71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

I work for a very large retailer (does not begin with a W) and supervise 250 associates with an annual sales shy of 60 million. When I get transferred to a new store I don't replace "associates" I get the associates to work at a different level knowing that all do not have the same skill sets, but all have something to contribute to the "team". Probably why I have been employed by the same company for 32 years. And to answer your question, I am not related to Calbear80, but he sounds like a smart guy....

---

All well and good but you (and many others) missed the most salient point...

In sports there are two teams on the field/court, you can play a perfect game and still lose because your talent just isn't good enough. It happens. The only thing you can do is sign better talent.

I agree with your point but why did our DC find a way to be successful and our OC hasn't? Both had the same amount of time to recruit (which was no time since we got rid of Sonny late in the season) So both coordinators had to find a way to be successful with Sonny's recruits. Which again makes no sense because we all know Sonny was not a defensive minded coach so you would think we should have had talent on the offensive side. So the real question (which is your answer, we need to recruit better players) is what the hell did Sonny do when he was here.......

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).

Troll said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

I work for a very large retailer (does not begin with a W) and supervise 250 associates with an annual sales shy of 60 million. When I get transferred to a new store I don't replace "associates" I get the associates to work at a different level knowing that all do not have the same skill sets, but all have something to contribute to the "team". Probably why I have been employed by the same company for 32 years. And to answer your question, I am not related to Calbear80, but he sounds like a smart guy....

---

All well and good but you (and many others) missed the most salient point...

In sports there are two teams on the field/court, you can play a perfect game and still lose because your talent just isn't good enough. It happens. The only thing you can do is sign better talent.

I agree with your point but why did our DC find a way to be successful and our OC hasn't? Both had the same amount of time to recruit (which was no time since we got rid of Sonny late in the season) So both coordinators had to find a way to be successful with Sonny's recruits. Which again makes no sense because we all know Sonny was not a defensive minded coach so you would think we should have had talent on the offensive side. So the real question (which is your answer, we need to recruit better players) is what the hell did Sonny do when he was here.......

---

---

I would suggest the answer revolves around the inexperience/lack of talent at the QB position. Obviously, the quarterback is the most important player on the field. No single position on D is close. If you have a crappy/inexperienced guy at QB, your offense is hobbled accordingly. If you have a positional weakness on D, you can generally mask it if your other positions are good.

Add to this the lack of speed and size at WR and the lack of depth at RB and OL along with good health on D (with the obvious exception of Goode). I find it ironic that Dykes left so little on O relative to what he left on D.

Note: I do not hold the coaches fully responsible for the transfers. Kids make decisions for a variety of reasons. And, as we know, Cal is not for everybody.

Having said that, I have watched a ton of college football the last couple weeks and I would agree that Cal could have done a better job schematically. If I were to assign responsibility for the failure of the O, I would suggest talent 85% and coaching 15%.

Lastly, I have said numerous times that Wilcox's legacy is completely dependent on his ability to recruit and he is off to an uneven start. The fact that Cal signed two guys (two 3 stars) and Stanford signed four (two 3 stars, two 4 stars) from the Bay Area this month is a big problem. Cal must do better and that means every coach on staff. There is no excuse for letting the Cardinal best Cal locally.

Bottom line - until Baldwin is working with a full deck (2019), I can't hold him fully responsible.

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

Troll said:

---

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

---

The receivers were indistinguishable from one another. They were mid-sized guys with average wheels. The corps lacked a big guy and a guy with speed,

Wilcox put his eggs in the transfer basket this month, signing two JC's and a kid from Michigan. Clark has good size but I still don't see a guy that can run.

Lastly, TCU simply watched Garbers and baited him to throw. The next time he looks off a guy will be the first.

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

I work for a very large retailer (does not begin with a W) and supervise 250 associates with an annual sales shy of 60 million. When I get transferred to a new store I don't replace "associates" I get the associates to work at a different level knowing that all do not have the same skill sets, but all have something to contribute to the "team". Probably why I have been employed by the same company for 32 years. And to answer your question, I am not related to Calbear80, but he sounds like a smart guy....

---

All well and good but you (and many others) missed the most salient point...

In sports there are two teams on the field/court, you can play a perfect game and still lose because your talent just isn't good enough. It happens. The only thing you can do is sign better talent.

