Wharton, and especially Noa, delivered.

---

What you don't seem to get is that Laird's 5.9 ypc and subsequent drop this year had more to do with teams stuffing the box because our passing game was ineffective and because the OC's lack of trust in the passing game caused him to go more run heavy on first and second downs. Having a passing game helps open up the running game (which in turn opens up the passing game more).

One of the ways the run game helps the passing game is by forcing the defense overload to play the run. Well, the defenses did that, not because our running game was more than mediocre but because it was a lot better than our passing game. Throwing with 8 men in the box is supposed to be easy. We got those looks incessantly and couldn't make defenses pay. We never made them back off so Laird could have room to run.

---

To underscore your point, our coaches lack of trust in the passing game was a result of 9 interceptions over a 3 game period mid-season. All games we lost.

---

Honestly, I get that, but I think Garbers needed the same opportunity that McIlwain had to make plays.

It is hard to argue with being in the middle of a football season, on a three game losing streak, your toughest part of your schedule coming up, and making adjustments to maximize wins. Whatever I think of the offense, we started winning when we put it all on the defense. During the season, you gotta just win. We did that as well as can be expected. I do think it came at a cost to developing the offense because players don't develop in the offense when you shut down so much of the play book. But this isn't pop warner. If the best way to win was shut it down and just avoid turnovers, so be it.

But a bowl game is an exhibition game. So exhibit. There is nothing to lose here. You have weeks to prepare. Take the handcuffs off and see what this offense can do. During the season, I'd rather win 12-10. For this game, I'd rather lose 30-28 if we do it fighting on offense even if it produces some costly mistakes.

---

One of the team's goals for the season is to WIN a bowl game. I don't think they see it as an exhibition. However, they worked Garbers with the redshirt and scout team players last week to help him fine tune his game. This tells me that they would like to expand the playbook for this game and want to prepare Garbers so that he can execute better than he has previously. If he continues to hesitate. not see a open receivers, throw inaccurate passes, and/or have his good passes dropped, they will quickly put the handcuffs back on.

OaktownBear said:

---

IssyBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Last year, we were ranked 54th in the country in third down conversations at 40.9%. This year, we dropped to 97th place, at 35.5%.

People ranked below us are looking for new offensive coordinators.

---

Food for thought indeed.

---

I'd be interested in a stat of our average 3rd down distance, last year versus this. Or how many times we converted running last year versus this. My sense is that last year Laird's 5.9 ypc helped us have more makeable 3rd downs, and when we did need a tough catch Wharton, and especially Noa, delivered.

---

What you don't seem to get is that Laird's 5.9 ypc and subsequent drop this year had more to do with teams stuffing the box because our passing game was ineffective and because the OC's lack of trust in the passing game caused him to go more run heavy on first and second downs. Having a passing game helps open up the running game (which in turn opens up the passing game more).

One of the ways the run game helps the passing game is by forcing the defense overload to play the run. Well, the defenses did that, not because our running game was more than mediocre but because it was a lot better than our passing game. Throwing with 8 men in the box is supposed to be easy. We got those looks incessantly and couldn't make defenses pay. We never made them back off so Laird could have room to run.

---

To underscore your point, our coaches lack of trust in the passing game was a result of 9 interceptions over a 3 game period mid-season. All games we lost.

---

Honestly, I get that, but I think Garbers needed the same opportunity that McIlwain had to make plays.

It is hard to argue with being in the middle of a football season, on a three game losing streak, your toughest part of your schedule coming up, and making adjustments to maximize wins. Whatever I think of the offense, we started winning when we put it all on the defense. During the season, you gotta just win. We did that as well as can be expected. I do think it came at a cost to developing the offense because players don't develop in the offense when you shut down so much of the play book. But this isn't pop warner. If the best way to win was shut it down and just avoid turnovers, so be it.

