In terms of play selection, Rams were also 21st in the NFL in pass %...not exactly "air" raiding it out.

kad02002 said:

---

In terms of play selection, Rams were also 21st in the NFL in pass %...not exactly "air" raiding it out.

---

And nearly every pass starts with play-action. So they are showing "run" nearly every play. The exact percentage that wind up as runs or passes is unimportant. That is part of the unpredictability. But the need to defend against the possibility of a Gurley or CJ run on every play is what opens up everything else (and the run as well).

calumnus said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

In terms of play selection, Rams were also 21st in the NFL in pass %...not exactly "air" raiding it out.

---

And nearly every pass starts with play-action. So they are showing "run" nearly every play. The exact percentage that wind up as runs or passes is unimportant. That is part of the unpredictability. But the need to defend against the possibility of a Gurley or CJ run on every play is what opens up everything else (and the run as well).

---

Exactly. And that's what McVay and Shanahan are great at - the passes look SO much like the runs (I know the media talks about it ad nauseam, but it's true). It opens up so much grass between the linebackers and safeties. That's also what makes Goff a great fit - he might might only have a league average arm, but his touch, anticipation, and "artistry" (ie the instinctual ability to throw the ball with correct arc and pace) were off the charts in college, and that's what those throws are all about. It's also where Mullens really excelled this year - he's got a below average arm and not the athlete that Goff is, but very similar in the above noted attributes, and it showed.

Why does the run look so much like the pass? That's kind of the beauty of the offense - the run game often doesn't seek to drive people off the ball, so it's all a horizontal stretch. Since the linemen often aren't getting downfield quickly, the run and pass blocking can look almost identical.

That being said, I expect Bill B to seek to take away the edge off tackle. He's obviously great at eliminating the strength of the opposition. That edge is the key to Gurley's game and the key to the boot game. He'll load the box and throw a bunch of pressures with a mix of man and zone behind. I'm sure he's watched that Utah game a few times, and he'll try to make Goff beat his various disguises in coverage while trying to have Gurley/CJ win up the middle.

All that being said, I think the Rams have superior talent and overcome the great Pats coaching and experience to win. I actually see Suh as maybe the key to the game. He comes ready to play (and why wouldn't he?), you've got two hall of fame caliber DTs, and that's traditionally been a combo that's given Brady trouble. Expect a heavy dose of wham/trap blocks on those guys early in the script. I just don't think they can be blocked one on one unless they've been hit in the ear holes from a few different angles.

Talk about a post that went on a tangent...

kad02002 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

In terms of play selection, Rams were also 21st in the NFL in pass %...not exactly "air" raiding it out.

---

And nearly every pass starts with play-action. So they are showing "run" nearly every play. The exact percentage that wind up as runs or passes is unimportant. That is part of the unpredictability. But the need to defend against the possibility of a Gurley or CJ run on every play is what opens up everything else (and the run as well).

---

Exactly. And that's what McVay and Shanahan are great at - the passes look SO much like the runs (I know the media talks about it ad nauseam, but it's true). It opens up so much grass between the linebackers and safeties. That's also what makes Goff a great fit - he might might only have a league average arm, but his touch, anticipation, and "artistry" (ie the instinctual ability to throw the ball with correct arc and pace) were off the charts in college, and that's what those throws are all about. It's also where Mullens really excelled this year - he's got a below average arm and not the athlete that Goff is, but very similar in the above noted attributes, and it showed.

Why does the run look so much like the pass? That's kind of the beauty of the offense - the run game often doesn't seek to drive people off the ball, so it's all a horizontal stretch. Since the linemen often aren't getting downfield quickly, the run and pass blocking can look almost identical.

That being said, I expect Bill B to seek to take away the edge off tackle. He's obviously great at eliminating the strength of the opposition. That edge is the key to Gurley's game and the key to the boot game. He'll load the box and throw a bunch of pressures with a mix of man and zone behind. I'm sure he's watched that Utah game a few times, and he'll try to make Goff beat his various disguises in coverage while trying to have Gurley/CJ win up the middle.

All that being said, I think the Rams have superior talent and overcome the great Pats coaching and experience to win. I actually see Suh as maybe the key to the game. He comes ready to play (and why wouldn't he?), you've got two hall of fame caliber DTs, and that's traditionally been a combo that's given Brady trouble. Expect a heavy dose of wham/trap blocks on those guys early in the script. I just don't think they can be blocked one on one unless they've been hit in the ear holes from a few different angles.

