calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"Turn-arounds"?? That was the defense. The offense was #1 in the PAC-12 and #10 in the country "with a young OL" a "discarded transfer QB" and a "walk-on WR" as the star the year before, and loaded with young 4 and 5 star talent coming in at the skill positions.

---

It's well past time to start dismantling some of these myths.

In 2016, Cal's offense was:

• 3rd in points per game
• 1st in yardage per game, but only 6th per play
• 5th in passer efficiency

Dump that #1 offense myth. Yards per game don't mean you are the best, it just means your offense is on the field a lot. Mostly because your defense can't stop anyone. If we'd had that kind of offensive production this year, obviously we'd have done a lot better, but let's not pretend it was something it wasn't.

Furthermore, the loss of the grad transfer QB meant we were going to do a nosedive offensively the next year because Dykes hadn't recruited a single good QB while at Cal (and don't sell me that four star Max Gilliam bull**** - here's his actual numbers.)

The "young talented oline" you are touting wasn't good and never was. We were in the bottom half of the conference in yards per rush and our pass blocking was nothing to write home about either. But most of those guys were still here and getting competent coaching from our new o-line coach. If they were that great, we'd have seen it.

Quote:

---

4 or 5 star players at every skill position

---

Were you expecting Garbers to start last year? I've already shown you that Gilliam sucks.

Robertson and Stovall got hurt, so they had no chance to be productive last year. Same with Watson. Healthy this year, he ran for 600 yards at 4.2 ypc. Meh.

So now that we've eliminated all the guys that were hurt, who are these remaining 4 and 5 star players you were expecting to be so productive?

---

Fine, forget yards, we went from 3rd in the PAC-12 in scoring to last. We went from 22nd in the nation in scoring to 112th, and if you take away defensive scores, our offense is probably last or close to last in the country scoring. The Holmoe offenses were ranked higher. The J Torchio offense, the Justin Vedder offenses, were never last in the country.

---

All of these are terrible measures of an offense. Dykes made a career out of fooling people with big yardage and point totals, and kept people thinking for years, "Geeze, if he could just get a guy to coach up that defense." The point/yardage totals are a mirage - his offense was good, not great, with two high round NFL draft QBs. Look at the efficiency numbers. Look at his yards per play. Look at his points per play. All good, not great. Certainly not #1 in the conference. On top of all that, his offense put his defenses in impossible positions, and he simply didn't care, or doesn't realize it.

Quote:

---

All, I ask on offense is that we utilize the best players we have in the best way possible to put them in a position to succeed. I know we would not have a top offense, but I know we could have at least been mediocre, below average. Maybe around 8th in the PAC-12 and 70th in the nation? Do you really think that was too much to ask?

---

It's not too much to ask - but I know enough to know I don't know for sure if this is coaching or talent. My eyes tell me the separation by WRs is not good, the accuracy by QBs is not good, and the blocking by the oline is ok, not great. I also take into account the OC's track record of coaching offenses, including playing against Pac-12 teams with far superior talent, and logically conclude that our coach didn't suddenly forget how to do that, and it's a talent issue. But I could be wrong.

LunchTime said:

---

I am not sure 10 wins is a reasonable expectation or something that I would need to see to show solid progress.

7 wins would be enough to show progress, (back to back bowl seasons). 8 with an offense would be an insane improvement and put us on track to be a solid 8 win team year in and out going forward.

And without a lot more money for coaches, I think an 8 win program with some great seasons mixed in is about where Cal belongs.

---

I agree. That's why I said I want us to have a team that's good enough to have a shot at 9 or 10 wins, as opposed to a team from which we expect that kind of result. At this point, if we have a team that has an outside chance at having a great season if the stars align, that's progress - as well as something that will get the fanbase back.

It seemed to me that some who are criticizing this staff's recruiting performance are the ones with the unrealistic expectation, as in that we would have hauled in a class that instantly makes us a 10-win team next year and that JW & co. failed by not doing that.

510 Bear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

I am not sure 10 wins is a reasonable expectation or something that I would need to see to show solid progress.

7 wins would be enough to show progress, (back to back bowl seasons). 8 with an offense would be an insane improvement and put us on track to be a solid 8 win team year in and out going forward.

And without a lot more money for coaches, I think an 8 win program with some great seasons mixed in is about where Cal belongs.

---

I agree. That's why I said I want us to have a team that's good enough to have a shot at 9 or 10 wins, as opposed to a team from which we expect that kind of result. At this point, if we have a team that has an outside chance at having a great season if the stars align, that's progress - as well as something that will get the fanbase back.

It seemed to me that some who are criticizing this staff's recruiting performance are the ones with the unrealistic expectation, as in that we would have hauled in a class that instantly makes us a 10-win team next year and that JW & co. failed by not doing that.

---

As my dad said to me, "Falling in love with a rich girl is easy. Getting the rich girl to fall in love with you, is the hard part". Seems like recruiting is much the same...

Really (funny) interesting thread

GivemTheAxe said:

---

So while a 5-7 season equals a 5-7 season. That does NOT mean that JW inherited a 5-7 team. With all the expected departures, He inherited at best a 3-8 team.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with that. I just want to be realistic about what Wilcox has accomplished to date.

socalBear23 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

But isn't it frustrating to see Bama with the #1 class - yet again??? (I figured I better actually look this up, so I found Bama has been the number one recruiter 2013-2017, on average. So there you go.)

I just posted in the other thread that I don't understand why we don't encourage parity through a draft system based on rank with worst teams picking highest. Until then, I don't expect the top ten classes to go to any teams other than numbers 1-10 in the rankings, plus or minus.

---

This is great, then we could give everyone a participation trophy at the end. I do not recall, did Oregon finish in the top 10 this year? Top 25 even?

---

So the NFL, NBA and MLB give participation trophies then? Lame reply.

Oregon finished high and they also happen to have someone writing blank checks. Coincidence? Are the top 10 coaches in the country the highest paid? Almost certainly. Does Cal have the budget to crack the top 10 in pay? Not a chance.