But a bowl game is an exhibition game. So exhibit. There is nothing to lose here. You have weeks to prepare. Take the handcuffs off and see what this offense can do. During the season, I'd rather win 12-10. For this game, I'd rather lose 30-28 if we do it fighting on offense even if it produces some costly mistakes.

---

Gotta disagree, Oak... The object of the game is to score more points than the opponents. 12-10 is better than losing 30-28. An 8-5 record is far, far better than 7-6.

"Boring wins beat the hell out of exciting defeats" - Ray Willsey.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

IssyBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Last year, we were ranked 54th in the country in third down conversations at 40.9%. This year, we dropped to 97th place, at 35.5%.

People ranked below us are looking for new offensive coordinators.

---

Food for thought indeed.

---

I'd be interested in a stat of our average 3rd down distance, last year versus this. Or how many times we converted running last year versus this. My sense is that last year Laird's 5.9 ypc helped us have more makeable 3rd downs, and when we did need a tough catch Wharton, and especially Noa, delivered.

---

What you don't seem to get is that Laird's 5.9 ypc and subsequent drop this year had more to do with teams stuffing the box because our passing game was ineffective and because the OC's lack of trust in the passing game caused him to go more run heavy on first and second downs. Having a passing game helps open up the running game (which in turn opens up the passing game more).

One of the ways the run game helps the passing game is by forcing the defense overload to play the run. Well, the defenses did that, not because our running game was more than mediocre but because it was a lot better than our passing game. Throwing with 8 men in the box is supposed to be easy. We got those looks incessantly and couldn't make defenses pay. We never made them back off so Laird could have room to run.

---

To underscore your point, our coaches lack of trust in the passing game was a result of 9 interceptions over a 3 game period mid-season. All games we lost.

---

Honestly, I get that, but I think Garbers needed the same opportunity that McIlwain had to make plays.

It is hard to argue with being in the middle of a football season, on a three game losing streak, your toughest part of your schedule coming up, and making adjustments to maximize wins. Whatever I think of the offense, we started winning when we put it all on the defense. During the season, you gotta just win. We did that as well as can be expected. I do think it came at a cost to developing the offense because players don't develop in the offense when you shut down so much of the play book. But this isn't pop warner. If the best way to win was shut it down and just avoid turnovers, so be it.

But a bowl game is an exhibition game. So exhibit. There is nothing to lose here. You have weeks to prepare. Take the handcuffs off and see what this offense can do. During the season, I'd rather win 12-10. For this game, I'd rather lose 30-28 if we do it fighting on offense even if it produces some costly mistakes.

---

Gotta disagree, Oak... The object of the game is to score more points than the opponents. 12-10 is better than losing 30-28. An 8-5 record is far, far better than 7-6.

"Boring wins beat the hell out of exciting defeats" - Ray Willsey.

---

Let me clarify, 71. You may still disagree with me, but what I'm saying is my priority is winning in 2019 over a bowl game. If we win every game next year 2-0, that is fine by me. I'm not looking for excitement. However, I do not think it is sustainable to line plunge 2 times, fail on 3rd and 8, then punt and hope that the defense scores points or gets a turnover. We can't get where we want to go that way. What I'm saying is run the offense the way you expect to run it in 2019. Put Garbers in a position to learn to make some plays. Don't panic that he might throw an interception. That is how Garbers and everyone on offense gets better. Let Garbers run an actual offense and let him take that experience into the offseason and be better next year. That leads to more wins in 2019. What we did on offense this year really stunted the growth of the offense, IMO. Like I said, I'm fine with that if you need to do it to win now, but at this point I'd rather do what we need to win in 2019. We need to stop playing scared on offense. Ultimately we will not win more games that way.

Now if what we saw this year is the offense as Baldwin intends to run it, then he needs to go.

Not a chance.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

IssyBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Last year, we were ranked 54th in the country in third down conversations at 40.9%. This year, we dropped to 97th place, at 35.5%.

People ranked below us are looking for new offensive coordinators.

---

Food for thought indeed.

