Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

71Bear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

yes, but doesn't the center get the chicks?

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

yes, but doesn't the center get the chicks?

---

Look to the New England Patriots for the answer to your query...

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

yes, but doesn't the center get the chicks?

---

Look to the New England Patriots for the answer to your query...

---

https://goo.gl/images/9bqXnt

Meet former swim suit model Mrs. Dempsey. Compare and contrast with Mrs. Brady

https://goo.gl/images/pXD7po

I would say they both players did well.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

You make it sound like the broken thumb on his throwing hand wasn't a factor in Ross not finishing the game...

---

The narrative that Ross was fine in 2018 and should have been kept his starting job is just bizarre. My man was seriously injured and couldn't throw.

---

We didn't know that until several games later and to my knowledge there was never an official announcement(?), so another narrative developed that has had a life of its own.

---

That's understandable. However, posting that BB ruined Bowers, on Jan. 27, 2019, is bizarre. Today, we all know better.

---

Not sure we'll know the full story of when Ross was injured, and when he told the coaching staff. He got pulled from the UNC game but my understanding is that the staff may not have known at the time that the injury was that bad. So it begs the question why did he never play again?

I wouldn't say BB ruined him but it was a bizarre story no one seems to really know the full details.

I wouldn't say BB ruined Garbers or McIlwain but I will go as far as to say they were both shellshocked by the end of the bowl game. I place his mismanagement of them and his playcalling as the direct cause for where they're at now. They started off super confident and making plays. See the BYU game. BB ran BM into the ground playing him 100% and letting him get pummeled and the Garbers putting everything on him when BM couldn't do it. The dual QB thing had been working just fine.

---

You see, that dual quarterback thing was very unpopular here. But I agree with you. Normal? No. Optimal? No. But it fit the situation.

Neither of them had ability to fully run the offense. But by switching they could run it well enough to keep a defense on its heels.

I had two problems with the approach. The obvious #1 was ball security. BMacs fumbling was a consequence of carelessness, risky behavior and under coaching.

Then there were the interceptions. Both Chase and BMac threw interceptions where it appeared they weren't on the same page as the intended receiver. Then we had the ill-advised passes into coverage. Just a disaster.

Second, was playcalling in the red zone. It drove me crazy that we would drive down the field, mainly on the ground. Then throw an incompletion on first down, run for little or nothing on second, then throw an incomplete or an interception on third. Moving away from the run on way too many drives killed our offensive rhythm.

Anyway, hopefully Modster wakes us from our offensive nightmare. Thanks for the chance to vent.

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

yes, but doesn't the center get the chicks?

---

That is too funny. Will pass that on Wife!

71Bear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

Agreed but was trying to say that study time forQB is tres importante. More than any other position. You think about it too lightly and you will be bitten in the arse...

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

yes, but doesn't the center get the chicks?

---

Look to the New England Patriots for the answer to your query...

---

https://goo.gl/images/9bqXnt

Meet former swim suit model Mrs. Dempsey. Compare and contrast with Mrs. Brady

https://goo.gl/images/pXD7po

I would say they both players did well.

---

Not bad!

Sorry guys for all those answers. I am in Holland for 10 days at my folks and should be asleep since it is 1 am. Hopefully the melatonin kicks in soon..

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

kad02002 said:

---

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

---

I think the triple option is fun. I think it's a great offense to watch.

I think it's a terrible idea for Cal.

Guys/Gals relax....
Look on the brite side......
You're saving all that money from not having to pay BCS hotels, restaurants and cocktail prices...
Not to mention all that BCS swag no one needs.
Cheers!!


GO BEARS!!

kad02002 said:

---

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

---

I don't know if this would get us to a Pac 12 championship but it would be better than what we have. And I like going against the trend.

packawana said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

---

I think the triple option is fun. I think it's a great offense to watch.

I think it's a terrible idea for Cal.

---

Biggest problem: Huge change in player skill sets (probably more than one year). Then, if it doesn't work, there's another period of time to change back out of it.

Much bigger change than from "pro style" to Air Raid.