---

This is a common theme for you and I usually agree with you. But at some point the argument becomes a crutch. Sometimes there are two teams on the field and the other team wins because your team (or part of it) plays very badly. Sometimes when your team plays well, it is because there are two teams on the field and the other team sucks. Like the only two games our offense played well, OSU and Idaho State.

There were two teams when we couldn't score on UW. There were two teams when we couldn't score on WSU. There were two teams when we couldn't score on USC. There were two teams when we couldn't score on Stanford. There were two teams when we couldn't score on UCLA. One of the two teams on the field against Colorado had lost 6 straight and fired their coach and we only managed 19 offensive points, 13 of which came on drives of 29 yards, 8 yards, and 34 yards. There were two teams on the field 9 times when our offense couldn't get to 20 points. That is a lot of time when there were two teams on the field and our offense couldn't compete with the other team on the field. In conference there were two teams on the field 9 times and 7 of those times the other team held our offense under 20. How many of those games did we play the perfect game and still lose? If our offense can't compete against 7 of 9 conference teams on their schedule, most of which they have to play every year, than Blueblood is right. We need a lesser conference.

If our offense was merely very poor, as they were last year, we would have gone 9-3 and I'm confident if they played TCU in their bowl game (they wouldn't have because they would have been in a much better bowl), they would have scored the 10 points in regulation necessary to win.

I'm not downgrading TCU's defense, but their awesomeness does not warrant 7 points in regulation +Overtime. There were two teams on the field and one of them sucked on offense. (well both of them sucked on offense).

I never expected our offense to be good. This year, I would have settled for poor. We were pretty much historically bad.

You simply cannot chalk up 9 abysmal performances to the other team being awesome. At some point, when the result is consistently the same and you are the common denominator, you are the problem.

Tedford won 2 games with Levy at QB who couldn't do anything but run the ball, throw bubble screens, and heave it down field and pray. At some point, you have to figure out what your offense can do and do that. There is no excuse ever in consistently scoring so few points.

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

---

The receivers were indistinguishable from one another. They were mid-sized guys with average wheels. The corps lacked a big guy and a guy with speed,

Wilcox put his eggs in the transfer basket this month, signing two JC's and a kid from Michigan. Clark has good size but I still don't see a guy that can run.

Lastly, TCU simply watched Garbers and baited him to throw. The next time he looks off a guy will be the first.

---

If that is happening in game 13, it is no longer on the QB. Looking off receivers is not usually a skill guys can't become serviceable at.

heartofthebear said:

---

Troll said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

With 2 major issues to contend with...

• coaching
• improving the roster

it's possible that he is currently focusing on the later via recruiting.
Now is a good time for recruiting (unless it is the dead period??)
Once the bowls are over is a good time for shopping for coaches.

---

Thank you for respectful answer to my question.

---

You're welcome
Happy Holidays

I blame Buh.....
....but I trust Wilcox.

From everything I can tell, Wilcox is just not going to put up with "self inflicted wounds", even on offense.
I can tell he hates losing, but he really hates losing due to avoidable issues.

I realize that he has a weakness in that he does not know offense really well. And he is loyal to his coaches.
But he is also loyal to his players.

I wonder how much stomach acid was eating away at him, knowing that ILB Jordan K. was not going to experience a bowl win because of the embarrassingly poor play on offense. It almost brought him to tears as he sat next to JK at the post game presser.

Wilcox knows how much his defensive players work and he is not going to let them be dragged down by our current offensive struggles very much longer.

It may take some time to get all of the changes together, and it may take a while to see the results. But I believe that whatever can be done now is being done now.

For example, Baldwin may be on his way out, but, for budgetary reasons, we may not see it until a year from now.

---

It seems to me that one poster suggested he might be loyal to his coaches and somehow that has become a fact. Based on what do we think he is more loyal to his coaches than any other coach? This is his second year as head coach. I have no reason to think that if he does not make a change it will be for any reason other than he thinks he has the right staff in place.

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

---

The receivers were indistinguishable from one another. They were mid-sized guys with average wheels. The corps lacked a big guy and a guy with speed

---

Aaron and Laris were supposed to be the big guys. Robertson, Kobayashi, Strickland, and Stovall were supposed to bring speed. If we held all talent constant, I'm willing to wager that we would have a functioning, average if underwhelming offense.