But then the NFL, with its pro-parity draft structure, also utilizes a salary cap. Wait, what? Doesn't that reek of communism? Communist participation trophies then?

The NFL is a cartel, basic socialism - shared revenues and economic planning. They make more bucks with parity but that's much easier with a group of 32.

Another Bear said:

---

The NFL is a cartel, basic socialism - shared revenues and economic planning. They make more bucks with parity but that's much easier with a group of 32.

---

The NFL is helped by the sweet heart labor deal they secured. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next contract negotiations. The players will certainly fight back to regain some of the ground they lost...

packawana said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

I would be more impressed with the dramatic 5-7 to 7-5 turnaround if Baldwin's offense hadn't devolved into the worst offense in the conference and one of the worst in the country. And, it's not looking like 2019 will be much different. The offensive side of the ball is a dumpster fire. Why can't some of you guys see it?

Yes, Dykes' teams couldn't field a defense, that's no reason to give Wilcox a pass on the offense. You were so burned by your ex-GFs gambling problem, you're willing to give your current GF a pass on her cocaine addiction.

---

I think there exists a bias among dedicated Cal fans (who do tend to skew a certain demographic) about what kind of style of football they'd like to see the team play and a stifling defense with a medicore offense fits this bias more than the opposite.

---

Yes the demographic is called "the huge majority of fans who would consider attending games or watching on TV." As in, the paying customer.

The very small number of fans who like "stout defense and boring offense" are not paying the bills, and 7 wins isn't exactly a convincing argument for more of the same.

71Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The NFL is a cartel, basic socialism - shared revenues and economic planning. They make more bucks with parity but that's much easier with a group of 32.

---

The NFL is helped by the sweet heart labor deal they secured. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next contract negotiations. The players will certainly fight back to regain some of the ground they lost...

---

IIRC, the NFL is the only major professional sports league where player contracts are NOT guaranteed. One player called that out, that they want guaranteed contracts like the NBA. I believe that's the target and given there's no league without the players, that's going to be very interesting.

The NFL has also been able to hoodwink many cities/regions/states into coughing up public funds for stadiums.

Wilcox says the "s" word during the signing day press conference. It's awesome.

Don't worry everyone. Cal is on the 82 year plan to win another Rose Bowl so next season is when it will really happen. This is the recruiting class that pushes the team over the top. Just you wait and see.

GMP said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"Turn-arounds"?? That was the defense. The offense was #1 in the PAC-12 and #10 in the country "with a young OL" a "discarded transfer QB" and a "walk-on WR" as the star the year before, and loaded with young 4 and 5 star talent coming in at the skill positions.

---

It's well past time to start dismantling some of these myths.

In 2016, Cal's offense was:

• 3rd in points per game
• 1st in yardage per game, but only 6th per play
• 5th in passer efficiency

Dump that #1 offense myth. Yards per game don't mean you are the best, it just means your offense is on the field a lot. Mostly because your defense can't stop anyone. If we'd had that kind of offensive production this year, obviously we'd have done a lot better, but let's not pretend it was something it wasn't.

Furthermore, the loss of the grad transfer QB meant we were going to do a nosedive offensively the next year because Dykes hadn't recruited a single good QB while at Cal (and don't sell me that four star Max Gilliam bull**** - here's his actual numbers.)

The "young talented oline" you are touting wasn't good and never was. We were in the bottom half of the conference in yards per rush and our pass blocking was nothing to write home about either. But most of those guys were still here and getting competent coaching from our new o-line coach. If they were that great, we'd have seen it.

Quote:

---

4 or 5 star players at every skill position

---

Were you expecting Garbers to start last year? I've already shown you that Gilliam sucks.

Robertson and Stovall got hurt, so they had no chance to be productive last year. Same with Watson. Healthy this year, he ran for 600 yards at 4.2 ypc. Meh.

So now that we've eliminated all the guys that were hurt, who are these remaining 4 and 5 star players you were expecting to be so productive?

---

Fine, forget yards, we went from 3rd in the PAC-12 in scoring to last. We went from 22nd in the nation in scoring to 112th, and if you take away defensive scores, our offense is probably last or close to last in the country scoring. The Holmoe offenses were ranked higher. The J Torchio offense, the Justin Vedder offenses, were never last in the country.

---

All of these are terrible measures of an offense. Dykes made a career out of fooling people with big yardage and point totals, and kept people thinking for years, "Geeze, if he could just get a guy to coach up that defense." The point/yardage totals are a mirage - his offense was good, not great, with two high round NFL draft QBs. Look at the efficiency numbers. Look at his yards per play. Look at his points per play. All good, not great. Certainly not #1 in the conference. On top of all that, his offense put his defenses in impossible positions, and he simply didn't care, or doesn't realize it.

Quote:

---

All, I ask on offense is that we utilize the best players we have in the best way possible to put them in a position to succeed. I know we would not have a top offense, but I know we could have at least been mediocre, below average. Maybe around 8th in the PAC-12 and 70th in the nation? Do you really think that was too much to ask?

---

It's not too much to ask - but I know enough to know I don't know for sure if this is coaching or talent. My eyes tell me the separation by WRs is not good, the accuracy by QBs is not good, and the blocking by the oline is ok, not great. I also take into account the OC's track record of coaching offenses, including playing against Pac-12 teams with far superior talent, and logically conclude that our coach didn't suddenly forget how to do that, and it's a talent issue. But I could be wrong.

---

Few people on this site thought Goff was a "future NFL #1 pick" when he was made the starter as a freshmen. Most here thought Kline should be the starter. Most here thought of Webb the way they look at McIlwain and Modster, castoffs that got beat out at other programs.

There are slow teams all across the country. When the other team crowds the box and puts their WRs in single coverage, there are still ways a smart OC takes advantage of that and generates offense. Man defense is vulnerable to WR "rub" (pick) plays. No speed necessary. The outside WR runs behind the inside WR for the inside slant for an easy catch and run.

