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.

---

JT had Boller who had a 5 star arm. He also had a playmaker in LaShaun Ward. Igber was a nice tailback. The O line was good. The D had some solid players many of whom were good enough to be on a Top 10 team in 2004.

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.

---

Could be wrong but I believe Uthaithani was talking about Tedford taking over Fresno.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

So why don't you enlighten us all, smart guy? What are these invisible core factors that can only be perceived by football gods like you?

---

I have consistently defended Baldwin this year, and think I owe an explanation as to why. I've never met him, but do like what I think he's trying to do with the offense, based only on what I've seen at games. I also believe that coaches do know & account for almost everything fans come up with, and that is a bias of mine based on my experience as I've worked coordinating film for an excellent HS team for the last six years.

And, well, you did ask . . .

I believe that in the longer run (3-4 years) responsibility for performance shifts from the players to the coaches. In the shorter run (1-2 years), responsibility rests more with the players when a new coaching staff takes over a program. Here is why.

Football is largely a "numbers" game - which side can bring the most numbers to the point of attack on any given play, offense or defense?

The offense starts with 10, since the ball handler (QB, RB with the ball) can not block since they have the ball. Of course the defenses start with a one man advantage, 11. If the QB does not a actively block after handing off the ball, the defensive advantage goes to 11 to 9.

Think of the field as a division of thirds (hash line to sideline on each side, hash line to hash line in the middle). The offense is trying to equalize the defensive/offensive numbers in usually one of these sections.

Offensive plays & schemes utlize plays that force defenders to move laterally (side to side) which is the most difficult thing for a defender to do.

Offensive plays & schemes also force defenders to make decisions about where to go, resulting in a split second of indecision by a defensive player, which often results in his not getting to the point of attack in time to affect the play.

Offensive plays & schemes utilize deception (often by the guards) to fool defensive players into attacking at the wrong point.

All of this is targeted at evening the 11 to 10 or 9 defensive number advantage, since an equal number of players at the point of attack on each side swings the advantage to the offense (again, we're not counting the player with the ball).

The history of football can be viewed as a series of new offensive schemes designed to equalize numbers of offensive players to defensive players at the point of attack. And the innovation of defensive schemes designed to retain the numerical advantage.

Spread offenses attempt to "eqalize" numbers by overloading a "1/3" section of the field with receivers to equalize numbers or by forcing defensive players to vacate a section of the field in order to cover receivers.

By the way, in 1981 Roger Theder hired Mouse Davis to install the precursor to the Spread, Davis' Run & Shoot offense. For one glorious half against Texas A&M, we racked up 28 points, and then our QB, Gale Gilbert was injured. His replacement, J. Torcio, simply could not execute the Run & Shoot. We lost that game 29-28 as the R&S floundered, and with Gilbert's loss, the rest of that season and Roger Theder's time as HC came to a losing end. See https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2013/9/6/4692044/bear-raid-record-breaking-portland-state.

[An OT aside: I was a veteran sales guy at Xerox when a "J. Torcio" was hired in a rookie group. I left to strike out for Silicon Valley riches shortly thereafter. Never did hit a good stake in gold, but not for lack of trying. That's another OT story].

Bill Walsh's West Coast offense (utilized by Teford while he was at Cal) gives receivers the option of changing their route depending upon how the defensive players react, with the QB reading the same keys & therefore knowing where to throw the ball. It was initially very successful as it equalized numbers in the 1/3 sections of the field where receivers the QB were targeting seams of zone defenses. (Apologies to Coach Teddy & Walsh for this simplification.) The complexity of this approach is why Walsh sat Joe Montana for 1 1/2 seasons in his initial time at the 49ers to give him time to learn, and why Tedford's QBs often struggled early on.

Dykes offenses were the classic spread. One weakness of the classic spread is that the length of time the offense is on the field is considerably shorter than traditional drop back pass/run offenses, forcing the defense onto the field much more that is "normal."
This happened quite a bit at Cal. This lead to fatigue on the defense, which slowed reaction time, inreased fatigue & increased too much decision making by Cal's beleaguered defensive players when faced with good offensive schemes & talented players (in other words, every week).

Generally, both offensive and defensive schemes attempt to "hide" weaker players. (Interestingly, the Cover 2 defense (both safeties back) is a difficult defense in which to hide weaker players). One reason film work is so important is that it can reveal where these weaker players are "hiding." The defense can "ignore" or minimize as assignments to account for weaker offensive players, or attack them directly when the weaker player is on the OL, thereby increasing it's numerical advantage at the point of attack. This year, we saw defenses playing man coverage against Cal, betting that 1:1 coverage of each Cal receiver would be sufficient to stifle passing plays, which usually worked all year. This freed the other defensive players to maintain their numerical advantage at the point of attack. (It will be interesting to see what adjustments are in place for the Horned Frog game).

The offense can specifically attack weaker defensive players, thereby equalizing or tilting the numerical advantage to it's favor. This is why you see NFL teams immediately attacking subs coming in for an injured player.

Baldwin's offense is a hybrid of the spread & "traditional" West Coast, with variations favoring the spread approach. It is more complicated than the "traditional spread" imho. In the Pac-12, defenses have "caught up" to the classic spread, so I favor this scheme in the longer run for Cal.

One criticism I see a lot on BI of Baldwin is that he calls too many run plays into an "overloaded box."