The biggest obstacle to doing anything different schematically in football are the fans/admins "knowing more" and being pissed that their team isn't doing what everyone else is doing (fans probably simultaneously asking the team to think outside the box/be more creative lol).

Cal does this and they become the top dog in the country recruiting the players to fit their offense. Beats being the 30+ (conservatively) option at recruiting to what everyone else is doing.

The offense also fits what they are trying to do defensively.

You'd see the offense consistently rank in the top 10 in the country in rushing. It's still a gun offense which gives additional passing flexibility. The run game would only enhance the defense, so you can bet on top 20 rankings there as well.

The Bay Area is one of the top areas in the country in producing running back talent. The team is already focusing on TEs and lineman, which fits the scheme and the academic profile.

Or, hey, let's keep doing the same thing as everyone else and maybe get to another Rose Bowl in 50 years.

Big C said:

---

packawana said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

---

I think the triple option is fun. I think it's a great offense to watch.

I think it's a terrible idea for Cal.

---

Biggest problem: Huge change in player skill sets (probably more than one year). Then, if it doesn't work, there's another period of time to change back out of it.

Much bigger change than from "pro style" to Air Raid.

---

I disagree on this point since it's not an under center option offense. It's generally a 2 receiver, te/hback, 2 back offense. The current personnel would fit well.

I'll admit that there might not be a QB on the roster who WANTS to run it, even if a few have the skill set. That being said, you'd be the #1 team in the country recruiting QBs who want to run this type of system, and while you might not be getting the blue chippers (not exactly a problem atm anyways), there will be a much lower fail rate on quarterbacks who basically need to be good, tough athletes making simple reads in the passing game, as opposed to competing against everyone for the best traditional QBs in the country, a very high percentage of whom will fail anyways.

fat_slice said:

---

I am still very upset with the token changes that took place. Just reshuffling people will have no impact I feel.

I mean if Beau knows (Bo knows!) how to coach QBs better than Tui wouldn't he have already been giving that input during the season? Or taking over it at some point during the season? Worse case scenario is that these changes already took place mid season and they simply just announced the changes ... in which case we already have our answer if this will work or not.

Anyone have strong view that these changes will materially help us? Would love to hear an opposing view.

---

I had always understood that wholesale changes to the offense or defense could/should not be made during the season. Therefore would it be realistic to expect Beau to take over the QBs and revamp their play during the season.
I think not.

kad02002 said:

---

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

---

Apparently you weren't around the last time this was tried in our conference. It may seem hard to believe, but OSU's version of this was easily WAY worse than our offense. No thanks.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

I am still very upset with the token changes that took place. Just reshuffling people will have no impact I feel.

I mean if Beau knows (Bo knows!) how to coach QBs better than Tui wouldn't he have already been giving that input during the season? Or taking over it at some point during the season? Worse case scenario is that these changes already took place mid season and they simply just announced the changes ... in which case we already have our answer if this will work or not.

Anyone have strong view that these changes will materially help us? Would love to hear an opposing view.

---

I had always understood that wholesale changes to the offense or defense could/should not be made during the season. Therefore would it be realistic to expect Beau to take over the QBs and revamp their play during the season.
I think not.

---

The OC taking on more QB coaching responsibility mid-season with zero change in his scheme or playcalling is about as far away from a "wholesale change" as you can get.

The big decisions like starting McIlwain against Arizona and having him throw 43 times and only run a couple of times was certainly not a Tui decision, it was a Baldwin decision (with some amount of buy-in from Wilcox).

kad02002 said:

---

The biggest obstacle to doing anything different schematically in football are the fans/admins "knowing more" and being pissed that their team isn't doing what everyone else is doing (fans probably simultaneously asking the team to think outside the box/be more creative lol).

Cal does this and they become the top dog in the country recruiting the players to fit their offense. Beats being the 30+ (conservatively) option at recruiting to what everyone else is doing.

The offense also fits what they are trying to do defensively.

You'd see the offense consistently rank in the top 10 in the country in rushing. It's still a gun offense which gives additional passing flexibility. The run game would only enhance the defense, so you can bet on top 20 rankings there as well.

