tequila4kapp said:

---

As I said, I respect that others see it the other way re Baldwin. To me it's bottom line time. Two years of **** offense...no more excuses. It's time to do something. Otherwise we know Wilcox (or the Admin) isn't serious about winning.

---

Basically, you're just looking for a scapegoat. If there are no more excuses, the CEO of the failing division has got to take the fall.

71Bear said:

---

BMac demonstrated why he was beaten out by another guy at SoCarolina. He is a baseball player masquerading as a footballer. And Bowers was awful. Cal would not have beaten either SC or UW with him at the helm.

---

At this point, I'm amazed at Bowers' ability to overcome his coaching and be as good as he was last year.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

jhbchristopher said:

---

I think we all know Baldwin is not the anwser at this point. Maybe it's Tuiasosopo that bears the blame. Either way time to get some new coaches in. I don't think any of us will be surprised if they're both gone monday. Franklin had a different coaching/teaching philosophy when it came to quarterbacks, he was able to get the most out of our players on offense. With the talent we have on offense at this point might be the best option. Franklins tempo probably wouldn't "mesh" but with a wilcox defense but I feel like it give Cal an opportunity to win.

---

"we all know Baldwin is not the answer".....

Actually, that is not true. I fully support Baldwin. He is an excellent OC. His record at EWU is proof that he knows the job.

The problem lies with the excruciating inexperience at the QB position.

In the future, please do not speak for me. Thanks.

---

You are approaching Holmoe time on this. A resume doesn't trump performance. The offense has shown nothing positive. It can be bad and still have some positives. What makes you think things will improve enough next year especially given you are all in on Garbers.

Edit: I'm not trying to slap you with the Holmoe comment. Posting this after last night requires an intervention

---

I think the improvement will come through experience. Yesterday, Garbers was 10-12 before the first Int. After that play, he went into the dumper reverting back to bad habits. That int. was the result of staring down a receiver. This gave the DB an opportunity to slid over from another guy and make the play. TCU DB's were watching him every play - experienced QB's look off DBs and burn them when they peek. Garbers is not at that level yet and TCU took advantage. The big question is whether Garbers can reach that point. I think he can through extensive practice. Obviously, I could be wrong but I am putting my chips on him.

As for people who rip Baldwin, they are idiots in my opinion. For the most part, they must believe OC's are magicians not football coaches. Baldwin calls plays that he believes can be executed by the QB. He does not put a helmet on and take the field. For example, the last int. was a good call given the circumstances. Cal was in a 3rd and long, they could not make a first running because TCU had shut the running game down. Cal had to get a first down to give Thomas a good shot at the FG (he missed two kicks inside the 40 during the season). Therefore, a pass play was the right call.

The one absolute truism about sports that so many fans forget every game - there are two teams on the field. In this case, BOTH of them were very strong defensive clubs. If anyone thought TCU was going to roll over, they know nothing about Gary Patterson coached teams. He is one of the best in the business and TCU played a beautiful defensive game. It was quite apparent they studied Cal's game film closely.

---

This is strangely apologetic. Who is responsible if Baldwin is mistaken in his believe as to what plays can be executed by the QB? Obviously, the qb is partly to blame. But what if Baldwin is and has been repeatedly mistaken in his belief as to what his qbs can do? It is evident that has occurred; Baldwin has not put his players in positions where they can succeed and/or he has overestimated/misconstrued his players' abilities.

And who is responsible for the fact that all 4 qbs have not improved and in most cases regressed? Tui and Baldwin. Who is responsible for MANY offensive skilled players who have chosen to leave under strange and unexplained circumstances, not to mention the handling of qb personnel decisions (Bowers). Obviously, lots of factors are in play, but the common denominator in these scenarios is Baldwin and the the other coaches. There is dysfunction and the buck stops with Baldwin and Wilcox.

KoreAmBear said:

---

jhbchristopher said:

---

There was no defense. I feel like Wilcox could moderate that. Could it be any worse than what we have now. Is it to not possible to have both. Franklin got so much out of his personal. No doubt if he or dykes were still here we would be in the top 20 in scoring.

---

I suppose Leach shows us you can have both.