Here is just one example of how Baldwin's offense has intended to work this year, where these runs are meant to set up a good yardage pass while retaining possession and advancing the ball.

Wilcox's game plans this year called for the offense to minimize turnovers (duh!, but indulge me). Since 10 yards results in a first down, gains of 3, 3, 4 yards allows Cal to advance the 10 yards, retaining the ball. With 1-3 touchdowns & a stout defense, we were aiming to be at least close in the 4th Quarter. It worked seven times, which is remarkable imho.

In these running plays, all 7-8 players in "the box" are accounted for schematically, with a gain of 3-4 yards targeted. Crucially, here, our coaches "upstairs" are reporting on how the "key" defensive players are reacting on these plays - as expected from film study or in some other way. Btw, Baldwin & Wilcox are intending to advance the ball with these run plays. Breakdowns along the OL are the usual cause of not gaining the requisite 3-4 yards.

A coach will often see, in film, defensive players reacting a consistent way to similar runs, and Baldwin is establishing a familiar pattern in the game for their reactions. At a point in the game where down & distance permit a reasonable risk, Baldwin will calll for a "play action" pass where the OL blocks as if it is the now familiar run play, the defensive players react instantly to seeing the guards & their keys signalling "run" while our receivers execute options in their routes to eqalize or tilt numbers in their section of the field, while our QB also reads the route options to deliver the ball for a nice gain.

Some of the defensive players may "see" the deception, but the split second time of indecision forces them to be too late to stop the play.

All of this is usually well analyzed during film study and practiced during the week. (I definitely saw this sequence during the Stanford game, but Garbers misdelivered the ball, which stalled a good drive).

Here is where things can go wrong on this imagined play, after these frustrating runs into the overloaded box:
- One of our OL players may deviate a 1/2 step from his assignment, for a variety of reasons, thereby allowing a defensive player more latitude than the play scheme allows. This is almost never seen by fans during the game.
- Our QB and/or receivers may misread one of the option route keys.
- The defense may react in an unexpected way, forcing inexperienced offensive players (OL, QB & Receivers) into indecision for a split second. This eliminates the planned numerical advantage at the point of attack.
- A player may make a physical mistake, or be defeated by the defensive player(s) even though he is doing everything right.

As noted above, I believe that Baldwin's offense is more complex than a traditional spread offense, taking at least 2 years for an offensive team "to learn," especially the OL & QB.

Imho, OL talent & development takes longer than virtually any other position group (except QB) to get up to speed. Keep this argument "on the sideline" for the moment.

While the team was going from year one to year two in Baldwin's offense, we lost our experienced starting QB (Bowers) just as the first game prep week started. Clearly, at this point, imho we simply did not have a QB ready to take over immediately. Bowers was an entire year of experience ahead of Garbers & McIlwain. The difficulty presented at this point cannot be overstated.

Is it the fault of Baldwin that Garbers/McIlwain were not "ready?" In one respect, yes, it is, since ultimate responsibly for performance in the longer run always rests with the coaches in D1 football.

But, in a crucial way, imho, there was little, if anything Baldwin could have done about this. While Garbers when through his redshirt first year in 2017, I think he was assessed to have more talent than Bowers, but must have struggled to be pick-up Baldwin's offense, which is why Bowers was always one rank ahead of Garbers on the depth chart. McIlwain clearly has great running ability, which helps equalize numbers on most plays at the point of attack, but obviously struggles both to master pass route trees, and then struggles to consistently deliver the ball accurately.

A friend, who has been a defensive coordinator for 13+ years at the HS level, told me by by the second quarter of the Idaho State game, he could see why Baldwin was so tempted to give McIlwain more than a full audition during the season. He made the same comment during the first quarter of the Stanford game. It has been clear that Garbers has continued to struggle with Baldwin's offense this year.

That Wilcox & Baldwin recruited Devon Modster (rather than use that slot for another freshman QB) tells me they are still unsure about whether Garbers will ever master Baldwin's offense. Not good obviously. We all want Garbers to succeed, and this has nothing to do with his being a fine young man & a great Bear. He is not shrinking from the battle, and that counts for a lot in my book.

Back to the OL. ANY offensive scheme faulters when OL play is not up to par. Don't forget that we started three (3) walk-on OLmen and a true freshman in the Standford game.

This tells us several facts:
- Cal did not have enough scholarship veteran OL players able to step in when the OL usual injuries took place this year.
- Why not? It takes 2-3 years for incoming freshmen OL players to develop physically, and Dykes simply "left the cupboard bare" of OL players ready to step in.
-The teamwork techniques between OL players is much more complex than most fans realize, and takes many many reps to develop.
- Lack of OL depth has been an issue at Cal for a long time, responsible for holding back our best offenses before,during and after Tedford's years.
- Steve Greatwood is being counted upon to turn the OL be into a top notch group. Imho I look for that to happen in two more years, 2020. & 2021.

Wilcox knew all this when he hired Baldwin. Imho Wilcox believes that in order to compete at the very highest levels, a "traditional" spread offense is not adequate. And that while Baldwin's offense is more complex than the traditonal spread, it will serve us well as Wilcox builds a program that can compete at the highest levels year after year for the reasons noted above.