Because of that attrition and given how we've gone to the transfer market to fill these holes, I think the staff (Wilcox included) has basically put all of its eggs in the 2019 basket. That also indicates to me that we're going to see minimal changes to what the overall offense will look like, even if there's some turnover at the position coaching level. If things don't pan out next year, then the entire O staff is going to be wiped out.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

---

The receivers were indistinguishable from one another. They were mid-sized guys with average wheels. The corps lacked a big guy and a guy with speed,

Wilcox put his eggs in the transfer basket this month, signing two JC's and a kid from Michigan. Clark has good size but I still don't see a guy that can run.

Lastly, TCU simply watched Garbers and baited him to throw. The next time he looks off a guy will be the first.

---

If that is happening in game 13, it is no longer on the QB. Looking off receivers is not usually a skill guys can't become serviceable at.

---

I gotta disagree. Some guys never learn this skill. (of course, most of them never play more than a year or so)...

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

---

The receivers were indistinguishable from one another. They were mid-sized guys with average wheels. The corps lacked a big guy and a guy with speed,

Wilcox put his eggs in the transfer basket this month, signing two JC's and a kid from Michigan. Clark has good size but I still don't see a guy that can run.

Lastly, TCU simply watched Garbers and baited him to throw. The next time he looks off a guy will be the first.

---

If that is happening in game 13, it is no longer on the QB. Looking off receivers is not usually a skill guys can't become serviceable at.

---

I gotta disagree. Some guys never learn this skill. (of course, most of them never play more than a year or so)...

---

True. But if a person can't do a basic skill most coaches find someone else who can.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

---

The receivers were indistinguishable from one another. They were mid-sized guys with average wheels. The corps lacked a big guy and a guy with speed,

Wilcox put his eggs in the transfer basket this month, signing two JC's and a kid from Michigan. Clark has good size but I still don't see a guy that can run.

Lastly, TCU simply watched Garbers and baited him to throw. The next time he looks off a guy will be the first.

---

If that is happening in game 13, it is no longer on the QB. Looking off receivers is not usually a skill guys can't become serviceable at.

---

I gotta disagree. Some guys never learn this skill. (of course, most of them never play more than a year or so)...

---

Do you think we have 4 QBs that can't look off receivers?

Troll said:

---

Heartofthebear, if we do hold onto BB and he is successful on turning things around I will be the 1st to say "great job"! But answer this question.....if we replaced both OC and DC the same year, why did we see immediate results from the defense? In my previous reply above, sometimes you can't change the whole team and the leader needs to manage the players differently with the understanding that all players have different skills sets but all something to contribute to make the team successful. Does BB have the skills to recognize this? Over the last 2 years I would say "no". BB will only be as successful as his assistants, Tui is not a good developer of QB's I can't honestly answer that question for the rest of his staff.

---

The only way I can answer this question is to say that I was one of the first persons on this board questioning the Baldwin hire. I felt, even before this season started, that Baldwin was not cutting it. Then it became clear that we had a pretty big talent deficit on offense. I have always responded to that with the fact that the offensive staff has failed to recruit. The exceptions are at RB and OL, which is why I don't see the need to replace them. But we need to get some position coaches that can recruit the passing game first and foremost and then see how Baldwin does. Next year we can replace him without a buyout.

We have some potential upgrades coming in at WR and QB. But we also need to get some better coaching there as well. I have suggested Eric Keisau who is current WR coach at Boise St.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

packawana said:

---

Well if you're going to take a TALENT-ONLY argument (which this is all way more complicated than) then you could say that the first-string that was recruited in 15-16 for the D largely stayed on and came into their own this last year whereas the first-string for the O either bombed out (Clark, Echols, Gilliam, Viramontes, Stovall), couldn't play (Juarez), or simply left (Strickland, Robertson, and I guess you could include Kobayashi, Aaron, and Laris).

For example, I still remember when Max was supposed to be heir apparent to Jared/Davis. Had that been the case, we wouldn't be in the total meltdown over the QB position we're in now (I think right now he would have been a R-SO with another year or two of eligibility).