---

I'd be interested in a stat of our average 3rd down distance, last year versus this. Or how many times we converted running last year versus this. My sense is that last year Laird's 5.9 ypc helped us have more makeable 3rd downs, and when we did need a tough catch Wharton, and especially Noa, delivered.

---

What you don't seem to get is that Laird's 5.9 ypc and subsequent drop this year had more to do with teams stuffing the box because our passing game was ineffective and because the OC's lack of trust in the passing game caused him to go more run heavy on first and second downs. Having a passing game helps open up the running game (which in turn opens up the passing game more).

One of the ways the run game helps the passing game is by forcing the defense overload to play the run. Well, the defenses did that, not because our running game was more than mediocre but because it was a lot better than our passing game. Throwing with 8 men in the box is supposed to be easy. We got those looks incessantly and couldn't make defenses pay. We never made them back off so Laird could have room to run.

---

To underscore your point, our coaches lack of trust in the passing game was a result of 9 interceptions over a 3 game period mid-season. All games we lost.

---

Honestly, I get that, but I think Garbers needed the same opportunity that McIlwain had to make plays.

It is hard to argue with being in the middle of a football season, on a three game losing streak, your toughest part of your schedule coming up, and making adjustments to maximize wins. Whatever I think of the offense, we started winning when we put it all on the defense. During the season, you gotta just win. We did that as well as can be expected. I do think it came at a cost to developing the offense because players don't develop in the offense when you shut down so much of the play book. But this isn't pop warner. If the best way to win was shut it down and just avoid turnovers, so be it.

But a bowl game is an exhibition game. So exhibit. There is nothing to lose here. You have weeks to prepare. Take the handcuffs off and see what this offense can do. During the season, I'd rather win 12-10. For this game, I'd rather lose 30-28 if we do it fighting on offense even if it produces some costly mistakes.

---

Gotta disagree, Oak... The object of the game is to score more points than the opponents. 12-10 is better than losing 30-28. An 8-5 record is far, far better than 7-6.

"Boring wins beat the hell out of exciting defeats" - Ray Willsey.

---

Let me clarify, 71. You may still disagree with me, but what I'm saying is my priority is winning in 2019 over a bowl game. If we win every game next year 2-0, that is fine by me. I'm not looking for excitement. However, I do not think it is sustainable to line plunge 2 times, fail on 3rd and 8, then punt and hope that the defense scores points or gets a turnover. We can't get where we want to go that way. What I'm saying is run the offense the way you expect to run it in 2019. Put Garbers in a position to learn to make some plays. Don't panic that he might throw an interception. That is how Garbers and everyone on offense gets better. Let Garbers run an actual offense and let him take that experience into the offseason and be better next year. That leads to more wins in 2019. What we did on offense this year really stunted the growth of the offense, IMO. Like I said, I'm fine with that if you need to do it to win now, but at this point I'd rather do what we need to win in 2019. We need to stop playing scared on offense. Ultimately we will not win more games that way.

Now if what we saw this year is the offense as Baldwin intends to run it, then he needs to go.

---

The 2018 Cal O is not what Baldwin (or any coach) wants to run. Good coaches (and Baldwin, IMO, is a damn good coach - he proved that at EWU) use the talent they have in the most effective manner possible. If that means super conservative play, then you gotta go conservative. Baldwin was dealt a hand this year that required a very staid approach. It will open up next year as Garbers becomes more experienced and, of course, assuming he has more tools with which to work..

I want to see Cal win regardless of the score because that will help with recruiting. It is all about the future since this season is over.

Having said all of that, it would be nice to see the Bears post 24+ points .

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

FremontBear said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

I don't think the poor offense falls all on QB.

There seemed to be an awful lot of dropped passed, tough catches that "needed" to be made but weren't, and incorrect routes (or QB/WR miscommunications). I can't think of a stat that would reflect this.

I think the WR/TE positions need to step up and make plays.