A common criticism leveled at Baldwin is that Wilcox's development of the defense in such a short time frame is proof of Baldwin's shortcomings. I disagree because:
- For reasons notes above, the "natural" numerical advantage is on the side of the defense.
- Good DL play is fairly simple against what is required for good OL play.
- Same for each position group on defense vs. offense. Each defensive player has a straight foward read/react or attack assignment on each play, which is usually a variation of the overall defensive scheme & is usually dictated by field position.
- Therefore it is much "easier" (faster) to put in a good defensive scheme that "hides" weaker players than a more complicated offensive scheme.

All of this said, while Wilcox believes in what Baldwin is doing, I fully expect that Baldwin understands that year three must show an entire level of offensive improvement, and the year after next should show an offense at the "top" levels of the conference in terms performance.

I'm thinking Wilcox has sold Knowlton & Christ that we will have both a top notch offense & defense in two more years, which is evidenced by Wilcox's contract rewrite, and the $600K additional money to retain assistant coaches.

In summary, I think that most of the offensive issues this year spring from Wilcox, Greatwood & Baldwin not have enough time to develop the OL, Bowers unexpected injury, Garbers difficulty in mastering the offense, thin receicer depth, McIlwain's passing deficiency - in short, players not performing up to par after 1 1/2 years at this point of working in Baldwin's offense.

After this year's class arrives this next Fall in full, Baldwin will working on his third year with his offense, so there had better be improvement.

While Wilcox strikes me as a man willing to be patient with the offense this year, he does not strike me as willing to go on at this level of offensive performance beyond this year.

I'm hoping critics of all this come at me with sound football knowledge rather dismissal with name calling. I'll respond to legitimate criticism, because it's fun & I'm always learning, and my views will be improved.

Bear19 said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

So why don't you enlighten us all, smart guy? What are these invisible core factors that can only be perceived by football gods like you?

---

Well, since you asked. . .

Football is largely a "numbers" game - which side can bring the most numbers to the point of attack on any given play, offense or defense?

The offense starts with 10, since the ball handler (QB, RB with the ball) usually can not participate as a blocker. Of course the defenses start with a one man advantage, 11. (Teams that feature a running/actively blocking QB risk injury, which given the size & speed of today's defenses players happens all too often when).

Offensive plays & schemes utlize plays will force defenders to move laterally (side to side) which is the most difficult thing for a defender to do.

Offensive plays & schemes force defenders to make decisions about where to go, resulting in a split second of indecision by a defensive player.

Offensive plays & schemes utilize deception (often by the guards) to fool defensive players into attacking at the wrong point.

All of this is targeted at evening the 11 to 10 defensive number advantage, since an equal number of players at the point of attack on each side swings the advantage to the offense.

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

So why don't you enlighten us all, smart guy? What are these invisible core factors that can only be perceived by football gods like you?

---

Well, since you asked. . .

Football is largely a "numbers" game - which side can bring the most numbers to the point of attack on any given play, offense or defense?

The offense starts with 10, since the ball handler (QB, RB with the ball) usually can not participate as a blocker. Of course the defenses start with a one man advantage, 11. (Teams that feature a running/actively blocking QB risk injury, which given the size & speed of today's defenses players happens all too often when).

Offensive plays & schemes utlize plays will force defenders to move laterally (side to side) which is the most difficult thing for a defender to do.

Offensive plays & schemes force defenders to make decisions about where to go, resulting in a split second of indecision by a defensive player.

Offensive plays & schemes utilize deception (often by the guards) to fool defensive players into attacking at the wrong point.

All of this is targeted at evening the 11 to 10 defensive number advantage, since an equal number of players at the point of attack on each side swings the advantage to the offense.

---

---

Yogi, other than disagreeing with me, where am I wrong? (I had to post in sections, so you missed the rest of the post).

Bear19 said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

So why don't you enlighten us all, smart guy? What are these invisible core factors that can only be perceived by football gods like you?

---

I have consistently defended Baldwin this year, and think I owe an explanation as to why. I've never met him, but do like what I think he's trying to do with the offense, based only on what I've seen at games. I also believe that coaches do know & account for almost everything fans come up with, and that is a bias of mine based on my experience as I've worked coordinating film for an excellent HS team for the last six years.

And, well, you did ask . . .

I believe that in the longer run (3-4 years) responsibility for performance shifts from the players to the coaches. In the shorter run (1-2 years), responsibility rests more with the players when a new coaching staff takes over a program. Here is why.

Football is largely a "numbers" game - which side can bring the most numbers to the point of attack on any given play, offense or defense?

The offense starts with 10, since the ball handler (QB, RB with the ball) can not block since they have the ball. Of course the defenses start with a one man advantage, 11. If the QB does not a actively block after handing off the ball, the defensive advantage goes to 11 to 9.

Think of the field as a division of thirds (hash line to sideline on each side, hash line to hash line in the middle). The offense is trying to equalize the defensive/offensive numbers in usually one of these sections.

Offensive plays & schemes utlize plays that force defenders to move laterally (side to side) which is the most difficult thing for a defender to do.

Offensive plays & schemes also force defenders to make decisions about where to go, resulting in a split second of indecision by a defensive player, which often results in his not getting to the point of attack in time to affect the play.

Offensive plays & schemes utilize deception (often by the guards) to fool defensive players into attacking at the wrong point.