A team that crowds the box is vulnerable on the edges and vulnerable to play-action. About once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and then throw to a wide open McMorris in the flat. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would run a wheel route and throw to a wide open Laird down field. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and run Garbers outside for a good gain. A few times a game we would line up McMorris wide and run Laird behind him outside for a good gain. Get a defense that is crowding the box running laterally, then burn them with a reverse. We have all of the above in our playbook. The problem I see is that Baldwin seems to think they are gimmicks to be used once, instead of what should be the staple of the offense. McMorris needed to be a starter and play more than a couple times a game (if he got in at all).

As far the success of Eastern Washington's offense with Baldwin as HC, there is the strong possibility it was not Baldwin. It is two years after he left and EW's offense is now better than under Baldwin and currently leads the nation. From what I have observed at Cal, he had no answers so would put in McIlwain, hoping hero ball would bail him out. Maybe he had a great player at EW? We have seen guys like that beat Cal in early contests.

Maybe Modster or another QB bails him out and is successful with his vanilla rpo spread concepts. Hopefully Dancy or another back gets great yardage bouncing outside like Laird was able to do last year. If he stays, I hope so, because I want Wilcox to succeed, I want Cal football to succeed.

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"Turn-arounds"?? That was the defense. The offense was #1 in the PAC-12 and #10 in the country "with a young OL" a "discarded transfer QB" and a "walk-on WR" as the star the year before, and loaded with young 4 and 5 star talent coming in at the skill positions.

---

It's well past time to start dismantling some of these myths.

In 2016, Cal's offense was:

• 3rd in points per game
• 1st in yardage per game, but only 6th per play
• 5th in passer efficiency

Dump that #1 offense myth. Yards per game don't mean you are the best, it just means your offense is on the field a lot. Mostly because your defense can't stop anyone. If we'd had that kind of offensive production this year, obviously we'd have done a lot better, but let's not pretend it was something it wasn't.

Furthermore, the loss of the grad transfer QB meant we were going to do a nosedive offensively the next year because Dykes hadn't recruited a single good QB while at Cal (and don't sell me that four star Max Gilliam bull**** - here's his actual numbers.)

The "young talented oline" you are touting wasn't good and never was. We were in the bottom half of the conference in yards per rush and our pass blocking was nothing to write home about either. But most of those guys were still here and getting competent coaching from our new o-line coach. If they were that great, we'd have seen it.

Quote:

---

4 or 5 star players at every skill position

---

Were you expecting Garbers to start last year? I've already shown you that Gilliam sucks.

Robertson and Stovall got hurt, so they had no chance to be productive last year. Same with Watson. Healthy this year, he ran for 600 yards at 4.2 ypc. Meh.

So now that we've eliminated all the guys that were hurt, who are these remaining 4 and 5 star players you were expecting to be so productive?

---

Fine, forget yards, we went from 3rd in the PAC-12 in scoring to last. We went from 22nd in the nation in scoring to 112th, and if you take away defensive scores, our offense is probably last or close to last in the country scoring. The Holmoe offenses were ranked higher. The J Torchio offense, the Justin Vedder offenses, were never last in the country.

---

All of these are terrible measures of an offense. Dykes made a career out of fooling people with big yardage and point totals, and kept people thinking for years, "Geeze, if he could just get a guy to coach up that defense." The point/yardage totals are a mirage - his offense was good, not great, with two high round NFL draft QBs. Look at the efficiency numbers. Look at his yards per play. Look at his points per play. All good, not great. Certainly not #1 in the conference. On top of all that, his offense put his defenses in impossible positions, and he simply didn't care, or doesn't realize it.

Quote:

---

All, I ask on offense is that we utilize the best players we have in the best way possible to put them in a position to succeed. I know we would not have a top offense, but I know we could have at least been mediocre, below average. Maybe around 8th in the PAC-12 and 70th in the nation? Do you really think that was too much to ask?

---

It's not too much to ask - but I know enough to know I don't know for sure if this is coaching or talent. My eyes tell me the separation by WRs is not good, the accuracy by QBs is not good, and the blocking by the oline is ok, not great. I also take into account the OC's track record of coaching offenses, including playing against Pac-12 teams with far superior talent, and logically conclude that our coach didn't suddenly forget how to do that, and it's a talent issue. But I could be wrong.

---

Few people on this site thought Goff was a "future NFL #1 pick" when he was made the starter as a freshmen. Most here thought Kline should be the starter. Most here thought of Webb the way they look at McIlwain and Modster, castoffs that got beat out at other programs.

There are slow teams all across the country. When the other team crowds the box and puts their WRs in single coverage, there are still ways a smart OC takes advantage of that and generates offense. Man defense is vulnerable to WR "rub" (pick) plays. No speed necessary. The outside WR runs behind the inside WR for the inside slant for an easy catch and run.

A team that crowds the box is vulnerable on the edges and vulnerable to play-action. About once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and then throw to a wide open McMorris in the flat. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would run a wheel route and throw to a wide open Laird down field. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and run Garbers outside for a good gain. A few times a game we would line up McMorris wide and run Laird behind him outside for a good gain. Get a defense that is crowding the box running laterally, then burn them with a reverse. We have all of the above in our playbook. The problem I see is that Baldwin seems to think they are gimmicks to be used once, instead of what should be the staple of the offense. McMorris needed to be a starter and play more than a couple times a game (if he got in at all).

As far the success of Eastern Washington's offense with Baldwin as HC, there is the strong possibility it was not Baldwin. It is two years after he left and EW's offense is now better than under Baldwin and currently leads the nation. From what I have observed at Cal, he had no answers so would put in McIlwain, hoping hero ball would bail him out. Maybe he had a great player at EW? We have seen guys like that beat Cal in early contests.

Maybe Modster or another QB bails him out and is successful with his vanilla rpo spread concepts. Hopefully Dancy or another back gets great yardage bouncing outside like Laird was able to do last year. If he stays, I hope so, because I want Wilcox to succeed, I want Cal football to succeed.

---

1) To run reserves, wheels and PA you need a line which can provide an extra beat of pass protection. That wasn't this line.