Talk about a post that went on a tangent...

---

Great observations and analysis!

Sure hope you are right about the Rams beating the Dark Forces of the Patriots.

NVBear78 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

In terms of play selection, Rams were also 21st in the NFL in pass %...not exactly "air" raiding it out.

---

And nearly every pass starts with play-action. So they are showing "run" nearly every play. The exact percentage that wind up as runs or passes is unimportant. That is part of the unpredictability. But the need to defend against the possibility of a Gurley or CJ run on every play is what opens up everything else (and the run as well).

---

Exactly. And that's what McVay and Shanahan are great at - the passes look SO much like the runs (I know the media talks about it ad nauseam, but it's true). It opens up so much grass between the linebackers and safeties. That's also what makes Goff a great fit - he might might only have a league average arm, but his touch, anticipation, and "artistry" (ie the instinctual ability to throw the ball with correct arc and pace) were off the charts in college, and that's what those throws are all about. It's also where Mullens really excelled this year - he's got a below average arm and not the athlete that Goff is, but very similar in the above noted attributes, and it showed.

Why does the run look so much like the pass? That's kind of the beauty of the offense - the run game often doesn't seek to drive people off the ball, so it's all a horizontal stretch. Since the linemen often aren't getting downfield quickly, the run and pass blocking can look almost identical.

That being said, I expect Bill B to seek to take away the edge off tackle. He's obviously great at eliminating the strength of the opposition. That edge is the key to Gurley's game and the key to the boot game. He'll load the box and throw a bunch of pressures with a mix of man and zone behind. I'm sure he's watched that Utah game a few times, and he'll try to make Goff beat his various disguises in coverage while trying to have Gurley/CJ win up the middle.

All that being said, I think the Rams have superior talent and overcome the great Pats coaching and experience to win. I actually see Suh as maybe the key to the game. He comes ready to play (and why wouldn't he?), you've got two hall of fame caliber DTs, and that's traditionally been a combo that's given Brady trouble. Expect a heavy dose of wham/trap blocks on those guys early in the script. I just don't think they can be blocked one on one unless they've been hit in the ear holes from a few different angles.

Talk about a post that went on a tangent...

---

Great observations and analysis!

Sure hope you are right about the Rams beating the Dark Forces of the Patriots.

---

Thank you

kad02002 said:

---

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.

---

Largely on the basis of their use of personnel groupings. They want to live in 11, but can't anymore due to injuries, and get a lot of utility of their TEs as split receivers, very much unlike Wisconsin who historically has based out of 21.

They are spread in the sense of their organization and structure & use of tempo. A Rams practice essentially looks like an air raid practice.

The fact that they utilize some form of play action on the majority of pass plays is also tangentially similar to what Tony did with PA & RPO out of the gun. You are essentially seeing the Bear Raid out of undercenter with the rams with their zone run game tied to it.

Franklin did the same thing with his stretch runs and 5 man power.

It looks like the old shanahan zone run + vertical pass, but it's really just modern offense adapted to some tried and true pro style concepts. A pro-spread hybrid in that sense.

All I'm saying is that It's closer to a Spread than it is to Wisconsin. Don't forget that Tony used a **** ton of compressed formations too... he wasn't all art briles veer & shoot w/ receiver splits.

Spav was much more into spacing and spread splits than Franklin ever was.

Bottom line Wisconsin style offense is not modern football everyone has their stylistic preferences (and I have a much more spread bias, that's for certain) but when you watch the rams they are far more aggressive and spread oriented with their pass game. Some of the choice routes that they work Woods on are taken straight from the Run and Shoot (which is as far on the other spectrum of offense from Wisconsin as you could ever be).

socaliganbear said:

---

Wilcox owns this offensive ****show now.

---

Absolutely! He really needs to learn offense. He's young enough. It's not rocket science.
He needs to get much better and be held accountable. You see all kinds of little wrinkles
when you watch the NFL playoffs. Wilcox needs to study films, attend seminars, pick the
brains of experts, and do his job. The fact he let that incredibly embarrassing product on
the field last year falls on him. Worst offense ever. So what if we actually have a defense
now. Last year's team was boring. And the bowl game was one of the worst football games
I've ever watched. Bottom line: You have your extension, now do your job Wilcox!