All of this is targeted at evening the 11 to 10 or 9 defensive number advantage, since an equal number of players at the point of attack on each side swings the advantage to the offense (again, we're not counting the player with the ball).

The history of football can be viewed as a series of new offensive schemes designed to equalize numbers of offensive players to defensive players at the point of attack. And the innovation of defensive schemes designed to retain the numerical advantage.

Spread offenses attempt to "eqalize" numbers by overloading a "1/3" section of the field with receivers to equalize numbers or by forcing defensive players to vacate a section of the field in order to cover receivers.

By the way, in 1981 Roger Theder hired Mouse Davis to install the precursor to the Spread, Davis' Run & Shoot offense. For one glorious half against Texas A&M, we racked up 28 points, and then our QB, Gale Gilbert was injured. His replacement, J. Torcio, simply could not execute the Run & Shoot. We lost that game 29-28 as the R&S floundered, and with Gilbert's loss, the rest of that season and Roger Theder's time as HC came to a losing end. See https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2013/9/6/4692044/bear-raid-record-breaking-portland-state.

[An OT aside: I was a veteran sales guy at Xerox when a "J. Torcio" was hired in a rookie group. I left to strike out for Silicon Valley riches shortly thereafter. Never did hit a good stake in gold, but not for lack of trying. That's another OT story].

Bill Walsh's West Coast offense (utilized by Teford while he was at Cal) gives receivers the option of changing their route depending upon how the defensive players react, with the QB reading the same keys & therefore knowing where to throw the ball. It was initially very successful as it equalized numbers in the 1/3 sections of the field where receivers the QB were targeting seams of zone defenses. (Apologies to Coach Teddy & Walsh for this simplification.) The complexity of this approach is why Walsh sat Joe Montana for 1 1/2 seasons in his initial time at the 49ers to give him time to learn, and why Tedford's QBs often struggled early on.

Dykes offenses were the classic spread. One weakness of the classic spread is that the length of time the offense is on the field is considerably shorter than traditional drop back pass/run offenses, forcing the defense onto the field much more that is "normal."
This happened quite a bit at Cal. This lead to fatigue on the defense, which slowed reaction time, inreased fatigue & increased too much decision making by Cal's beleaguered defensive players when faced with good offensive schemes & talented players (in other words, every week).

Generally, both offensive and defensive schemes attempt to "hide" weaker players. (Interestingly, the Cover 2 defense (both safeties back) is a difficult defense in which to hide weaker players). One reason film work is so important is that it can reveal where these weaker players are "hiding." The defense can "ignore" or minimize as assignments to account for weaker offensive players, or attack them directly when the weaker player is on the OL, thereby increasing it's numerical advantage at the point of attack. This year, we saw defenses playing man coverage against Cal, betting that 1:1 coverage of each Cal receiver would be sufficient to stifle passing plays, which usually worked all year. This freed the other defensive players to maintain their numerical advantage at the point of attack. (It will be interesting to see what adjustments are in place for the Horned Frog game).

The offense can specifically attack weaker defensive players, thereby equalizing or tilting the numerical advantage to it's favor. This is why you see NFL teams immediately attacking subs coming in for an injured player.

Baldwin's offense is a hybrid of the spread & "traditional" West Coast, with variations favoring the spread approach. It is more complicated than the "traditional spread" imho. In the Pac-12, defenses have "caught up" to the classic spread, so I favor this scheme in the longer run for Cal.

One criticism I see a lot on BI of Baldwin is that he calls too many run plays into an "overloaded box."

Here is just one example of how Baldwin's offense has intended to work this year, where these runs are meant to set up a good yardage pass while retaining possession and advancing the ball.

Wilcox's game plans this year called for the offense to minimize turnovers (duh!, but indulge me). Since 10 yards results in a first down, gains of 3, 3, 4 yards allows Cal to advance the 10 yards, retaining the ball. With 1-3 touchdowns & a stout defense, we were aiming to be at least close in the 4th Quarter. It worked seven times, which is remarkable imho.

In these running plays, all 7-8 players in "the box" are accounted for schematically, with a gain of 3-4 yards targeted. Crucially, here, our coaches "upstairs" are reporting on how the "key" defensive players are reacting on these plays - as expected from film study or in some other way. Btw, Baldwin & Wilcox are intending to advance the ball with these run plays. Breakdowns along the OL are the usual cause of not gaining the requisite 3-4 yards.

A coach will often see, in film, defensive players reacting a consistent way to similar runs, and Baldwin is establishing a familiar pattern in the game for their reactions. At a point in the game where down & distance permit a reasonable risk, Baldwin will calll for a "play action" pass where the OL blocks as if it is the now familiar run play, the defensive players react instantly to seeing the guards & their keys signalling "run" while our receivers execute options in their routes to eqalize or tilt numbers in their section of the field, while our QB also reads the route options to deliver the ball for a nice gain.

Some of the defensive players may "see" the deception, but the split second time of indecision forces them to be too late to stop the play.

All of this is usually well analyzed during film study and practiced during the week. (I definitely saw this sequence during the Stanford game, but Garbers misdelivered the ball, which stalled a good drive).