2) I agree about McMorris. I would have loved to understand why not more and why not 2 man sets with him. He is a stud, everyone said he was a stud and he was very underused.

3) Pick plays work until they don't - and when you start getting flagged for 15 yards of PI. I would have to go back to the film and see if we just didn't run them or if we just didn't run them well.

4) I also am not a RPO fan but it is the current flavor of the month and I trust that people that spend 60 hours a week thinking about football know some things.

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"Turn-arounds"?? That was the defense. The offense was #1 in the PAC-12 and #10 in the country "with a young OL" a "discarded transfer QB" and a "walk-on WR" as the star the year before, and loaded with young 4 and 5 star talent coming in at the skill positions.

---

It's well past time to start dismantling some of these myths.

In 2016, Cal's offense was:

• 3rd in points per game
• 1st in yardage per game, but only 6th per play
• 5th in passer efficiency

Dump that #1 offense myth. Yards per game don't mean you are the best, it just means your offense is on the field a lot. Mostly because your defense can't stop anyone. If we'd had that kind of offensive production this year, obviously we'd have done a lot better, but let's not pretend it was something it wasn't.

Furthermore, the loss of the grad transfer QB meant we were going to do a nosedive offensively the next year because Dykes hadn't recruited a single good QB while at Cal (and don't sell me that four star Max Gilliam bull**** - here's his actual numbers.)

The "young talented oline" you are touting wasn't good and never was. We were in the bottom half of the conference in yards per rush and our pass blocking was nothing to write home about either. But most of those guys were still here and getting competent coaching from our new o-line coach. If they were that great, we'd have seen it.

Quote:

---

4 or 5 star players at every skill position

---

Were you expecting Garbers to start last year? I've already shown you that Gilliam sucks.

Robertson and Stovall got hurt, so they had no chance to be productive last year. Same with Watson. Healthy this year, he ran for 600 yards at 4.2 ypc. Meh.

So now that we've eliminated all the guys that were hurt, who are these remaining 4 and 5 star players you were expecting to be so productive?

---

Fine, forget yards, we went from 3rd in the PAC-12 in scoring to last. We went from 22nd in the nation in scoring to 112th, and if you take away defensive scores, our offense is probably last or close to last in the country scoring. The Holmoe offenses were ranked higher. The J Torchio offense, the Justin Vedder offenses, were never last in the country.

---

All of these are terrible measures of an offense. Dykes made a career out of fooling people with big yardage and point totals, and kept people thinking for years, "Geeze, if he could just get a guy to coach up that defense." The point/yardage totals are a mirage - his offense was good, not great, with two high round NFL draft QBs. Look at the efficiency numbers. Look at his yards per play. Look at his points per play. All good, not great. Certainly not #1 in the conference. On top of all that, his offense put his defenses in impossible positions, and he simply didn't care, or doesn't realize it.

Quote:

---

All, I ask on offense is that we utilize the best players we have in the best way possible to put them in a position to succeed. I know we would not have a top offense, but I know we could have at least been mediocre, below average. Maybe around 8th in the PAC-12 and 70th in the nation? Do you really think that was too much to ask?

---

It's not too much to ask - but I know enough to know I don't know for sure if this is coaching or talent. My eyes tell me the separation by WRs is not good, the accuracy by QBs is not good, and the blocking by the oline is ok, not great. I also take into account the OC's track record of coaching offenses, including playing against Pac-12 teams with far superior talent, and logically conclude that our coach didn't suddenly forget how to do that, and it's a talent issue. But I could be wrong.

---

Few people on this site thought Goff was a "future NFL #1 pick" when he was made the starter as a freshmen. Most here thought Kline should be the starter. Most here thought of Webb the way they look at McIlwain and Modster, castoffs that got beat out at other programs.

There are slow teams all across the country. When the other team crowds the box and puts their WRs in single coverage, there are still ways a smart OC takes advantage of that and generates offense. Man defense is vulnerable to WR "rub" (pick) plays. No speed necessary. The outside WR runs behind the inside WR for the inside slant for an easy catch and run.

A team that crowds the box is vulnerable on the edges and vulnerable to play-action. About once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and then throw to a wide open McMorris in the flat. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would run a wheel route and throw to a wide open Laird down field. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and run Garbers outside for a good gain. A few times a game we would line up McMorris wide and run Laird behind him outside for a good gain. Get a defense that is crowding the box running laterally, then burn them with a reverse. We have all of the above in our playbook. The problem I see is that Baldwin seems to think they are gimmicks to be used once, instead of what should be the staple of the offense. McMorris needed to be a starter and play more than a couple times a game (if he got in at all).

As far the success of Eastern Washington's offense with Baldwin as HC, there is the strong possibility it was not Baldwin. It is two years after he left and EW's offense is now better than under Baldwin and currently leads the nation. From what I have observed at Cal, he had no answers so would put in McIlwain, hoping hero ball would bail him out. Maybe he had a great player at EW? We have seen guys like that beat Cal in early contests.

Maybe Modster or another QB bails him out and is successful with his vanilla rpo spread concepts. Hopefully Dancy or another back gets great yardage bouncing outside like Laird was able to do last year. If he stays, I hope so, because I want Wilcox to succeed, I want Cal football to succeed.

---

1) To run reserves, wheels and PA you need a line which can provide an extra beat of pass protection. That wasn't this line.

2) I agree about McMorris. I would have loved to understand why not more and why not 2 man sets with him. He is a stud, everyone said he was a stud and he was very underused.

3) Pick plays work until they don't - and when you start getting flagged for 15 yards of PI. I would have to go back to the film and see if we just didn't run them or if we just didn't run them well.

4) I also am not a RPO fan but it is the current flavor of the month and I trust that people that spend 60 hours a week thinking about football know some things.

---

What was interesting was the extent to which our defense was able to fake coverages, baiting opposition QBs into making the wrong read, then changing the coverage or running a delayed blitz. Our defensive coaches were winning chess games with 2-star players like Weaver. Watching our defense play I thought "genius!", something I don't usually associate with defense. I never thought that watching our offense. On the rare occasions we would run play-action on first down, run behind McMorris outside or roll the QB outside the pocket and I'd think "Finally!"