From 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

calumnus said:

---

From 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

Holme recruited well.

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JFrom 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

---

He was not a total loss as a coach. He was a poor on-field coach, he was terrible at addressing situations that required expertise in conflict resolution, and he was awful in the area of player development.

Where he did a decent job was recruiting and interacting with the various off-field constituencies. Also, for whatever it's worth, he really liked working at Cal.

Contrast that with Gilby - he was a coach who truly was a total disaster in all aspects of the job.

CalBarn said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Wilcox owns this offensive ****show now.

---

Absolutely! He really needs to learn offense. He's young enough. It's not rocket science.
He needs to get much better and be held accountable. You see all kinds of little wrinkles
when you watch the NFL playoffs. Wilcox needs to study films, attend seminars, pick the
brains of experts, and do his job. The fact he let that incredibly embarrassing product on
the field last year falls on him. Worst offense ever. So what if we actually have a defense
now. Last year's team was boring. And the bowl game was one of the worst football games
I've ever watched. Bottom line: You have your extension, now do your job Wilcox!

---

First, he needs to recruit some talent.....

The 2018 Bears were one of the least talented offensive groups that Cal has put on the field in a long time. It is kinda tough to create a great meal when you are only given a case of stewed prunes and spam.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JFrom 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

---

He was not a total loss as a coach. He was a poor on-field coach, he was terrible at addressing situations that required expertise in conflict resolution, and he was awful in the area of player development.

Where he did a decent job was recruiting and interacting with the various off-field constituencies. Also, for whatever it's worth, he really liked working at Cal.

Contrast that with Gilby - he was a coach who truly was a total disaster in all aspects of the job.

---

I agree that he did a decent job at recruiting (I stress DECENT). He must have been freakin awesome at "interacting with off-field constituencies" based on the support he got from some of those constituencies that was completely undeserved. But I ask you is being able to interact with various constituencies a good thing when it supports poor on-field coaching, terrible conflict resolution, and awful player development. (I mean, in terms of traditional "coaching" what else is there) I guess it is good for HIM in terms of it got him at least one more year if not two more years than he should have gotten.

I understand what you are saying about Gilby. I'd throw Dykes in there too. But in terms of pure football knowledge/coaching, Holmoe is the worst. Gilby and Dykes are competent coordinators. I'd let them coach my D-II school or my JC or my high school or my pop warner or my 6 and under peewee flag football team. I'd rather have a Dad who grew up playing soccer do the last one over Holmoe.

So, let's see. Since I've watched Cal football, the coaches have been White, Theder, Kapp, Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Wilcox. Yeesh. If I rated who I'd want as my coach, it is scary how high up the list Theder and Kapp are.

Holmoe always struck me as a decent person, a "steady Eddie" yet a NFL'er, who both parents and recruits could trust with their well being, not a slash and burn careerist. I think that was part of his recruiting success. Of course not a great coach. AD or administrative position seems well suited.

Another Bear said:

---

Holmoe always struck me as a decent person, a "steady Eddie" yet a NFL'er, who both parents and recruits could trust with their well being, not a slash and burn careerist. I think that was part of his recruiting success. Of course not a great coach. AD or administrative position seems well suited.

---

Decent person went out the window when he didn't yank Ainsworth's schollie. At least Holmoe got what he deserved letting him come here. A lot of us didn't have to wait for the me too movement to know right from wrong.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JFrom 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

---

He was not a total loss as a coach. He was a poor on-field coach, he was terrible at addressing situations that required expertise in conflict resolution, and he was awful in the area of player development.

Where he did a decent job was recruiting and interacting with the various off-field constituencies. Also, for whatever it's worth, he really liked working at Cal.

Contrast that with Gilby - he was a coach who truly was a total disaster in all aspects of the job.

---

I agree that he did a decent job at recruiting (I stress DECENT). He must have been freakin awesome at "interacting with off-field constituencies" based on the support he got from some of those constituencies that was completely undeserved. But I ask you is being able to interact with various constituencies a good thing when it supports poor on-field coaching, terrible conflict resolution, and awful player development. (I mean, in terms of traditional "coaching" what else is there) I guess it is good for HIM in terms of it got him at least one more year if not two more years than he should have gotten.