The Bay Area is one of the top areas in the country in producing running back talent. The team is already focusing on TEs and lineman, which fits the scheme and the academic profile.

Or, hey, let's keep doing the same thing as everyone else and maybe get to another Rose Bowl in 50 years.

---

I generally agree with the idea of being different/thinking outside the box. However, more than RBs, the Bay Area/California is THE top talent area for QBs.

Cal has a great history of pulling in NFL level talent. Unfortunately we have a history of not fully utilizing our elite talent.

More than anything radically different, the two offenses that I would look to emulate are the two in the Super Bowl this weekend. Both involve power running and are very QB friendly.

In fact, the offense I would emulate is the Ram's under McVay. We already have access to Jared Goff as a potential Spring/Summer "consultant." It is very QB friendly, relying on a strong running game and almost all passing coming off playaction. Lots of misdirection. Lots of rollouts/bootlegs. Plays that resemble inbounding plays in basketball get WRs wide open. It is basically "smart" football.

If we bring in Zac Taylor (just as an example) say we are running that offense, if our QBs and WRs have access to Goff (maybe McVay too?) imagine the pull we wil have throughout California?

However, enough of that. Right now, since he will be here at least one more year, I am hoping Baldwin proves his detractors and skeptics (myself among the top) to be very wrong about him.

Go Bears!

calumnus said:

---

More than anything radically different, the two offenses that I would look to emulate are the two in the Super Bowl this weekend. Both are very QB friendly.

In fact, the offense I would emulate is the Ram's under McVay. We already have access to Jared Goff as a potential Spring/Summer "consultant." It is very QB friendly, relying on a strong running game and almost all passing coming off playaction. Lots of misdirection. Lots of rollouts/bootlegs. Plays that resemble inbounding plays in basketball get WRs wide open. It is basically "smart" football.

If we bring in Zac Taylor (just as an example) say we are running that offense, if our QBs and WRs have access to Goff (maybe McVay too?) imagine the pull we wil have throughout California?

However, enough of that. Right now, since he will be here at least one more year, I am hoping Baldwin proves his detractors and skeptics (myself among the top) to be very wrong about him.

Go Bears!

---

McVay's offense works because of the level of talent on the team. I think any QB would benefit from having a lot of talent on his team. And the Patriots are the Patriots more because of Brady than the brilliance of their offensive coordinators, none of whom have gone on to be good head coaches.

I think we do want a QB friendly offense in the sense that it doesn't require the QB to have to make complicated decisions, but I don't know that emulating a pro offense is the way to go about doing it. I think there are already plenty of good college offense to emulate if you want something that enhances a college QB's chances of succeeding. Unfortunately, we kept Beau Baldwin so none of that is going to happen.

tequila4kapp said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

---

Apparently you weren't around the last time this was tried in our conference. It may seem hard to believe, but OSU's version of this was easily WAY worse than our offense. No thanks.

---

Wasn't OSU an all time bad program running the wishbone? That's...not the same.

I'd be all for McVay's offense. It's about as simple as you can get in the NFL, and that's great. Actually, the closest thing in college football to it, I'd say, is Wisconsin. I think many of us (including me) have called for a full Wisconsin approach on BOTH sides of the ball, not just defense. It's an offense/defense mismatch at the moment.

The downside is that if your coach isn't young and "dynamic looking," everyone calls it boring and the guy gets run off. I don't think McVay could get away with doing what he's doing if he were some 60 year old longtime coach. It's basically papa Shanahan's zone scheme mashed with the old Bay Area high school/northwest d3/Mark Speckman offense...and it's a beautiful thing.

Goobear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

The chance of a good record next year is almost nil anyway. At least this gives us either an out or a pleasant surprise.

---

Cal was 7-5 with a strong defense and virtually no offense and QBs who had a terrible habit of throwing INTs.
Next year with an even stronger defense and an untested offense. I would expect a 6-6 or 7-5 year again. .

---

Dykes WEAK! But Dykes went 8-5 in third year. If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5, he WEAKER than Dykes.

---

Maybe, but Dykes had Superbowl QB Jared Goff behind center.