In many ways, this is a silly thread. If someone posts that the failures on offense aren't all on the coaches, there is the inevitable reply: oh, so you're saying it's ALL players and coaches have nothing to do with it. This is supposed to be a forum of college graduates, who should be able to get beyond either/or thinking.

OTOH, there are some thoughtful posts here. I find myself agreeing with Yogi (not that common an occurrence) and SCT. IMO, we lacked speed, and that hampered the play calling. We also lacked an experienced QB who could make quick reads and deliver the ball on target (cue up some poster to say that there have been freshman QB's who have succeeded in the history of football, therefore any struggles of Garbers' must be 100% on BB). At the same time, there wasn't much evidence that play calling was such that it could minimize the impact of our weaknesses or maximize what strengths there were. Kind of a perfect storm.

As for the issue of improvementno doubt we can cherry-pick stats to show that Dykes was more successful than Wilcox, but I find it hard to believe that ANYONE seriously believes that beating SC in LA, beating UW (still ranked in the top-10, btw) and being competitive in just about every game (except UCLA) really isn't evidence for improvement.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"Turn-arounds"?? That was the defense. The offense was #1 in the PAC-12 and #10 in the country "with a young OL" a "discarded transfer QB" and a "walk-on WR" as the star the year before, and loaded with young 4 and 5 star talent coming in at the skill positions.

---

It's well past time to start dismantling some of these myths.

In 2016, Cal's offense was:

• 3rd in points per game
• 1st in yardage per game, but only 6th per play
• 5th in passer efficiency

Dump that #1 offense myth. Yards per game don't mean you are the best, it just means your offense is on the field a lot. Mostly because your defense can't stop anyone. If we'd had that kind of offensive production this year, obviously we'd have done a lot better, but let's not pretend it was something it wasn't.

Furthermore, the loss of the grad transfer QB meant we were going to do a nosedive offensively the next year because Dykes hadn't recruited a single good QB while at Cal (and don't sell me that four star Max Gilliam bull**** - here's his actual numbers.)

The "young talented oline" you are touting wasn't good and never was. We were in the bottom half of the conference in yards per rush and our pass blocking was nothing to write home about either. But most of those guys were still here and getting competent coaching from our new o-line coach. If they were that great, we'd have seen it.

Quote:

---

4 or 5 star players at every skill position

---

Were you expecting Garbers to start last year? I've already shown you that Gilliam sucks.

Robertson and Stovall got hurt, so they had no chance to be productive last year. Same with Watson. Healthy this year, he ran for 600 yards at 4.2 ypc. Meh.

So now that we've eliminated all the guys that were hurt, who are these remaining 4 and 5 star players you were expecting to be so productive?

---

Fine, forget yards, we went from 3rd in the PAC-12 in scoring to last. We went from 22nd in the nation in scoring to 112th, and if you take away defensive scores, our offense is probably last or close to last in the country scoring. The Holmoe offenses were ranked higher. The J Torchio offense, the Justin Vedder offenses, were never last in the country.

---

All of these are terrible measures of an offense. Dykes made a career out of fooling people with big yardage and point totals, and kept people thinking for years, "Geeze, if he could just get a guy to coach up that defense." The point/yardage totals are a mirage - his offense was good, not great, with two high round NFL draft QBs. Look at the efficiency numbers. Look at his yards per play. Look at his points per play. All good, not great. Certainly not #1 in the conference. On top of all that, his offense put his defenses in impossible positions, and he simply didn't care, or doesn't realize it.

Quote:

---

All, I ask on offense is that we utilize the best players we have in the best way possible to put them in a position to succeed. I know we would not have a top offense, but I know we could have at least been mediocre, below average. Maybe around 8th in the PAC-12 and 70th in the nation? Do you really think that was too much to ask?

---

It's not too much to ask - but I know enough to know I don't know for sure if this is coaching or talent. My eyes tell me the separation by WRs is not good, the accuracy by QBs is not good, and the blocking by the oline is ok, not great. I also take into account the OC's track record of coaching offenses, including playing against Pac-12 teams with far superior talent, and logically conclude that our coach didn't suddenly forget how to do that, and it's a talent issue. But I could be wrong.

---

Few people on this site thought Goff was a "future NFL #1 pick" when he was made the starter as a freshmen. Most here thought Kline should be the starter. Most here thought of Webb the way they look at McIlwain and Modster, castoffs that got beat out at other programs.

There are slow teams all across the country. When the other team crowds the box and puts their WRs in single coverage, there are still ways a smart OC takes advantage of that and generates offense. Man defense is vulnerable to WR "rub" (pick) plays. No speed necessary. The outside WR runs behind the inside WR for the inside slant for an easy catch and run.

A team that crowds the box is vulnerable on the edges and vulnerable to play-action. About once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and then throw to a wide open McMorris in the flat. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would run a wheel route and throw to a wide open Laird down field. No accuracy needed. Once a game we would fake Laird up the middle and run Garbers outside for a good gain. A few times a game we would line up McMorris wide and run Laird behind him outside for a good gain. Get a defense that is crowding the box running laterally, then burn them with a reverse. We have all of the above in our playbook. The problem I see is that Baldwin seems to think they are gimmicks to be used once, instead of what should be the staple of the offense. McMorris needed to be a starter and play more than a couple times a game (if he got in at all).

As far the success of Eastern Washington's offense with Baldwin as HC, there is the strong possibility it was not Baldwin. It is two years after he left and EW's offense is now better than under Baldwin and currently leads the nation. From what I have observed at Cal, he had no answers so would put in McIlwain, hoping hero ball would bail him out. Maybe he had a great player at EW? We have seen guys like that beat Cal in early contests.

Maybe Modster or another QB bails him out and is successful with his vanilla rpo spread concepts. Hopefully Dancy or another back gets great yardage bouncing outside like Laird was able to do last year. If he stays, I hope so, because I want Wilcox to succeed, I want Cal football to succeed.