Taking away "hope and prayers" what do you think the answer is to our QB? Even if the transfer Modster is going take over the reigns, who's he throwing to? Hopefully Noa comes back healthy, but after that who is going to step up? It was really hard to decide if the QB play was just that bad that they couldn't get the ball to open receivers or were the receivers not open enough. Watching Garber this last game was evident he does not know how to look off a defender and go to another reciever. I'm no QB myself (only from lazy boy) but you clearly see the defenders watch his eyes and are on top of the ball. Maybe we were just spoiled by having 2 great QB's back to back and countless great RB's, but at the end of the day it's been 59 years since we have been to the rose bowl.

---

---

The receivers were indistinguishable from one another. They were mid-sized guys with average wheels. The corps lacked a big guy and a guy with speed,

Wilcox put his eggs in the transfer basket this month, signing two JC's and a kid from Michigan. Clark has good size but I still don't see a guy that can run.

Lastly, TCU simply watched Garbers and baited him to throw. The next time he looks off a guy will be the first.

---

If that is happening in game 13, it is no longer on the QB. Looking off receivers is not usually a skill guys can't become serviceable at.

---

I gotta disagree. Some guys never learn this skill. (of course, most of them never play more than a year or so)...

---

Do you think we have 4 QBs that can't look off receivers?

---

I have no idea. I never saw BMac play and Bowers was a lost cause from the beginning.

15 % coaching? Whoa

heartofthebear said:

---

Troll said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

With 2 major issues to contend with...

• coaching
• improving the roster

it's possible that he is currently focusing on the later via recruiting.
Now is a good time for recruiting (unless it is the dead period??)
Once the bowls are over is a good time for shopping for coaches.

---

Thank you for respectful answer to my question.

---

You're welcome
Happy Holidays

I blame Buh.....
....but I trust Wilcox.

From everything I can tell, Wilcox is just not going to put up with "self inflicted wounds", even on offense.
I can tell he hates losing, but he really hates losing due to avoidable issues.

I realize that he has a weakness in that he does not know offense really well. And he is loyal to his coaches.
But he is also loyal to his players.

I wonder how much stomach acid was eating away at him, knowing that ILB Jordan K. was not going to experience a bowl win because of the embarrassingly poor play on offense. It almost brought him to tears as he sat next to JK at the post game presser.

Wilcox knows how much his defensive players work and he is not going to let them be dragged down by our current offensive struggles very much longer.

It may take some time to get all of the changes together, and it may take a while to see the results. But I believe that whatever can be done now is being done now.

For example, Baldwin may be on his way out, but, for budgetary reasons, we may not see it until a year from now.

---

Agree with almost everything you wrote. Surely Wilcox has run out of patience with the offense.

If Wilcox has concluded it is time to move on from Baldwin imo he won't wait a year, for any reason, to make that happen.

I sure hope so. It's waay past time for Baldwin to go. To the poster who thinks that it's 85% on the players, I can agree with this to a certain extent. Like if you're Bama or $C and are stocked with 5 star players up and down the roster, then yeah, you might not need to have a whole lotta coaching acumen to be successful. That's all the more reason that we, the perennial underdog, need to have better to excellent coaches who can teach and develop our under recruited players the fundamentals and coach them up to be in a position to succeed. I think we've all witnessed this happening on the D side, but not on the O side of the ball these past two years.

OCBear1983 said:

---

I sure hope so. It's waay past time for Baldwin to go. To the poster who thinks that it's 85% on the players, I can agree with this to a certain extent. Like if you're Bama or $C and are stocked with 5 star players up and down the roster, then yeah, you might not need to have a whole lotta coaching acumen to be successful. That's all the more reason that we, the perennial underdog, need to have better to excellent coaches who can teach and develop our under recruited players the fundamentals and coach them up to be in a position to succeed. I think we've all witnessed this happening on the D side, but not on the O side of the ball these past two years.

---

Oh what it would be to have to turn down 4 star athletes because you are stocked with too many 5 stars......

Quote:

---

Diaz takes over at The U by revamping the O Diaz takes over at The U by revamping the O https://es.pn/2LKRa6D via @ESPN App http://es.pn/app

---

This is going to be really painful to watch if Baldwin comes back another year. I loved hearing announcers say how Baldwin is so widely respected in the coaching profession. Well of course he is, opposing DCs love coaching against his offenses!