---

Leach has been absolutely OWNED by Petersen and UW. The model for winning the PAC is not the spread. See Stanford, UW and SC. Power football with defense. I'll be very surprised if SC's defense doesn't fall off with Klingsbury running the offense.

tequila4kapp said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I continue to believe Baldwin is good. I respect that others see it the other way.

After last night I believe it's Tui. How can our QB play be THIS bad for two straight seasons? Tui's coaching profile is that of one who doesn't have it.

Either way, changes must be made. Two years in...no more excuses, that's more than enough sample size to see that what we have on staff isn't working. Wilcox has a responsibility to the program to make it better.

---

Tui didn't decide to play BM 100% for the Arizona, Oregon and UCLA games.

Tui didn't decide to put in BM in the red zone v Wazzu when we had the go ahead score in the bag. BB had the running specialist pass.

Tui didn't have our struggling QBs pass in the red zone in a tight defensive bowl game with all of the college football world watching.

I believe like Wavy said BB hung BM and CF out to dry.

Tui didn't mismanage the Bowers situation. Tui isn't the reason why such an exodus on offense. OK not sure if these are on BB or JW but it was just a bizzsre year on that side of the ball.

I'm not sure how BB can be retained or anyone else who is not providing plus coaching or recruiting. Seems like only Greatwood is safe. I'm not that sure about him either, to be honest. Didn't we have high expectations for the line and it underperformed all year?

---

As I said, I respect that others see it the other way re Baldwin. To me it's bottom line time. Two years of **** offense...no more excuses. It's time to do something. Otherwise we know Wilcox (or the Admin) isn't serious about winning.

---

I find this overall an interesting discussion. FWIW, I am in the camp of thinking that the biggest failures are with Edwards and Tui, although I'm not sure what the ceiling could have been given the lack of speed among RB's andf WR's and the lack of QB talent. I am not a defender of Baldwin, but I'm willing to accept the argument that perhaps he can still develop a productive offense with a different set of position coaches.

The selective anger is, to me, interesting. Tui must go, Edwards must go, Baldwin must go, but Greatwood is fine (even though the OL was hardly stellar). Yogi's comment that the CEO should be blamed apparently means Baldwin and not Wilcox. Why not Wilcox? Just to be clear, I am not advocating firing Wilcox, just pointing out something.

The comment of Tequila's above, however, bothers me. There are too many posts, IMO, that essentially read: if Coach X (or AD Y) doesn't agree with ME, then he doesn't care about winning. Just to state the obvious, it is possible to be passionately committed to Cal's success and have a different viewpoint about how to get there from anonymous internet posters.

UrsaMajor said:

---

The selective anger is, to me, interesting. Tui must go, Edwards must go, Baldwin must go, but Greatwood is fine (even though the OL was hardly stellar). Yogi's comment that the CEO should be blamed apparently means Baldwin and not Wilcox. Why not Wilcox? Just to be clear, I am not advocating firing Wilcox, just pointing out something.

---

Sometimes I think you should just stick to responding to SFCityBear's posts. I don't particularly care for you trying to make me the standard bearer for any position you think is ridiculous

Nevertheless, I will explain the painstakingly obvious to you since you want to poke at me. Wilcox just got extended two more years with all the money guaranteed. That, plus the fact that there are some aspects of the team that have done well mean that it's too early to say he should take the fall for the horrible offense the past two years, whereas Baldwin hasn't recruited well, his handpicked assistant hasn't recruited well, his QB coach hasn't recruited well, and the units for which those three guys have responsibilitiy haven't performed well.

71Bear said:

---

jhbchristopher said:

---

I think we all know Baldwin is not the anwser at this point. Maybe it's Tuiasosopo that bears the blame. Either way time to get some new coaches in. I don't think any of us will be surprised if they're both gone monday. Franklin had a different coaching/teaching philosophy when it came to quarterbacks, he was able to get the most out of our players on offense. With the talent we have on offense at this point might be the best option. Franklins tempo probably wouldn't "mesh" but with a wilcox defense but I feel like it give Cal an opportunity to win.

---

"we all know Baldwin is not the answer".....

Actually, that is not true. I fully support Baldwin. He is an excellent OC. His record at EWU is proof that he knows the job.

The problem lies with the excruciating inexperience at the QB position.