---

1) To run reserves, wheels and PA you need a line which can provide an extra beat of pass protection. That wasn't this line.

2) I agree about McMorris. I would have loved to understand why not more and why not 2 man sets with him. He is a stud, everyone said he was a stud and he was very underused.

3) Pick plays work until they don't - and when you start getting flagged for 15 yards of PI. I would have to go back to the film and see if we just didn't run them or if we just didn't run them well.

4) I also am not a RPO fan but it is the current flavor of the month and I trust that people that spend 60 hours a week thinking about football know some things.

---

What was interesting was the extent to which our defense was able to fake coverages, baiting opposition QBs into making the wrong read, then changing the coverage or running a delayed blitz. Our defensive coaches were winning chess games with 2-star players like Weaver. Watching our defense play I thought "genius!", something I don't usually associate with defense. I never thought that watching our offense. On the rare occasions we would run play-action on first down, run behind McMorris outside or roll the QB outside the pocket and I'd think "Finally!"

---

Who had Weaver at 2-stars? You're basically right here; no need to alter history.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

Don't worry everyone. Cal is on the 82 year plan to win another Rose Bowl so next season is when it will really happen. This is the recruiting class that pushes the team over the top. Just you wait and see.

---

Haha

This is actually a really stupid thread....which I unfortunately got sucked into...

I like our recruits. Each one looks like a baller. Focus on what we do have. Total upgrade at QB with Modster-some speedier WRs, and a "#1 JC linebacker. The defense we had last year is no illusion. Most of it is back next year. If we can improve 30% on offense we will win 10 games next year. Then recruiting will improve. Be patient.

XXXBEAR said:

---

If we can improve 30% on offense we will win 10 games next year. Then recruiting will improve. Be patient.

---

It would be freaking amazeballs if we had a 10-win season next year. I would be quite happy.

UrsaMajor said:

---

I find myself agreeing with Yogi (not that common an occurrence)

---

Your loss, not mine

XXXBEAR said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

Don't worry everyone. Cal is on the 82 year plan to win another Rose Bowl so next season is when it will really happen. This is the recruiting class that pushes the team over the top. Just you wait and see.

---

Haha

This is actually a really stupid thread....which I unfortunately got sucked into...

I like our recruits. Each one looks like a baller. Focus on what we do have. Total upgrade at QB with Modster-some speedier WRs, and a "#1 JC linebacker. The defense we had last year is no illusion. Most of it is back next year. If we can improve 30% on offense we will win 10 games next year. Then recruiting will improve. Be patient.

---

Although this may HAVE BEEN a stupid thread, you certainly smartened it up with XXXBEAR's Postulate. It now may be less stupid than the "Sky is falling" thread (which lacks this sort of next-level analytics).

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

---

+1.

IMHO it is because there IS a ceiling on Air Raid systems (note in the postscript what i mean by this term)

1) It simply gases the defense. Because defensive players are reacting (and more of them get "hit" on a play they wear down faster on a per play basis than the offense. When you are trying to get off plays every 15 seconds it means your defense is out on the field VERY often and very quickly. Over the course of a game and a season that just makes you awful on D and inevitably you start losing games 52-38.

2) College football BOTH allows you to score quickly AND to run the clock out. So air raid offenses that fall behind are vulnerable to the soul crushing 80 yard 10 minutes off the clock drive. But since they don't run the rock effectively THEY can't do the same. Think about how many times in Sonny's tenure we would have a lead in the 4th quarter and then score quick (or even worse punt after 15 seconds ran off) and give the rock back. Then contrast with F'ing DaviD Shaw and the patented 4th quarter Cal killing drive.

3) The better the Db's the worse the air raid. Pac-12 has generally had pretty decent Defensive backs. Not sure it is the premiere conference for them but definately one of them. HS ball in California has a LOT of passing compared to some other regions where weather encourages a less pass happy system. This translates then to the college recruiting pool. When you have good DBs/LB (think Shaq Thompson) you have guys that can make plays in space and limit the RAC. When you play University of Dayton, probably not so much.

Air Raid - a Pass first UPTEMPO system. An important contrast is with Chip's spread offense that is, which many people don't get, a RUN first offense that is VERY capable of soul killing 10 minute 80 yard drives (unless you can't tackle the guy on the edge)

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

---

+1 to all of this. Us beating WSU last year and UW and USC (in their house) this year automatically set this regime apart from the last one. And yeah, you definitely got the feeling that our 8-5 year in 2015 with a once-in-a generation QB was as good as it would ever get under the last regime.

I can't fault Sonny too much, especially considering the unexpected personal circumstances that understandably made him want to return to TX. I just think it's clear we're in better hands now.

What is the difference between an air raid offense and a spread type offense?

510 Bear said:

---

edg64 said:

---

Many fans expressing disappointment in the initial LOI signings.


Let us not forget - Wilcox took over a no-name, smelly, stinky, embarrassing dumpster fire

AND

and in only 2 years, turned it into a 7-5, bowl eligible, competitive group of no-names. I like the direction

---

I do too. To anyone who's all "we suck and can't recruit", I humbly suggest you consider that it's not 2009 anymore. Cal is coming off of a long stretch of mediocrity. What kind of overnight recruiting miracle did you realistically expect? Yeah, we needed to have a way better class to close the gap with furd, Oregon, UW, USC, etc. RIGHT NOW, but again, is it being realistic to say JW & co should have made that happen?

All you can ask for at this point is for us to have a shot at 9-3 or 10-2 next year, and we've got one with this group and a HC who seems adept at getting guys to play over their heads.

Note: my optimism is based more on the newcomers on O making an impact right away rather than existing guys somehow turning things around. I'm hoping we'll hear "Modster to Clark for the TD!" a bunch next fall, especially against UCLA.

---

I don't have a problem with the quality of this recruiting class. If Cal has a good season next year, I would expect a MUCH better class. As Bruce Snyder (whose first winning season also didn't produce a very good recruiting class) would say, this is the "sizzle before the steak." My issue is with the balance and whether recruiters on each side of the ball are pulling their weight.