I understand what you are saying about Gilby. I'd throw Dykes in there too. But in terms of pure football knowledge/coaching, Holmoe is the worst. Gilby and Dykes are competent coordinators. I'd let them coach my D-II school or my JC or my high school or my pop warner or my 6 and under peewee flag football team. I'd rather have a Dad who grew up playing soccer do the last one over Holmoe.

So, let's see. Since I've watched Cal football, the coaches have been White, Theder, Kapp, Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Wilcox. Yeesh. If I rated who I'd want as my coach, it is scary how high up the list Theder and Kapp are.

---

Overall, I agree with you. Add Waldorf, Elliot, Levy and Willsey to my list of coaches since I saw my first game. Of course, by 1956, Waldorf wasn't WALDORF any more. My list would put Tedford and Snyder at the top with a huge gap to the next tier. At the bottom, Gilby followed by Holmoe and Dykes followed by another gap to the next tier.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JFrom 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

---

He was not a total loss as a coach. He was a poor on-field coach, he was terrible at addressing situations that required expertise in conflict resolution, and he was awful in the area of player development.

Where he did a decent job was recruiting and interacting with the various off-field constituencies. Also, for whatever it's worth, he really liked working at Cal.

Contrast that with Gilby - he was a coach who truly was a total disaster in all aspects of the job.

---

I agree that he did a decent job at recruiting (I stress DECENT). He must have been freakin awesome at "interacting with off-field constituencies" based on the support he got from some of those constituencies that was completely undeserved. But I ask you is being able to interact with various constituencies a good thing when it supports poor on-field coaching, terrible conflict resolution, and awful player development. (I mean, in terms of traditional "coaching" what else is there) I guess it is good for HIM in terms of it got him at least one more year if not two more years than he should have gotten.

I understand what you are saying about Gilby. I'd throw Dykes in there too. But in terms of pure football knowledge/coaching, Holmoe is the worst. Gilby and Dykes are competent coordinators. I'd let them coach my D-II school or my JC or my high school or my pop warner or my 6 and under peewee flag football team. I'd rather have a Dad who grew up playing soccer do the last one over Holmoe.

So, let's see. Since I've watched Cal football, the coaches have been White, Theder, Kapp, Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Wilcox. Yeesh. If I rated who I'd want as my coach, it is scary how high up the list Theder and Kapp are.

---

I always thought Kapp might have succeeded, if only he had hired a good Offensive Coordinator (like a Theder) and delegated all offensive decision-making to him.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JFrom 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

---

He was not a total loss as a coach. He was a poor on-field coach, he was terrible at addressing situations that required expertise in conflict resolution, and he was awful in the area of player development.

Where he did a decent job was recruiting and interacting with the various off-field constituencies. Also, for whatever it's worth, he really liked working at Cal.

Contrast that with Gilby - he was a coach who truly was a total disaster in all aspects of the job.

---

I agree that he did a decent job at recruiting (I stress DECENT). He must have been freakin awesome at "interacting with off-field constituencies" based on the support he got from some of those constituencies that was completely undeserved. But I ask you is being able to interact with various constituencies a good thing when it supports poor on-field coaching, terrible conflict resolution, and awful player development. (I mean, in terms of traditional "coaching" what else is there) I guess it is good for HIM in terms of it got him at least one more year if not two more years than he should have gotten.

I understand what you are saying about Gilby. I'd throw Dykes in there too. But in terms of pure football knowledge/coaching, Holmoe is the worst. Gilby and Dykes are competent coordinators. I'd let them coach my D-II school or my JC or my high school or my pop warner or my 6 and under peewee flag football team. I'd rather have a Dad who grew up playing soccer do the last one over Holmoe.

So, let's see. Since I've watched Cal football, the coaches have been White, Theder, Kapp, Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Wilcox. Yeesh. If I rated who I'd want as my coach, it is scary how high up the list Theder and Kapp are.

---

Overall, I agree with you. Add Waldorf, Elliot, Levy and Willsey to my list of coaches since I saw my first game. Of course, by 1956, Waldorf wasn't WALDORF any more. My list would put Tedford and Snyder at the top with a huge gap to the next tier. At the bottom, Gilby followed by Holmoe and Dykes followed by another gap to the next tier.

---

I think Waldorf and Tedford both need to be split into different coaches: Early/Good Waldorf/Tedford and Late/Bad Waldorf/Tedford.