---

This is your Tom Holmoe sequel take.

Bear19 said:

---

Franklin moved back to Tennessee to be closer to family. He's not coming back to CA for any reason.

---

He had an issue with an ailing parent. As far as I know, he loved the Bay Area.

UrsaMajor said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I continue to believe Baldwin is good. I respect that others see it the other way.

After last night I believe it's Tui. How can our QB play be THIS bad for two straight seasons? Tui's coaching profile is that of one who doesn't have it.

Either way, changes must be made. Two years in...no more excuses, that's more than enough sample size to see that what we have on staff isn't working. Wilcox has a responsibility to the program to make it better.

---

Tui didn't decide to play BM 100% for the Arizona, Oregon and UCLA games.

Tui didn't decide to put in BM in the red zone v Wazzu when we had the go ahead score in the bag. BB had the running specialist pass.

Tui didn't have our struggling QBs pass in the red zone in a tight defensive bowl game with all of the college football world watching.

I believe like Wavy said BB hung BM and CF out to dry.

Tui didn't mismanage the Bowers situation. Tui isn't the reason why such an exodus on offense. OK not sure if these are on BB or JW but it was just a bizzsre year on that side of the ball.

I'm not sure how BB can be retained or anyone else who is not providing plus coaching or recruiting. Seems like only Greatwood is safe. I'm not that sure about him either, to be honest. Didn't we have high expectations for the line and it underperformed all year?

---

As I said, I respect that others see it the other way re Baldwin. To me it's bottom line time. Two years of **** offense...no more excuses. It's time to do something. Otherwise we know Wilcox (or the Admin) isn't serious about winning.

---

I find this overall an interesting discussion. FWIW, I am in the camp of thinking that the biggest failures are with Edwards and Tui, although I'm not sure what the ceiling could have been given the lack of speed among RB's andf WR's and the lack of QB talent. I am not a defender of Baldwin, but I'm willing to accept the argument that perhaps he can still develop a productive offense with a different set of position coaches.

The selective anger is, to me, interesting. Tui must go, Edwards must go, Baldwin must go, but Greatwood is fine (even though the OL was hardly stellar). Yogi's comment that the CEO should be blamed apparently means Baldwin and not Wilcox. Why not Wilcox? Just to be clear, I am not advocating firing Wilcox, just pointing out something.

The comment of Tequila's above, however, bothers me. There are too many posts, IMO, that essentially read: if Coach X (or AD Y) doesn't agree with ME, then he doesn't care about winning. Just to state the obvious, it is possible to be passionately committed to Cal's success and have a different viewpoint about how to get there from anonymous internet posters.

---

You misread my post. It isn't that he should or shouldn't agree with me. It's that after 2 years it's an objective fact that our offense is putrid. It's an objective fact that there's been no improvement, no indication of any sort of vision, direction or purpose on offense. If Wilcox or the Admin think the past two years is acceptable that's objectively a serious problem. So if we all agree with this simple assessment - and I think even you would agree - then something has to be done.

Yogi Bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BMac demonstrated why he was beaten out by another guy at SoCarolina. He is a baseball player masquerading as a footballer. And Bowers was awful. Cal would not have beaten either SC or UW with him at the helm.

---

At this point, I'm amazed at Bowers' ability to overcome his coaching and be as good as he was last year.

---

Which was still the worst passing rating for a starter in the PAC-12.

Alkiadt said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

jhbchristopher said:

---

There was no defense. I feel like Wilcox could moderate that. Could it be any worse than what we have now. Is it to not possible to have both. Franklin got so much out of his personal. No doubt if he or dykes were still here we would be in the top 20 in scoring.

---

I suppose Leach shows us you can have both.

---

Leach has been absolutely OWNED by Petersen and UW. The model for winning the PAC is not the spread. See Stanford, UW and SC. Power football with defense. I'll be very surprised if SC's defense doesn't fall off with Klingsbury running the offense.

---

Peterson + UW = good coaching plus talent.

WSU will never recruit on the same level as SC, UW and Stanford. Leach is a good fit for them.

Another interesting thread

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BMac demonstrated why he was beaten out by another guy at SoCarolina. He is a baseball player masquerading as a footballer. And Bowers was awful. Cal would not have beaten either SC or UW with him at the helm.