---

By year 3, Wilcox should have STRONG QB behind center. By year 3, you mostly have who you recruited.

---

By the end of Year 3 (if not before then), Baldwin will have ruined a fourth Cal QB.

---

He's already gone through 4.

---

I'm not sure he ruined Chase Forrest, though. Whether he played him sufficiently or coached him ip enough is another question. But he ruined Ross Bowers, Chase Garber, and Brandon McIlwain. He ruined the first by pulling the starting QB position from him after half a game this year. His musical chairs approach to QBs after that ruined the confidence of the other two.

That said, if you want to say that Baldwin also ruined Forrest, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

---

He ruined no one. It was Bowers' to lose. He lost it late into fall camp. Garbers was young with not a lot of reps. I think the development in fall camp was less than ideal. If there was one mistake it probably was the QB's other than Bowers not getting enough reps early on and perhaps the remaining reps shared by too many QB's other than Bowers. McIlwain was allowed to come in and play. It did not work. Forrest lost to Bowers the year before and was too old. It is clear that the QB stable when Wilcox came was not full. When Dykes left, Martinez decommitted because Spav left. Spav recruited Garbers and Baldwin was able to hold on. In effect, Brasch is the first scholarship QB recruited and closed by this staff. I think the QB position is an important position that requires a lot of dedication a la Goff and Webb. Forrest learned that from these guys and was there to set the tone in terms of studying in the film room. Now it is up to the QB's to embrace that and invest even more. Most young kids coming from HS have to get used to how much time it requires. Both Modster and Garbers should know that and put in the time. The staff knows there are no excuses.

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

yes, but doesn't the center get the chicks?

---

That is too funny. Will pass that on Wife!

---

Pass it on to Addi, not mama bear.

okaydo said:

---

Cal Strong! thinks Wilcox strong not listening to internet mob.

---

Cal Strong too busy making BIG Kushari and falafel for family. STRONG!

wifeisafurd said:

---

Goobear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Well said.

The only comment with which I disagree is "QB position is an important position...". IMO, QB is THE single most important position on the entire team. (even more so than center)

---

yes, but doesn't the center get the chicks?

---

That is too funny. Will pass that on Wife!

---

Pass it on to Addi, not mama bear.

---

YOU are Wife. SMH.

kad02002 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

https://gseagles.com/staff.aspx?staff=411

You want to start winning some serious games, that's your next offensive coordinator. Alternatively: maintain mediocrity by continuing to do what everyone else is doing.

---

Apparently you weren't around the last time this was tried in our conference. It may seem hard to believe, but OSU's version of this was easily WAY worse than our offense. No thanks.

---

Wasn't OSU an all time bad program running the wishbone? That's...not the same.

I'd be all for McVay's offense. It's about as simple as you can get in the NFL, and that's great. Actually, the closest thing in college football to it, I'd say, is Wisconsin. I think many of us (including me) have called for a full Wisconsin approach on BOTH sides of the ball, not just defense. It's an offense/defense mismatch at the moment.

The downside is that if your coach isn't young and "dynamic looking," everyone calls it boring and the guy gets run off. I don't think McVay could get away with doing what he's doing if he were some 60 year old longtime coach. It's basically papa Shanahan's zone scheme mashed with the old Bay Area high school/northwest d3/Mark Speckman offense...and it's a beautiful thing.

---

He can get away with it no matter how he looks because they score a lot and they're winning.

Alright, well let me know when colleges start hiring under center, zone running, bootleg/play action offensive coordinators again.

kad02002 said:

---

Alright, well let me know when colleges start hiring under center, zone running, bootleg/play action offensive coordinators again.

---

That's a very different point. You initially said you'd want McVey's offense, but that the person would need to be "dynamic" or else people would call it old-fashioned and run the coach out of town. When I suggested that was wrong - if a coach is putting up points and winning games no one would run him out of town no matter what he looks like or how his offense looks, you then changed your argument to whether someone who runs an offense like that would get hired. I have no idea if that's true or not.

kad02002 said:

---

Alright, well let me know when colleges start hiring under center, zone running, bootleg/play action offensive coordinators again.