---

You have a good point, but even had we better WRs and TEs, we'd still lose the Arizona game. A better QB most probably would have won that game.

---

If we had enough better players, we'd be undefeated and preparing to crush Alabama on our way to winning the National Title.

Big C said:

---

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

---

*raises hand*

What exactly did you look up?

GMP said:

---

Big C said:

---

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

---

*raises hand*

What exactly did you look up?

---

"How important are bowl game victories, compared to 'regular season' victories in college football, especially for California?"

Big C said:

---

GMP said:

---

Big C said:

---

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

---

*raises hand*

What exactly did you look up?

---

"How important are bowl game victories, compared to 'regular season' victories in college football, especially for California?"

---

All the data is at howimportantarebowlgamevictoriesespeciallyforCal.com

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

For those stat adverse types, look at this. Bowers makes some clutch 3rd down conversions.

---

It's quite a stretch when you have to reach into a guy's highlight film to attempt to prove a point.

---

Can't use stats. Can't use film. We just have to take Garbers fans word for it.

After watching that video the idea that people want to argue Garbers vs. Bowers makes me laugh.

---

I'm laughing at anybody that uses a video of only a person's good plays to assert who is a better player. Get over yourself. Maybe someone will compile a video of all the sacks Bowers took because he didn't get rid of the ball or all the interceptions he threw vs. USC.

I personally don't think either guy has a big edge over the other, though Garbers' higher level of mobility makes him a little more desirable if the passing is close. Not likely to matter, as Bowers is likely gone.

---

+1. There are like 5, 6 really good throws on there. The fact that there are clips of screen passes and passes to Malik McMorris standing alone in the endzone in a TWO minute highlight video says a lot. If we distilled Garbers' season into 2 minutes and 30 seconds, he'd look pretty damn good too. Brandon McIlwain in a one minute highlight tape probably looks like college Michael Vick lol

Big C said:

---

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

---

I believe that recruits (high school class of 2019 as well as 2020) will be watching and that they would be more impressed with a win.

southseasbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

---

I believe that recruits (high school class of 2019 as well as 2020) will be watching and that they would be more impressed with a win.

---

Do you really think offensive recruits will be more impressed if we win with another 12 point performance playing the 1-2-3-punt offense we've been playing?

OaktownBear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

---

I believe that recruits (high school class of 2019 as well as 2020) will be watching and that they would be more impressed with a win.

---

Do you really think offensive recruits will be more impressed if we win with another 12 point performance playing the 1-2-3-punt offense we've been playing?

---

Yes, I do. Recruits are interested in programs that are already on the plateau of success or are distinctly moving in that direction. For programs in the latter category, recruits see themselves as the catalyst to push the team to the top of the plateau. Add in the opportunity for early PT and you have the recipe for "winning a bowl game yields recruiting success".

Never underestimate the ego's of young men.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

This whole debate is rather interesting (How important is actually WINNING a bowl game?), so I looked it up: Turns out, sure, a little bit important, but not even as important as most of the "regular season" games. as it is those games that comprise the team's W/L record that people remember. Adding to its lack of importance, the game is usually played around the holidays, when nobody is really paying attention. (Of course, the more "important" the bowl, the more important it is to win it, but even a Rose Bowl win is not as highly valued as a particular game that GOT the team to said Rose Bowl.)

---

I believe that recruits (high school class of 2019 as well as 2020) will be watching and that they would be more impressed with a win.

---

Do you really think offensive recruits will be more impressed if we win with another 12 point performance playing the 1-2-3-punt offense we've been playing?

---

Yes, I do. Recruits are interested in programs that are already on the plateau of success or are distinctly moving in that direction. For programs in the latter category, recruits see themselves as the catalyst to push the team to the top of the plateau. Add in the opportunity for early PT and you have the recipe for "winning a bowl game yields recruiting success".

Never underestimate the ego's of young men.

---

It's about having a starting position, don't over think it.......