Here is where things can go wrong on this imagined play, after these frustrating runs into the overloaded box:
- One of our OL players may deviate a 1/2 step from his assignment, for a variety of reasons, thereby allowing a defensive player more latitude than the play scheme allows. This is almost never seen by fans during the game.
- Our QB and/or receivers may misread one of the option route keys.
- The defense may react in an unexpected way, forcing inexperienced offensive players (OL, QB & Receivers) into indecision for a split second. This eliminates the planned numerical advantage at the point of attack.
- A player may make a physical mistake, or be defeated by the defensive player(s) even though he is doing everything right.

As noted above, I believe that Baldwin's offense is more complex than a traditional spread offense, taking at least 2 years for an offensive team "to learn," especially the OL & QB.

Imho, OL talent & development takes longer than virtually any other position group (except QB) to get up to speed. Keep this argument "on the sideline" for the moment.

While the team was going from year one to year two in Baldwin's offense, we lost our experienced starting QB (Bowers) just as the first game prep week started. Clearly, at this point, imho we simply did not have a QB ready to take over immediately. Bowers was an entire year of experience ahead of Garbers & McIlwain. The difficulty presented at this point cannot be overstated.

Is it the fault of Baldwin that Garbers/McIlwain were not "ready?" In one respect, yes, it is, since ultimate responsibly for performance in the longer run always rests with the coaches in D1 football.

But, in a crucial way, imho, there was little, if anything Baldwin could have done about this. While Garbers when through his redshirt first year in 2017, I think he was assessed to have more talent than Bowers, but must have struggled to be pick-up Baldwin's offense, which is why Bowers was always one rank ahead of Garbers on the depth chart. McIlwain clearly has great running ability, which helps equalize numbers on most plays at the point of attack, but obviously struggles both to master pass route trees, and then struggles to consistently deliver the ball accurately.

A friend, who has been a defensive coordinator for 13+ years at the HS level, told me by by the second quarter of the Idaho State game, he could see why Baldwin was so tempted to give McIlwain more than a full audition during the season. He made the same comment during the first quarter of the Stanford game. It has been clear that Garbers has continued to struggle with Baldwin's offense this year.

That Wilcox & Baldwin recruited Devon Modster (rather than use that slot for another freshman QB) tells me they are still unsure about whether Garbers will ever master Baldwin's offense. Not good obviously. We all want Garbers to succeed, and this has nothing to do with his being a fine young man & a great Bear. He is not shrinking from the battle, and that counts for a lot in my book.

Back to the OL. ANY offensive scheme faulters when OL play is not up to par. Don't forget that we started three (3) walk-on OLmen and a true freshman in the Standford game.

This tells us several facts:
- Cal did not have enough scholarship veteran OL players able to step in when the OL usual injuries took place this year.
- Why not? It takes 2-3 years for incoming freshmen OL players to develop physically, and Dykes simply "left the cupboard bare" of OL players ready to step in.
-The teamwork techniques between OL players is much more complex than most fans realize, and takes many many reps to develop.
- Lack of OL depth has been an issue at Cal for a long time, responsible for holding back our best offenses before,during and after Tedford's years.
- Steve Greatwood is being counted upon to turn the OL be into a top notch group. Imho I look for that to happen in two more years, 2020. & 2021.

Wilcox knew all this when he hired Baldwin. Imho Wilcox believes that in order to compete at the very highest levels, a "traditional" spread offense is not adequate. And that while Baldwin's offense is more complex than the traditonal spread, it will serve us well as Wilcox builds a program that can compete at the highest levels year after year for the reasons noted above.

A common criticism leveled at Baldwin is that Wilcox's development of the defense in such a short time frame is proof of Baldwin's shortcomings. I disagree because:
- For reasons notes above, the "natural" numerical advantage is on the side of the defense.
- Good DL play is fairly simple against what is required for good OL play.
- Same for each position group on defense vs. offense. Each defensive player has a straight foward read/react or attack assignment on each play, which is usually a variation of the overall defensive scheme & is usually dictated by field position.
- Therefore it is much "easier" (faster) to put in a good defensive scheme that "hides" weaker players than a more complicated offensive scheme.

All of this said, while Wilcox believes in what Baldwin is doing, I fully expect that Baldwin understands that year three must show an entire level of offensive improvement, and the year after next should show an offense at the "top" levels of the conference in terms performance.

I'm thinking Wilcox has sold Knowlton & Christ that we will have both a top notch offense & defense in two more years, which is evidenced by Wilcox's contract rewrite, and the $600K additional money to retain assistant coaches.

In summary, I think that most of the offensive issues this year spring from Wilcox, Greatwood & Baldwin not have enough time to develop the OL, Bowers unexpected injury, Garbers difficulty in mastering the offense, thin receicer depth, McIlwain's passing deficiency - in short, players not performing up to par after 1 1/2 years at this point of working in Baldwin's offense.

After this year's class arrives this next Fall in full, Baldwin will working on his third year with his offense, so there had better be improvement.

While Wilcox strikes me as a man willing to be patient with the offense this year, he does not strike me as willing to go on at this level of offensive performance beyond this year.

I'm hoping critics of all this come at me with sound football knowledge rather dismissal with name calling. I'll respond to legitimate criticism, because it's fun & I'm always learning, and my views will be improved.

---

I guess you think that wall of text was akin to splitting the atom. It was not.

"The issues regarding the offense this year, have at their core, factors invisible to you, that you would not acknowledge even if you could perceive them, and are complex beyond your willingness and/or capability to understand."