---

Ain't gonna happen.

Closest thing is Ferentz @ Iowa lol.

Not a fan at all of the Wisconsin model.

The best part of the rams approach is the simplicity and complimentary nature of the concepts it's built around. It's the complete opposite of what our "Multiple" identity at the moment is...

To clarify my points:

1. I like his offense
2. Doing things outside the box are given much less leeway, and it helps to be young when repackaging old concepts (note: what he is doing is not outside the box in the nfl, but it would be in college).
3. Yes of course you don't get run out if you are scoring a ton haha. Just aren't allowed to struggle like the "popular/safe" offenses are. Shoot, the Ravens completely turned around their season running the option and they lose one (close) game to a defense with personnel ideally suited to defend the option, and all of the sudden the nfl has "figured out" their scheme (lol!).

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

Alright, well let me know when colleges start hiring under center, zone running, bootleg/play action offensive coordinators again.

---

Ain't gonna happen.

Closest thing is Ferentz @ Iowa lol.

Not a fan at all of the Wisconsin model.

The best part of the rams approach is the simplicity and complimentary nature of the concepts it's built around. It's the complete opposite of what our "Multiple" identity at the moment is...

---

Wisconsin offense and McVay offense very similar. Zone based, condensed formations, lot of fly sweep.

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

Alright, well let me know when colleges start hiring under center, zone running, bootleg/play action offensive coordinators again.

---

Ain't gonna happen.

Closest thing is Ferentz @ Iowa lol.

Not a fan at all of the Wisconsin model.

The best part of the rams approach is the simplicity and complimentary nature of the concepts it's built around. It's the complete opposite of what our "Multiple" identity at the moment is...

---

Wisconsin offense and McVay offense very similar. Zone based, condensed formations, lot of fly sweep.

---

Wisconsin is incredibly heavy w/ Gap Schemes in the run game. Although they do feature zone runs.

Youre looking at a much heavier Run->Pass ratio w/ Wiscy than the Rams.

The Rams are very much spread based, but their RPO component comes in the form of short play action from undercenter.

Jared threw for 4500 yards -- Wisconsin ain't gonna get anywhere close to that.

Sorry, if you look at it on a concept basis McVay's stuff is far more similar to the air raid than Wisconsin.

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

Alright, well let me know when colleges start hiring under center, zone running, bootleg/play action offensive coordinators again.

---

Ain't gonna happen.

Closest thing is Ferentz @ Iowa lol.

Not a fan at all of the Wisconsin model.

The best part of the rams approach is the simplicity and complimentary nature of the concepts it's built around. It's the complete opposite of what our "Multiple" identity at the moment is...

---

Wisconsin offense and McVay offense very similar. Zone based, condensed formations, lot of fly sweep.

---

Wisconsin is incredibly heavy w/ Gap Schemes in the run game. Although they do feature zone runs.

Youre looking at a much heavier Run->Pass ratio w/ Wiscy than the Rams.

The Rams are very much spread based, but their RPO component comes in the form of short play action from undercenter.

Jared threw for 4500 yards -- Wisconsin ain't gonna get anywhere close to that.

Sorry, if you look at it on a concept basis McVay's stuff is far more similar to the air raid than Wisconsin.

---

Rams are not spread. In fact, they are very well known for their condensed wide receivers. In other words, they are known for being literally the opposite of spread.

Saying that their RPO element comes in the form of play action does not make sense. That's like saying their pasta comes in the form of steak. I just...can't see what you mean by that.

On what basis does McVay's offense resemble the Air Raid in any way? I'm sure they have borrowed some concepts - everyone has - but otherwise, how? Formations, personnel groupings, ideologies...it's all different. I mean I guess if you go back far enough, the original Air Raid guys (Mumme, Leach) went to BYU to learn from LaVell Edwards, who was running a version of a simplified "West Coast" offense, and the air raid guys made it even simpler...and McVay is running a one back variation of the west coast offense made popular by Shanahan in the 90. So do they have some distant, long lost cousin relationship? I guess so. But at this point thats like saying English is similar to German.

I will give you that Wisconsin runs more gap scheme.