I know there is no indication that BB will be fired that I know of, but how can a reasonable head coach or athletics director allow this offense to continue? I'm a little surprised by this board as if we are resigned to BB returning. He absolutely cost us 2-3 games. We would have gone to a much better bowl game and more recruiting and momentum for 2019. Tolerating this would mean we don't care about winning.

I'll just start with some names, whether fitting or not:

Jacob Peeler
Hue Jackson
Tony Franklin
Sark
Troy Taylor
Jedd Fisch

I'm with you. It's freaking me out. I think everyone is just quietly assuming the worst and are super depressed.

Me !!!

I somewhat want to see no changes occur just to see how BI collectively loses their mind.

packawana said:

---

I somewhat want to see no changes occur just to see how BI collectively loses their mind.

---

This!

Sooo curious to see just how batshyte crazy this place gets.

AunBear89 said:

---

packawana said:

---

I somewhat want to see no changes occur just to see how BI collectively loses their mind.

---

This!

Sooo curious to see just how batshyte crazy this place gets.

---

Judiging by how it's going I think you'll see more depression than batshiz. We are in the Xanax era of Cal sports.

KenBurnski said:

---

I'm with you. It's freaking me out. I think everyone is just quietly assuming the worst and are super depressed.

---

Like some sort of 'battered wife' syndrome.

You can take Sark off that list. Do you really think someone who sued the University that hired him for $30 mil will get past Knowlton and Christ?

bipolarbear said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

I'm with you. It's freaking me out. I think everyone is just quietly assuming the worst and are super depressed.

---

Like some sort of 'battered wife' syndrome.

---

To quote Born in the USA: "end up like a dog that has been beat too much, till you spend half your life just covering-up."

This is sports Internet board, speculating on coaching staffs is what people do.

Shoreline said:

---

You can take Sark off that list. Do you really think someone who sued the University that hired him for $30 mil will get past Knowlton and Christ?

---

I'm not a Sark fan, but they might. It would be very Cal like to be progressive about supporting people who overcome an addiction.

I would have said Taylor a month ago, but not after he took the Sac. State job. I suspect any replacement will be someone Wilcox knows. Maybe Kiesau (also could be a Sirmon like WR coach). In the interests of recruiting, and economics (SC would be paying for some of the contract) I would not rule out Tee Martin either as a OC or WR coach. Both know passing games and worked with Wilcox. For non-Wilcox guys, I like David Yost, Phil Longo, and Kalen Deboer (sorry JT).

wifeisafurd said:

---

Wilcox said publicly his review would take a month or so. Then if you make changes, it takes time including getting replacements, negotiations, allowing the coaches on the outs to find other jobs first (if you can) before announcements so it doesn't look like you fired them, all in the name of doing it the right way so people want to work with you in the future. Sure SC can screw over coaches by firing them on airport tarmacs (and get screwed over in turn) because they are an attractive program that pays big bucks. Cal and Wilcox are not in that league, and should do it right. It took Wilcox a long time to get his defense staff in place (e.g., DC took forever), but I'm glad he took the time to get it right.

Patience.

---

Very well said, this is the direction my thoughts were heading. Now if in fact no changes are made, then the word you used, "patience" still applies I think . It may end up being painful again next season but I would have to give credit to JW for sticking to the process in order to eventually "get it right" for the longer term. "Longer term" however would not extend beyond next season.

As an aside, my own hope is that Sark never again sets foot in CMS at all. Not even as an opposing coach. But I'm sure this is a moot point.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Shoreline said:

---

You can take Sark off that list. Do you really think someone who sued the University that hired him for $30 mil will get past Knowlton and Christ?

---

I'm not a Sark fan, but they might. It would be very Cal like to be progressive about supporting people who overcome an addiction.

---

Overcoming addiction a big plus. Being an AH that needed to take down Cal FB specifically to make UW FB better at the time is a no flyer. We were killing him in recruiting in the area he needed and were the program that stood in his way of turning it about in Seattle. A slime ball over and above addiction

OdontoBear66 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Shoreline said:

---

You can take Sark off that list. Do you really think someone who sued the University that hired him for $30 mil will get past Knowlton and Christ?

---

I'm not a Sark fan, but they might. It would be very Cal like to be progressive about supporting people who overcome an addiction.

---

Overcoming addiction a big plus. Being an AH that needed to take down Cal FB specifically to make UW FB better at the time is a no flyer. We were killing him in recruiting in the area he needed and were the program that stood in his way of turning it about in Seattle. A slime ball over and above addiction

---

Being a strategic guy, even if he hurst you as an opponent is not always to be viewed badly (think Monty who killed us), and if Willcox wants him that probably overrules those objections.

For me, I don't like the guy because he can be underhanded, and also he doesn't seem like a good fit for Cal personality wise. But I'm not the head coach. If Wilcox says he is plus despite the baggage he brings to the table, I guess I'm in. My preferences are stated in another post.