If you really think what you wrote was a surprise to anybody on this board, well - good luck with that.

Yogi Bear said:

---

If you really think what you wrote was a surprise to anybody on this board, well - good luck with that.

---

The theme of the post was an explanation of why I think most of our offensive difficulties this year were unavoidable player oriented shortcomings rather than Baldwin's flaws. I do think that it builds sound arguments about that question. And I do think many posters on this board do not have basic football knowledge when calling for Baldwin & other offensive coaches to be fired mid season.

You have to agree that Wilcox in no way has indicated any dissatisfaction with Baldwin. It appears Baldwin will definitely be with us next year at least. That's on Wilcox. Why aren't you calling for Wilcox's dismissal, since he is facilitating Baldwin's incompetence?

Rather than wish me luck, Yogi, which I don't need regarding Cal football, use your football knowledge to disprove specific points & correct my errant analysis. Otherwise, you just prove my point - short term, misinformed thinking regarding the offense is all you're capable of articulating. Prove me wrong.

Bear19 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

If you really think what you wrote was a surprise to anybody on this board, well - good luck with that.

---

The theme of the post was an explanation of why I think most of our offensive difficulties this year were unavoidable player oriented shortcomings rather than Baldwin's flaws. I do think that it builds sound arguments about that question. And I do think many posters on this board do not have basic football knowledge when calling for Baldwin & other offensive coaches to be fired mid season.

You have to agree that Wilcox in no way has indicated any dissatisfaction with Baldwin. It appears Baldwin will definitely be with us next year at least. That's on Wilcox. Why aren't you calling for Wilcox's dismissal, since he is facilitating Baldwin's incompetence?

Rather than wish me luck, Yogi, which I don't need regarding Cal football, use your football knowledge to disprove specific points & correct my errant analysis. Otherwise, you just prove my point - short term, misinformed thinking regarding the offense is all you're capable of articulating. Prove me wrong.

---

Wilcox keeps things close to the vest. If he is planning any changes, we'll be the last to know about it.

If you think I have misinformed thinking about the offense, by all means go dig it up. I eagerly await your criticism.

Good post, B19. It's clear that Garbers has talent. But it doesn't show up in the passing game. He's tentative. He doesn't throw the ball with authority. And your post provides a reasonable explanation for it.

I've never bought into the BB-can't-coach-or-call-plays theory. He proved it at EWU against FCS, G5 and P5 competition. He didn't forget how to coach the minute he stepped on our campus.

If without insiders info, just based on personal perspective, then I trust berk18 and killa's opinions more.

Yogi Bear said:

---

Wilcox keeps things close to the vest. If he is planning any changes, we'll be the last to know about it.

---

I agree with you on this point. Wilcox did, however, allow Baldwin to be the major coach featured/interviewed for the "Bears Close to Wrapping Up Cheez-It Bowl Prep" article, which I don't think would have happened if Wilcox was planning to fire Baldwin after the Bowl game. Just my opinion.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Good post, B19. It's clear that Garbers has talent. But it doesn't show up in the passing game. He's tentative. He doesn't throw the ball with authority. And your post provides a reasonable explanation for it.

I've never bought into the BB-can't-coach-or-call-plays theory. He proved it at EWU against FCS, G5 and P5 competition. He didn't forget how to coach the minute he stepped on our campus.

---

Thank-you Fuzzy. I also think Garbers is being schooled on avoiding interceptions, which may have also contributed to his tentativeness. I'm hopeful that after the last three weeks of practice, Garbers will be more confident, and the playbook he's working with will feature additional passing plays he's mastered.

Same hope for improvement & better play teamwork with Garbers regarding our receivers, as well as the OL.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Good post, B19. It's clear that Garbers has talent. But it doesn't show up in the passing game. He's tentative. He doesn't throw the ball with authority. And your post provides a reasonable explanation for it.

I've never bought into the BB-can't-coach-or-call-plays theory. He proved it at EWU against FCS, G5 and P5 competition. He didn't forget how to coach the minute he stepped on our campus.

---

Aaron Best was his OC every year except the year Troy Taylor was OC. Best has been HC the last two years, EWU lead the nation in offense both years and justo won the Big Sky Coference with Best winning Big Sky Coach of the Year.

Meanwhile, Cal's offense lead by Baldwin dropped from one of the best in the nation to one of the absolute worst.

Maybe Best deserved more of the credit for those EWU offenses under Baldwin? It would not be the first time a boss got credit for his employee's work.

510 Bear said:

---

+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.

---

That's exactly what I thought. We'd seen Dykes' ceiling in 2015, and it was 8 wins. We probably haven't seen Wilcox's ceiling yet.

I could be wrong, but that's my sense as of now and why I have more optimism with Wilcox despite superficially similar results.

Sure things take time but how does one explain 1-11 turned 10-4 and 12-2 in years one and two? Or 1-10 into 7-5? I think its the buy in and effort. I can imagine creative OCs like Leach and Tedford inspire players with their play designs. I watched the Vegas bowl and was impressed by FSUs ability to exploit RR talents. JW gets praise for his D but the jury is still out on the other side of the ball. That's just facts. As a Bear im forever hopeful.

sycasey said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

+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.

---

That's exactly what I thought. We'd seen Dykes' ceiling in 2015, and it was 8 wins. We probably haven't seen Wilcox's ceiling yet.