510 Bear said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

---

+1 to all of this. Us beating WSU last year and UW and USC (in their house) this year automatically set this regime apart from the last one. And yeah, you definitely got the feeling that our 8-5 year in 2015 with a once-in-a generation QB was as good as it would ever get under the last regime.

I can't fault Sonny too much, especially considering the unexpected personal circumstances that understandably made him want to return to TX. I just think it's clear we're in better hands now.

---

And even some of the former coaches know that. But I don't think that is the issue ( if there really is one at all)

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

---

NOBODY is talking about Dykes except the people who are apologizing for Baldwin!

NOBODY who is critical of Cal's offense under Baldwin - and the recruiting, and the player development - is talking about Dykes. Only the people who want those critics to shut up are talking.

Wilcox got an extension. I've heard nothing but praise for that decision. We have a new AD. I've heard nothing but good things about this change. NOBODY is pining away for the "good ol' days" of Sandy Barbour and Sonny Dykes.

You might hear some people pining for Tedford because, well, he's taken a much worse team than the one Wilcox inherited and made it a considerably better team than even this much-improved team, with less talent than Cal has. If that bothers some people, deal with it. Facts are facts. That doesn't mean anyone is saying "fire Wilcox," but to say Cal couldn't be doing any better than this is absurd.

Cal could be doing better, much better. Heck, a mediocre offense that could take care of the football would have had *this* team in striking distance for a Rose Bowl. Instead, Cal has an elite defense that is being squandered by an exceptionally poor offense. We have eyeballs, we can see things. A lot of us have been around the block a long time and have never seen an Cal offense this bad. Pointing it out and holding the coaches accountable is reasonable.

The fact that the defense with this talent has been able to improve so remarkably in such a short time is proof that the offense is badly under-performing. The offense has the same level of talent, there's really no excuse for such a dramatic drop-off in performance. Not just from 2016 to 2018, but even from 2017 to 2018, in every aspect, the offense has badly regressed. Like it or not, that's a reflection of poor coaching. Just as JT has been able to resurrect Fresno State (and did at Cal, too), and just as JW resurrected the defense, a competent OC can at least hold the line on offensive production, that's a bare minimum.

That has nothing to do with Dykes (except that he too was a poor coach overall, so serves as an example) and everything to so with the team on the field right now and the coaches responsible. It's entirely consistent to say the team overall is improving and the offensive side is failing. In fact that's a very accurate description of the current condition of Cal football. Even a halfway decent offense and Cal would be in knocking on the door of the top 10 in the nation, that's how much the offense if holding the team back from its potential.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

You were so burned by your ex-GFs gambling problem, you're willing to give your current GF a pass on her cocaine addiction

---

What do you have against gambling and cocaine?

socaltownie said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

---

+1.

IMHO it is because there IS a ceiling on Air Raid systems (note in the postscript what i mean by this term)

1) It simply gases the defense. Because defensive players are reacting (and more of them get "hit" on a play they wear down faster on a per play basis than the offense. When you are trying to get off plays every 15 seconds it means your defense is out on the field VERY often and very quickly. Over the course of a game and a season that just makes you awful on D and inevitably you start losing games 52-38.

2) College football BOTH allows you to score quickly AND to run the clock out. So air raid offenses that fall behind are vulnerable to the soul crushing 80 yard 10 minutes off the clock drive. But since they don't run the rock effectively THEY can't do the same. Think about how many times in Sonny's tenure we would have a lead in the 4th quarter and then score quick (or even worse punt after 15 seconds ran off) and give the rock back. Then contrast with F'ing DaviD Shaw and the patented 4th quarter Cal killing drive.

3) The better the Db's the worse the air raid. Pac-12 has generally had pretty decent Defensive backs. Not sure it is the premiere conference for them but definately one of them. HS ball in California has a LOT of passing compared to some other regions where weather encourages a less pass happy system. This translates then to the college recruiting pool. When you have good DBs/LB (think Shaq Thompson) you have guys that can make plays in space and limit the RAC. When you play University of Dayton, probably not so much.

Air Raid - a Pass first UPTEMPO system. An important contrast is with Chip's spread offense that is, which many people don't get, a RUN first offense that is VERY capable of soul killing 10 minute 80 yard drives (unless you can't tackle the guy on the edge)

---

I like balanced offense, the versatility of TEs, the beauty of a great running play, but WSU just won 10 games and almost made the BCS despite being one of the worst situated schools in the country.

Our first year under Baldwin we were one of two teams in the PAC-12 that passed more than we ran. This year it was only all the running by QBs that tipped the balance the other way. We still threw more than we ran our RBs. We barely played McMorris. The fact is, Baldwin, both at EWU and at Cal, runs a spread, pass-first offense.

Uthaithani said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

---

NOBODY is talking about Dykes except the people who are apologizing for Baldwin!

NOBODY who is critical of Cal's offense under Baldwin - and the recruiting, and the player development - is talking about Dykes. Only the people who want those critics to shut up are talking.

Wilcox got an extension. I've heard nothing but praise for that decision. We have a new AD. I've heard nothing but good things about this change. NOBODY is pining away for the "good ol' days" of Sandy Barbour and Sonny Dykes.

You might hear some people pining for Tedford because, well, he's taken a much worse team than the one Wilcox inherited and made it a considerably better team than even this much-improved team, with less talent than Cal has. If that bothers some people, deal with it. Facts are facts. That doesn't mean anyone is saying "fire Wilcox," but to say Cal couldn't be doing any better than this is absurd.

Cal could be doing better, much better. Heck, a mediocre offense that could take care of the football would have had *this* team in striking distance for a Rose Bowl. Instead, Cal has an elite defense that is being squandered by an exceptionally poor offense. We have eyeballs, we can see things. A lot of us have been around the block a long time and have never seen an Cal offense this bad. Pointing it out and holding the coaches accountable is reasonable.