PtownBear1 said:

---

Two thoughts:

1.) **** Sark

2.) I think where we went wrong with BB is that a successful HC requires such a different skill set than a successful OC. The assumption was that if you've reached HC status, you've mastered coordinator skills but apparently that's not always the case.

Utah ended up hiring the OC and it worked out better for them (at least in the short run). Another example that comes to mind of hiring an OC from a small school is when Oregon hired Chip Kelly, OC of Hampton or Hampshire or whatever it was.

So as a realistic option, I'd like to see us go after the OC of a small school this time around who's proven to be successful and innovative.

---

What about Yost the or the Fresno State guy (who had a lot of experience/success a the small college level before working under JT). Longo doesn't fit that category, but I wold love to get even with Mack Brown.

Peeler; No, needs to prove he's more than a recruiter.
Franklin: I'd be okay with it, but plenty of people here would go crazy. Besides that, not gonna happen.
Jackson; Not gonna happen.
Sark: No
Taylor: We're too late on him, this time around.

Why isn't Wilcox moving forward with this?
a) He is and we'll know more soon
b) He knows about BB's virtues that we are unaware of
c) He just doesn't want to can BB and is hoping it'll turn out all right

Assuming the answer is "a" and we want to predict who it might REALLY, be, let's move beyond the usual suspects and identify somebody that Wilcox has worked with and really respects, or maybe someone that's only one degree of separation from having worked with Wilcox, i.e. Wilcox is close enough to him through mutual contacts.

Everyone from top to bottom got though affirms that it was BB behind that offense -- designing it, calling the plays, etc. So going after an innovative OC is very much a risk that can work out (see Joe Moorehead) or fail hard (BB so far though I do think we keep him).

I still think BB will be very successfulx just elsewhere.

fat_slice said:

---

I'd be satisfied with a "QB coach candidates thread." I think he's not getting the heat that he should ... couldn't pick a QB and none of the 4 used showed any development ... regressed even!

---

I don't agree with getting rid of BB. But I do agree with getting a new QB coach.

packawana said:

---

Everyone from top to bottom got though affirms that it was BB behind that offense -- designing it, calling the plays, etc. So going after an innovative OC is very much a risk that can work out (see Joe Moorehead) or fail hard (BB so far though I do think we keep him).

I still think BB will be very successfulx just elsewhere.

---

It appears Baldwin's offense depends heavily on having superior talent, with skill players winning one on one matchups. For a passing spread, depth at WR is particularly critical. We don't have that right now. He found duel threat QBs and used rpo, and let them make plays. That was his instinct with McIlwain, who I am sure would have torn up FCS defenses. It is an offense that can excel at the HS or FCS level but is easily defeated by Pac12 dedensive coordinators with P5 talent at their disposal.

If Baldwin is retained I just hope we get a lot more difference makers at WR. We have lost a lot there over the last two years.

fat_slice said:

---

I'd be satisfied with a "QB coach candidates thread." I think he's not getting the heat that he should ... couldn't pick a QB and none of the 4 used showed any development ... regressed even!

---

While I'm not a fan of Tuiasosopo's work, do you think he really has much say as to which QB plays?

KoreAmBear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

packawana said:

---

I somewhat want to see no changes occur just to see how BI collectively loses their mind.

---

This!

Sooo curious to see just how batshyte crazy this place gets.

---

Judiging by how it's going I think you'll see more depression than batshiz. We are in the Xanax era of Cal sports.

---

It feels like we have been in the "Xanax Era", since I joined this dysfunctional family, in 1974.

Yogi Bear said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

I'd be satisfied with a "QB coach candidates thread." I think he's not getting the heat that he should ... couldn't pick a QB and none of the 4 used showed any development ... regressed even!

---

While I'm not a fan of Tuiasosopo's work, do you think he really has much say as to which QB plays?

---

I am actually not sure but even if he didn't, he clearly could not make any one of 4 quarterbacks better (maybe even made them worse). And 2 of those quarterbacks are 4*s if I'm not mistaken.

calumnus said:

---

packawana said:

---

Everyone from top to bottom got though affirms that it was BB behind that offense -- designing it, calling the plays, etc. So going after an innovative OC is very much a risk that can work out (see Joe Moorehead) or fail hard (BB so far though I do think we keep him).

I still think BB will be very successfulx just elsewhere.

---

It appears Baldwin's offense depends heavily on having superior talent, with skill players winning one on one matchups. For a passing spread, depth at WR is particularly critical. We don't have that right now. He found duel threat QBs and used rpo, and let them make plays. That was his instinct with McIlwain, who I am sure would have torn up FCS defenses. It is an offense that can excel at the HS or FCS level but is easily defeated by Pac12 dedensive coordinators with P5 talent at their disposal.

If Baldwin is retained I just hope we get a lot more difference makers at WR. We have lost a lot there over the last two years.