So back to the topic of the post, when are the two incompetent assistant coaches going to leave so we can hire replacements?

tequila4kapp said:

---

So back to the topic of the post, when are the two incompetent assistant coaches going to leave so we can hire replacements?

---

Of whom do you speak?

It is my understanding the staff is set for the upcoming season.

Another Bear said:

---

Holmoe always struck me as a decent person

---

Disingenuous slime ball.....
How soon some of you forget....
I don't remember the student athlete's name, but there was a story about him (5th year senior, that rode the bench 100% of his 5 years) that The Daily Cal did a spread on him Big Game week.
Holmoe was quoted to say how inspiring the kid was, worked hard, asset to team, yada yada.
Holmoe stated that the kid deserved his chance on the field....
PROMISED TO PLAY HIM.
Well guess what?
Kid graduated after 5 years riding pine and not even one snap in his final opportunity.
Holmoe can KMA.

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JFrom 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

---

He was not a total loss as a coach. He was a poor on-field coach, he was terrible at addressing situations that required expertise in conflict resolution, and he was awful in the area of player development.

Where he did a decent job was recruiting and interacting with the various off-field constituencies. Also, for whatever it's worth, he really liked working at Cal.

Contrast that with Gilby - he was a coach who truly was a total disaster in all aspects of the job.

---

I agree that he did a decent job at recruiting (I stress DECENT). He must have been freakin awesome at "interacting with off-field constituencies" based on the support he got from some of those constituencies that was completely undeserved. But I ask you is being able to interact with various constituencies a good thing when it supports poor on-field coaching, terrible conflict resolution, and awful player development. (I mean, in terms of traditional "coaching" what else is there) I guess it is good for HIM in terms of it got him at least one more year if not two more years than he should have gotten.

I understand what you are saying about Gilby. I'd throw Dykes in there too. But in terms of pure football knowledge/coaching, Holmoe is the worst. Gilby and Dykes are competent coordinators. I'd let them coach my D-II school or my JC or my high school or my pop warner or my 6 and under peewee flag football team. I'd rather have a Dad who grew up playing soccer do the last one over Holmoe.

So, let's see. Since I've watched Cal football, the coaches have been White, Theder, Kapp, Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Wilcox. Yeesh. If I rated who I'd want as my coach, it is scary how high up the list Theder and Kapp are.

---

Overall, I agree with you. Add Waldorf, Elliot, Levy and Willsey to my list of coaches since I saw my first game. Of course, by 1956, Waldorf wasn't WALDORF any more. My list would put Tedford and Snyder at the top with a huge gap to the next tier. At the bottom, Gilby followed by Holmoe and Dykes followed by another gap to the next tier.

---

I think Waldorf and Tedford both need to be split into different coaches: Early/Good Waldorf/Tedford and Late/Bad Waldorf/Tedford.

---

I'm curious, what year is the dividing line between early Tedford and late Tedford? 2007, 2009, when? The sad truth is late Tedford may still have averaged more wins per season than the subsequent coaches (and I don't mean to imply Cal should have retained him).

Damn, Holmoe Rudy'd that guy like Dan Devine

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I agree that he did a decent job at recruiting (I stress DECENT). He must have been freakin awesome at "interacting with off-field constituencies" based on the support he got from some of those constituencies that was completely undeserved. But I ask you is being able to interact with various constituencies a good thing when it supports poor on-field coaching, terrible conflict resolution, and awful player development. (I mean, in terms of traditional "coaching" what else is there) I guess it is good for HIM in terms of it got him at least one more year if not two more years than he should have gotten.

I understand what you are saying about Gilby. I'd throw Dykes in there too. But in terms of pure football knowledge/coaching, Holmoe is the worst. Gilby and Dykes are competent coordinators. I'd let them coach my D-II school or my JC or my high school or my pop warner or my 6 and under peewee flag football team. I'd rather have a Dad who grew up playing soccer do the last one over Holmoe.

So, let's see. Since I've watched Cal football, the coaches have been White, Theder, Kapp, Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Wilcox. Yeesh. If I rated who I'd want as my coach, it is scary how high up the list Theder and Kapp are.

---

I always thought Kapp might have succeeded, if only he had hired a good Offensive Coordinator (like a Theder) and delegated all offensive decision-making to him.