The fact that the defense with this talent has been able to improve so remarkably in such a short time is proof that the offense is badly under-performing. The offense has the same level of talent, there's really no excuse for such a dramatic drop-off in performance. Not just from 2016 to 2018, but even from 2017 to 2018, in every aspect, the offense has badly regressed. Like it or not, that's a reflection of poor coaching. Just as JT has been able to resurrect Fresno State (and did at Cal, too), and just as JW resurrected the defense, a competent OC can at least hold the line on offensive production, that's a bare minimum.

That has nothing to do with Dykes (except that he too was a poor coach overall, so serves as an example) and everything to so with the team on the field right now and the coaches responsible. It's entirely consistent to say the team overall is improving and the offensive side is failing. In fact that's a very accurate description of the current condition of Cal football. Even a halfway decent offense and Cal would be in knocking on the door of the top 10 in the nation, that's how much the offense if holding the team back from its potential.

---

Disagree that JT took over a worse team.
He had a senior QB who had been highly touted when recruited. He also had a number of good WRs. And a better OLine.
JW had a rookie QB who had no starting experience. He had a terrible OLine. And a terrible defense.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

Are there things Wilcox could improve? Of course. He's not a finished product. Give him some time and the difference between him and Sonny will become more apparent with time.

---

NOBODY is talking about Dykes except the people who are apologizing for Baldwin!

NOBODY who is critical of Cal's offense under Baldwin - and the recruiting, and the player development - is talking about Dykes. Only the people who want those critics to shut up are talking.

Wilcox got an extension. I've heard nothing but praise for that decision. We have a new AD. I've heard nothing but good things about this change. NOBODY is pining away for the "good ol' days" of Sandy Barbour and Sonny Dykes.

You might hear some people pining for Tedford because, well, he's taken a much worse team than the one Wilcox inherited and made it a considerably better team than even this much-improved team, with less talent than Cal has. If that bothers some people, deal with it. Facts are facts. That doesn't mean anyone is saying "fire Wilcox," but to say Cal couldn't be doing any better than this is absurd.

Cal could be doing better, much better. Heck, a mediocre offense that could take care of the football would have had *this* team in striking distance for a Rose Bowl. Instead, Cal has an elite defense that is being squandered by an exceptionally poor offense. We have eyeballs, we can see things. A lot of us have been around the block a long time and have never seen an Cal offense this bad. Pointing it out and holding the coaches accountable is reasonable.

The fact that the defense with this talent has been able to improve so remarkably in such a short time is proof that the offense is badly under-performing. The offense has the same level of talent, there's really no excuse for such a dramatic drop-off in performance. Not just from 2016 to 2018, but even from 2017 to 2018, in every aspect, the offense has badly regressed. Like it or not, that's a reflection of poor coaching. Just as JT has been able to resurrect Fresno State (and did at Cal, too), and just as JW resurrected the defense, a competent OC can at least hold the line on offensive production, that's a bare minimum.

That has nothing to do with Dykes (except that he too was a poor coach overall, so serves as an example) and everything to so with the team on the field right now and the coaches responsible. It's entirely consistent to say the team overall is improving and the offensive side is failing. In fact that's a very accurate description of the current condition of Cal football. Even a halfway decent offense and Cal would be in knocking on the door of the top 10 in the nation, that's how much the offense if holding the team back from its potential.

---

Disagree that JT took over a worse team.
He had a senior QB who had been highly touted when recruited. He also had a number of good WRs. And a better OLine.
JW had a rookie QB who had no starting experience. He had a terrible OLine. And a terrible defense.

---

You can't have it both ways. We only know the players JT inherited were good after the fact, after he coached them up. In 2001 they looked terrible, nearly losing every game. Boller was a wreck, worse off than a rookie. Similarly, we now know the defensive players Wilcox inherited were great, they just needed to be coached up. Dykes and Baldwin both inherited highly rated freshmen QBs...

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

---

---

I like balanced offense, the versatility of TEs, the beauty of a great running play, but WSU just won 10 games and almost made the BCS despite being one of the worst situated schools in the country.

Our first year under Baldwin we were one of two teams in the PAC-12 that passed more than we ran. This year it was only all the running by QBs that tipped the balance the other way. We still threw more than we ran our RBs. We barely played McMorris. The fact is, Baldwin, both at EWU and at Cal, runs a spread, pass-first offense.

---

This can't be true. I read BI, and I see that BB ran Laird up the middle on 90% of the plays...

Lol

UrsaMajor said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

I understand the comparison of Wilcox being the inverse of Dykes since there's been a stark change between offense and defensive production. Almost night and day.

But I find the comparison to be really lazy work. It's what you might hear on some Pac-12 amateur broadcast from people who didn't watch our games and tries to understand our team strictly from a stat sheet.

Overall, this team is different. The fundamentals are better. We've broken streaks and continue to deliver upsets. Team chemistry seems way better. Coaching staff has generally a good pedigree and seems to be following a plan.

With Sonny, I always felt his ceiling was 7/8 wins if things lined up for him. With a little more time, I think 7 wins could be Wilcox's floor. His ceiling is definitely higher.

I see Wilcox building for the long term. Sonny was always trying to max out results to peak before he left.

Lastly, Sonny just never really gave me the vibe of a winner. Yeah, this is purely subjective. Maybe it's because he looked so lost, hopeless and not in control that first year. Maybe it was the way he complained like a child during games, blowing his top. Maybe it was his endless search for a new job, even after we reupped with him. He seemed more like a soft opportunist than a dependable leader.

---

---

I like balanced offense, the versatility of TEs, the beauty of a great running play, but WSU just won 10 games and almost made the BCS despite being one of the worst situated schools in the country.

Our first year under Baldwin we were one of two teams in the PAC-12 that passed more than we ran. This year it was only all the running by QBs that tipped the balance the other way. We still threw more than we ran our RBs. We barely played McMorris. The fact is, Baldwin, both at EWU and at Cal, runs a spread, pass-first offense.

---

This can't be true. I read BI, and I see that BB ran Laird up the middle on 90% of the plays...

---

Lol, run, pass, pass, punt = more pass attempts than runs