---

"I've created this great new offensive system and, as long as my offensive talent is better than the defensive talent we're up against, we usually win!"

sheer genius

fat_slice said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

I'd be satisfied with a "QB coach candidates thread." I think he's not getting the heat that he should ... couldn't pick a QB and none of the 4 used showed any development ... regressed even!

---

While I'm not a fan of Tuiasosopo's work, do you think he really has much say as to which QB plays?

---

I am actually not sure but even if he didn't, he clearly could not make any one of 4 quarterbacks better (maybe even made them worse). And 2 of those quarterbacks are 4*s if I'm not mistaken.

---

I think our young WRs looked more questionably coached. Trying to catch balls with your body? Only the veterans of the prior staff (Noa, Wharton and Duncan) looked like they had good technique.

It is tough to tell with the QBs. Garbers looked better when Noa, Wharton and Duncan were healthy and "regressed" as the WR injuries mounted. We don't know what these guys looked like last year. In his limited play, Bowers did look bad, exhibiting the same bad habits as last year (especially running backwards when protection breaks down). Not having more insight, I'd say the key for me is Tui's recruiting. I assume Modster was a Tui recruit at UCLA and at Cal? Though significantly not actually coached by Tui at UCLA?

What offense doesn't rely on skill players winning one on one match ups? All of them do. The misdirection works because the defense has to actually focus on defending someone. If the defense can cover everyone one on one, it will be a long day for an offense, even with the best OC in the NFL. On a side note, the longer the line holds blocks, the harder it is for defenders to cover.

calumnus said:

---

It appears Baldwin's offense depends heavily on having superior talent, with skill players winning one on one matchups. For a passing spread, depth at WR is particularly critical. We don't have that right now. He found duel threat QBs and used rpo, and let them make plays. That was his instinct with McIlwain, who I am sure would have torn up FCS defenses. It is an offense that can excel at the HS or FCS level but is easily defeated by Pac12 dedensive coordinators with P5 talent at their disposal.

If Baldwin is retained I just hope we get a lot more difference makers at WR. We have lost a lot there over the last two years.

---

So the solution is simple. Find an OC whose offense depends heavily on inferior talent.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

It appears Baldwin's offense depends heavily on having superior talent, with skill players winning one on one matchups. For a passing spread, depth at WR is particularly critical. We don't have that right now. He found duel threat QBs and used rpo, and let them make plays. That was his instinct with McIlwain, who I am sure would have torn up FCS defenses. It is an offense that can excel at the HS or FCS level but is easily defeated by Pac12 dedensive coordinators with P5 talent at their disposal.

If Baldwin is retained I just hope we get a lot more difference makers at WR. We have lost a lot there over the last two years.

---

So the solution is simple. Find an OC whose offense depends heavily on inferior talent.

---

Ha ha. Find an OC who can produce good offenses with average or even below average talent and great offenses with great talent.

oski003 said:

---

What offense doesn't rely on skill players winning one on one match ups? All of them do. The misdirection works because the defense has to actually focus on defending someone. If the defense can cover everyone one on one, it will be a long day for an offense, even with the best OC in the NFL. On a side note, the longer the line holds blocks, the harder it is for defenders to cover.

---

Actually...a whole lot of them. The spread is the most dependent one on one matchups, which is why I said from the start and have been saying that it is not a good fit for cal to be running the spread anymore. Be different or be better. The spread had an advantage for years because no one else was doing it. Well guess what. Everyone is doing it now. So Cal will not gain an advantage and does not have superior talent, so...what do we think is going to happen.

Back to the original question, pretty much any non-spread, run based offense does not depend on one on one matchups. I'm talking everything from the Houston Veer family (aka wishbone, flexbone) to the traditional mash em up power stuff that has made our dear friends in red a prominent program to what Shanahan and McVay are doing in the NFL. Yes, that is right - as much as the talking heads love the high flying wunderkind genius angle (and I personally love what they are doing, so this is in no way a negative), they are basically running variations of the same zone run/boot pass based offense made famous by the elder Shanahan. And the zone scheme is based upon double teams at the point of attack. It's not about winning one on one matchups in these offenses - it's about creating double teams, advantages, or in some cases in creating a phone booth brawl.
It's so funny how the spread offense is now the "safe" offense, and any coach who doesn't run it is taking a risk in being called a Stone Age creature.
Long story short, spread offenses are an extreme example of one on one based football, but there is an endless supply of tried and true schematics that aren't.

oski003 said:

---

What offense doesn't rely on skill players winning one on one match ups? All of them do. The misdirection works because the defense has to actually focus on defending someone. If the defense can cover everyone one on one, it will be a long day for an offense, even with the best OC in the NFL. On a side note, the longer the line holds blocks, the harder it is for defenders to cover.

---

Exactly. Doesn't necessarily mean that Wilcox shouldn't upgrade the OC, but your post highlights the issues that were plainly consistent in year two.