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Troll said:

---

I work for a very large retailer (does not begin with a W) and supervise 250 associates with an annual sales shy of 60 million. When I get transferred to a new store I don't replace "associates" I get the associates to work at a different level knowing that all do not have the same skill sets, but all have something to contribute to the "team". Probably why I have been employed by the same company for 32 years. And to answer your question, I am not related to Calbear80, but he sounds like a smart guy....

---

All well and good but you (and many others) missed the most salient point...

In sports there are two teams on the field/court, you can play a perfect game and still lose because your talent just isn't good enough. It happens. The only thing you can do is sign better talent.

I agree with your point but why did our DC find a way to be successful and our OC hasn't? Both had the same amount of time to recruit (which was no time since we got rid of Sonny late in the season) So both coordinators had to find a way to be successful with Sonny's recruits. Which again makes no sense because we all know Sonny was not a defensive minded coach so you would think we should have had talent on the offensive side. So the real question (which is your answer, we need to recruit better players) is what the hell did Sonny do when he was here.......

---

---

I would suggest the answer revolves around the inexperience/lack of talent at the QB position. Obviously, the quarterback is the most important player on the field. No single position on D is close. If you have a crappy/inexperienced guy at QB, your offense is hobbled accordingly. If you have a positional weakness on D, you can generally mask it if your other positions are good.

Add to this the lack of speed and size at WR and the lack of depth at RB and OL along with good health on D (with the obvious exception of Goode). I find it ironic that Dykes left so little on O relative to what he left on D.

Note: I do not hold the coaches fully responsible for the transfers. Kids make decisions for a variety of reasons. And, as we know, Cal is not for everybody.

Having said that, I have watched a ton of college football the last couple weeks and I would agree that Cal could have done a better job schematically. If I were to assign responsibility for the failure of the O, I would suggest talent 85% and coaching 15%.

---

I find your logic as perplexing as your 15% responsibility on coaching. So Dykes got fired, then many talents on the O side left the program for one reason or another. You do not hold the current staff fully responsible, yet complain about Dykes left less O talents than D. Mind explaining your thoughts in a more coherent way?

calgo430 said:

---

get real. we have a major skill player problem. our group of athletes is sub par.

---

We said the same thing about our defense 2 years ago. But we do things like keep Evan Weaver on the bench. Evan should have played the moment he stepped on campus. And just think he wouldn't have played this year if it wasn't for injury. They pushed JK hard, but he was no EW.

Yackattack said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

get real. we have a major skill player problem. our group of athletes is sub par.

---

We said the same thing about our defense 2 years ago. But we do things like keep Evan Weaver on the bench. Evan should have played the moment he stepped on campus. And just think he wouldn't have played this year if it wasn't for injury. They pushed JK hard, but he was no EW.

---

Moreover, teams that have "a major skill position problem" and a great defense do not run passing spreads. Look what TCU did to beat us when faced with the exact same problem we had (lack of offense and the QB throwing to the other team) - they went jumbo with extra linemen and ground it out for a long drive and a TD. Not rocket science, but looked like genius compared to what we did.

We had two nearly identical teams playing, but they made a coaching adjustment in strategy (and after a break, brought back the starting QB who had thrown 4 picks) while we just once again changed QBs but stuck with the same ineffective strategy and watched a different QB once again get the same negative results (3 picks each). That was not fair to Garbers, Forrest or the team. Yes, there was a lack of skill position talent, so I expect the offensive coaches to devise our best possible strategy given that reality.

71Bear said:

---

Lastly, I have said numerous times that Wilcox's legacy is completely dependent on his ability to recruit and he is off to an uneven start. The fact that Cal signed two guys (two 3 stars) and Stanford signed four (two 3 stars, two 4 stars) from the Bay Area this month is a big problem. Cal must do better and that means every coach on staff. There is no excuse for letting the Cardinal best Cal locally.

---

Don't forget that this is only Wilcox's second class. Furd has been successful much much longer that we have, and Shaw has been recruiting in the Bay Area & Northern California for 12 years. And dykes completely ignored Northern California the four years before Wilcox came to Cal.

In light of these facts, Wilcox is doing better than we could reasonably expect. And don't forget he's brought in good recruits from the Sacramento area, which was ignored by Cal even more than the Ball Area.