I could be wrong, but that's my sense as of now and why I have more optimism with Wilcox despite superficially similar results.

---

Some of us think Wilcox has a high ceiling, but is being held back by Baldwin.Time will tell.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

+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.

---

That's exactly what I thought. We'd seen Dykes' ceiling in 2015, and it was 8 wins. We probably haven't seen Wilcox's ceiling yet.

I could be wrong, but that's my sense as of now and why I have more optimism with Wilcox despite superficially similar results.

---

Some of us think Wilcox has a high ceiling, but is being held back by Baldwin.Time will tell.

---

And some of us believe that Baldwin will help Wilcox touch the ceiling....

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

+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.

---

That's exactly what I thought. We'd seen Dykes' ceiling in 2015, and it was 8 wins. We probably haven't seen Wilcox's ceiling yet.

I could be wrong, but that's my sense as of now and why I have more optimism with Wilcox despite superficially similar results.

---

Some of us think Wilcox has a high ceiling, but is being held back by Baldwin.Time will tell.

---

And some of us believe that Baldwin will help Wilcox touch the ceiling....

---

If Wilcox sticks with him then I sure hope you are right.

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

+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.

---

That's exactly what I thought. We'd seen Dykes' ceiling in 2015, and it was 8 wins. We probably haven't seen Wilcox's ceiling yet.

I could be wrong, but that's my sense as of now and why I have more optimism with Wilcox despite superficially similar results.

---

Some of us think Wilcox has a high ceiling, but is being held back by Baldwin.Time will tell.

---

And some of us believe that Baldwin will help Wilcox touch the ceiling....

---

Baldwin may help Wilcox touch his ceiling, i.e., a few more seasonal overall wins, but the real ceiling, i.e., the north rep, PAC 12 championship and Rose Bowl, may be out of Wilcox's reach. Have any of you seen the recruiting of the other north division members? I mean, Washington and Oregon are building for a resurgence if anyone is. I see no indication that Cal is preparing to enter the upper enchalon of the conference. I'm not saying Cal won't get there, but even if Wilcox does, we're looking at another 3 to 4 years of stellar-level recruiting and performance. And, as I keep harping about, given that time span Cal will be lucky to keep Wilcox, if he proves that he can increasingly make Cal a better program, or will replace him with a new coach should he and Baldwin fail to significantly improve the offense; I have my doubts about the latter given the bubblegum and scotch tape recruiting so far in Wilcox's third class.

Leach took 4 years to get to 9 win seasons and within those 4 years they were embarrassed yearly by FCS opponents. Based on our patience with Baldwin, we would've fired Leach already.

Bear19 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Wilcox keeps things close to the vest. If he is planning any changes, we'll be the last to know about it.

---

I agree with you on this point. Wilcox did, however, allow Baldwin to be the major coach featured/interviewed for the "Bears Close to Wrapping Up Cheez-It Bowl Prep" article, which I don't think would have happened if Wilcox was planning to fire Baldwin after the Bowl game. Just my opinion.

---

You never know. IBM gave me my biggest raise 6 months before they let me go.

packawana said:

---

Leach took 4 years to get to 9 win seasons and within those 4 years they were embarrassed yearly by FCS opponents. Based on our patience with Baldwin, we would've fired Leach already.

---

True...true...it's just that Leach has hit his ceiling which, to me, looks to be Wilcox's too if he can eventually figure out how to handle the current offensive winkle; but even so, I ask how many North divisional rankings has earned him and his team a right to play in the conference championship game or Rose Bowl? His ceiling appeases the WSU fan base given this school's remoteness (Cal's academic impositions are creating this same type of remoteness). I hope this ceiling isn't the same as what Cal fans are hoping for albeit a welcome improvement or an indication that the football program is being led in the proverbial right direction. No, it looks like to me that Washington and Oregon will be repeatedly battling for the P12 North conference brass ring for the near future.

Appreciate you taking the time to write this post and I appreciate you distilling a very complex game into the simple numbers game format that you presented.

Seems logical to me and this approach has been one that I've used to gain mastery over other complex subjects.

Unfortunately I'm not a convert cause I've been supporting Baldwin and will continue to so long as Wilcox thinks he is the man for the job.

The talent deficiencies at the OL, QB, and receiver positions explain what we saw this year. This coupled with an elite defense allowing the coaches to successfully adopt very conservative turnover minimizing play calling made a
weak offense look statistically bottom of the barrel while still being a contributing piece to some nice wins.

So thanks for your post. I definitely learned something from it!

evanluck said:

---

\The talent deficiencies at the OL, QB, and receiver positions explain what we saw this year.

---

So our WR's run straight down the field on 90% of their patterns because of their lack of talent?

Blueblood said:

---

I have my doubts about the latter given the bubblegum and scotch tape recruiting so far in Wilcox's third class.

---

I'm counting this as Wilcox's second class. When he came to Cal in 2017 (Jan-14 was his first day), the recruiting year was just about over. I'm giving him two more years to have his own recruits comprising the full team.

I think that matters only in so far as how long one is willing to be patient to see the improvement needed to compete at the top of the Pac-12.