---

At this point, I'm amazed at Bowers' ability to overcome his coaching and be as good as he was last year.

---

Which was still the worst passing rating for a starter in the PAC-12.

---

You don't win the Heisman with the support system he had. Maybe someday he'll get real coaching and we'll see what his ceiling is.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Franklin moved back to Tennessee to be closer to family. He's not coming back to CA for any reason.

---

He had an issue with an ailing parent. As far as I know, he loved the Bay Area.

---

Interesting. I hope things have gone well for him regarding his family.

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I continue to believe Baldwin is good. I respect that others see it the other way.

Either way, changes must be made. Two years in...no more excuses, that's more than enough sample size to see that what we have on staff isn't working. Wilcox has a responsibility to the program to make it better.

---

Tui isn't the reason why such an exodus on offense. OK not sure if these are on BB or JW but it was just a bizzare year on that side of the ball.

I'm not sure how BB can be retained or anyone else who is not providing plus coaching or recruiting. Seems like only Greatwood is safe. I'm not that sure about him either, to be honest. Didn't we have high expectations for the line and it underperformed all year?

---

As I said, I respect that others see it the other way re Baldwin. To me it's bottom line time. Two years of **** offense...no more excuses. It's time to do something. Otherwise we know Wilcox (or the Admin) isn't serious about winning.

---

I find this overall an interesting discussion. FWIW, I am in the camp of thinking that the biggest failures are with Edwards and Tui, although I'm not sure what the ceiling could have been given the lack of speed among RB's andf WR's and the lack of QB talent. I am not a defender of Baldwin, but I'm willing to accept the argument that perhaps he can still develop a productive offense with a different set of position coaches.

The selective anger is, to me, interesting. Tui must go, Edwards must go, Baldwin must go, but Greatwood is fine (even though the OL was hardly stellar). Yogi's comment that the CEO should be blamed apparently means Baldwin and not Wilcox. Why not Wilcox? Just to be clear, I am not advocating firing Wilcox, just pointing out something.

---

You misread my post. It isn't that he should or shouldn't agree with me. It's that after 2 years it's an objective fact that our offense is putrid. It's an objective fact that there's been no improvement, no indication of any sort of vision, direction or purpose on offense. If Wilcox or the Admin think the past two years is acceptable that's objectively a serious problem. So if we all agree with this simple assessment - and I think even you would agree - then something has to be done.

---

While I know some posters played competitive sports. it's obvious that many did not. As a competitor you know when your opponent is a step faster, or a move quicker, or a foot taller or 80 pounds heavier. what's that old tired cliche? You can't coach size... And most of the time you can't play well injured. The best that should be expected is that you make the other team work for every point; get a couple of breaks and you can win.

Wilcox came from Wisconsin which yesterday had another 2000 yards for the season rusher; running behind a line with 5th year seniors. It works for Wisky because they have the horses and the stable has been full for a long time. It's been said that coaches should be evaluated after three recruiting cycles; by that time most of the players have been recruited for their fit with the coach's philosophy and game planning. With early signing day now in December, most if not all first year coaches will not have recruited many in their first recruiting class. In the future it may take four seasons to accurately evaluate a head coach. Wilcox had one summer to coach his first full slate of recruits. It is probably to early to evaluate the success of the program.

After two seasons, has Cal improved, have they become competitive in most games, compared to the previous year? I lived and breathed Cal football as a manager in 1968, great defense, average offense. Stars on the defense, good players on the offense. It was no secret that some of the other teams (e.g. USC) had better players overall. I remember a fellow student (who became a sportswriter) complaining about the offense saying we should be doing this or that. Trouble was I saw the team everyday and the coaches were trying various schemes and frankly they didn't have the horses on offense to make them work against the third string defense. Pretty hard for an OC to call those plays that after practice have no confidence..

As an offense Cal is getting bigger, but they have lost speed on offense, worse they don't have elite speed. It is still a recruiting issue not a play calling issue and the coaching staff has work to do. It was tiring hearing the announcers comment on Cal's difficulty getting 'chunk plays', however true. But elite players get those chunk plays most of the time; the offensive roster needs to be upgraded with elite players at the skill positions.