I found your post interesting and informative. One thing Berk18 has said, however, is that he faults the position coachesTui and especially Edwardsfor the lack of overall improvement in QB and WR play. He, like you, is a fan of Baldwin's scheme; however, he faults him tactically. His main argument is that when he has set up certain kinds of plays in the ways you have suggested, he is reluctant to go back to them if they fail the first time, or sometimes even if they succeed. Thus, his offense in terms of execution is full of a lot of one-and-done. Your thoughts?

UrsaMajor said:

---

I found your post interesting and informative. One thing Berk18 has said, however, is that he faults the position coachesTui and especially Edwardsfor the lack of overall improvement in QB and WR play. He, like you, is a fan of Baldwin's scheme; however, he faults him tactically. His main argument is that when he has set up certain kinds of plays in the ways you have suggested, he is reluctant to go back to them if they fail the first time, or sometimes even if they succeed. Thus, his offense in terms of execution is full of a lot of one-and-done. Your thoughts?

---

I know that once an offense runs a "set-up payoff" play (for lack of a better phrase) the defense will account for it going forward. That should open up other plays though. But if our receivers are still being effectively covered with simple 1:1 man, we're still in the same difficulty as before - the defense has the numerical advantage at the point of attack.

Also recall that the reason the play failed in the Stanford game was due to an errant throw by Garbers. These can result in interceptions. Wilcox & Baldwin wants Garbers to protect the ball above all else. Lots of times, with our receivers not able to get a lot of separation this year from the DBs, the pass needs to thread thru a small window so, strictly my opinion, Baldwin's confidence in Garbers to safely deliver the ball on other pass plays seems to be less than "usual."

Here are quotes by Wilcox & Baldwin, in BI interview articles for the Cheez-It Bowl:

Wilcox: He said the Bears might tweak their offensive playbook a little but will basically stay with what they have been doing all year. Or at least since Chase Garbers took over. "There are certain things you can do a little bit, but there are certain levels where you've got to be careful of that, too," he said. "You can go a little bit overboard and all of a sudden the guys aren't playing fast because they're thinking too much.

Baldwin: Speaking of Garbers, Baldwin said the freshman has improved even since the end of the season. "In every way," he said. "Mentally, physically, he's ripping the ball more. It comes with being better mentally. You rip the ball more, you throw with more confidence you throw into tighter windows, Mentally you are in a better spot."

(Bold is my marking for emphasis.)

Strictly my opinion: I think this year has been marked by Baldwin limiting the playbook because Garbers wasn't able to master the playbook last year & this Summer/Fall. That has saddled Baldwin with a major handicap. The difficulties cannot be over emphasized. It is the reason for the play the selection issues that have posters here calling for Baldwin's job. It also would explain why Wilcox is backing Baldwin in spite of this year's low offensive production.

BUT, Cheez-Its to the rescue. The OL has had three more weeks to work together. So have our receivers & tight ends. That's a big deal imo. Wilcox has consistently stated that the additional practice time for a Bowl is crucial in speeding team development.

They've added some plays in these last three weeks, but will limit the playbook to what Garbers can execute at game speed for the TCU game.

And if Garbers has indeed increased in confidence & is "throwing with more confidence into tighter windows" that is nothing but good news.

TCU offers a good defense. While we munch on Cheez-Its, we'll soon find out how much the offense has improved since Big Game. Go Bears!

That's a lot of wasted words to basically say: Baldwin's offense is more complex than the traditional spread, Garbers isn't very good, and the OL isn't very good. We already knew that genius.

Explain why in 2 years, the offense isn't just not progressing, it's an unmitigated disaster. Explain why we had to play a guy tonight who came out of fall camp as the 4th string QB. Explain the inept personnel mismanagement and impotent recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

Also this argument that Baldwin and staff cant do anything about lack of talent. Well maybe that's why people are rightfully upset that this year's recruiting class was average at best on offense. There are no playmakers other than maybe Brooks. There is a reason why we primarily competed against lower-tier schools for them versus higher-tiers where we lost badly.

I judge coaches on three aspects : a) development, b) scheming to best utilize the talent and c) recruiting. Our offensive coaches have failed on all three.

We have one of the worst offenses in the nation. Tonight exhibited that. Why are some of you STILL defending our offensive coaches? THERE HAS BEEN NO PROGRESSION and most of the talent coming in DO NOT signal immediate playmakers to help us.

If we dont get rid of Tui after tonight, it's largely because of Modster. This means if Modster cant deliver for us next season, we HAVE TO fire Tui at the end of it. No more excuses! Same with Baldwin and Edwards. Three years is too long IMO to "show their worth."

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

That's a lot of wasted words to basically say: Baldwin's offense is more complex than the traditional spread, Garbers isn't very good, and the OL isn't very good. We already knew that genius.

Explain why in 2 years, the offense isn't just not progressing, it's an unmitigated disaster. Explain why we had to play a guy tonight who came out of fall camp as the 4th string QB. Explain the inept personnel mismanagement and impotent recruiting on the offensive side of the ball.

---

SIAP -- in the Fall of 1968, I entered Cal as a freshman. The defense was known as the Bear Minimum, and the students would chant, "Defense Score!" This was a hangover from the 1967 season, when the team had had no firepower. I guess we've come full circle. It's a shame, and I have to think that both scheme and personnel are problems, particularly in the passing game.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

We already knew that genius.

---

TY Survivor. I accept that accolade.

As for the Cheez-It Bowl . . . Res ipsa loquitur.