---

My recollection (and I moved out of the area the summer of 1983) was that Kapp had a pretty good staff his first season and they did much of the coaching but that the short-lived Oakland Invaders hired a couple of key coaches away. Kapp himself then got more involved in the tactical aspects and that started the spiral downwards. Others who were closer may have a more accurate opinion.

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JFrom 2001 "This is a really dumb post.
You don't think Holmoe "knows" offense?

He's been a coach at the highest level, in the NFL and D coordinator at 2 P5 schools. He "studied" offenses every day as he had to scheme against them. He's huddled with other coaches for his whole career. He has forgotten more football than anyone on these boards knows.
You don't think he studies film?
Laughable. That's what all coaches do.
Pick the brains of experts?
He played for LaVell Edwards, he played Safety on Super Bowl teams, was on coaching staffs with Bill Walsh, Steve Marriuci, Gary Kubiak, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, Terry Shea, Marc Trestman, Hue Jackson...he's been exposed to all kinds of offenses. Some very good and innovative. Do you think that he was asleep in all those coaching meetings "ignoring" the offensive scheme , preparation and game plans?

He needs players first.
Cal was playing walk on players on both sides of the ball. Getting more depth and speed at WR and RB is key. But to post that Holmoe might not have a good understanding of offense or his evaluation of offense coordinators like Doug Cosbie or Steve Hagen might be lacking is just wrong."

---

Tom Holmoe was not a defensive coordinator at 2 schools. He was a defensive backs coach for two years for the forty-niners and for two years at Stanford mostly because Bill Walsh liked him. He was a defensive coordinator for one year at Cal when we had one of the worst defenses in the country. As head coach he took over special teams and that became the most incompetent unit on the team. Least knowledgeable coach we have ever had. As someone known for turning a post like you attempted to do, you cannot just fill in another name. It has to actually be remotely factually correct in specifics and generally. Yours is completely incorrect. On top of that, Wilcox has a lot more experience as a coach than Holmoe had and has actually coached good defenses. Holmoe's defensive coaching certainly did not demonstrate he had any understanding about offensive schemes and how to stop them. The only thing he ever succeeded at was being a cheap option at nickel back that had a good attitude so the 49ers kept him around. He sucked at everything he did as a coach

---

He was not a total loss as a coach. He was a poor on-field coach, he was terrible at addressing situations that required expertise in conflict resolution, and he was awful in the area of player development.

Where he did a decent job was recruiting and interacting with the various off-field constituencies. Also, for whatever it's worth, he really liked working at Cal.

Contrast that with Gilby - he was a coach who truly was a total disaster in all aspects of the job.

---

I agree that he did a decent job at recruiting (I stress DECENT). He must have been freakin awesome at "interacting with off-field constituencies" based on the support he got from some of those constituencies that was completely undeserved. But I ask you is being able to interact with various constituencies a good thing when it supports poor on-field coaching, terrible conflict resolution, and awful player development. (I mean, in terms of traditional "coaching" what else is there) I guess it is good for HIM in terms of it got him at least one more year if not two more years than he should have gotten.

I understand what you are saying about Gilby. I'd throw Dykes in there too. But in terms of pure football knowledge/coaching, Holmoe is the worst. Gilby and Dykes are competent coordinators. I'd let them coach my D-II school or my JC or my high school or my pop warner or my 6 and under peewee flag football team. I'd rather have a Dad who grew up playing soccer do the last one over Holmoe.

So, let's see. Since I've watched Cal football, the coaches have been White, Theder, Kapp, Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Wilcox. Yeesh. If I rated who I'd want as my coach, it is scary how high up the list Theder and Kapp are.

---

Overall, I agree with you. Add Waldorf, Elliot, Levy and Willsey to my list of coaches since I saw my first game. Of course, by 1956, Waldorf wasn't WALDORF any more. My list would put Tedford and Snyder at the top with a huge gap to the next tier. At the bottom, Gilby followed by Holmoe and Dykes followed by another gap to the next tier.

---

I think Waldorf and Tedford both need to be split into different coaches: Early/Good Waldorf/Tedford and Late/Bad Waldorf/Tedford.

---

I'm curious, what year is the dividing line between early Tedford and late Tedford? 2007, 2009, when? The sad truth is late Tedford may still have averaged more wins per season than the subsequent coaches (and I don't mean to imply Cal should have retained him).

---

I think the Oregon State game in 2007 was his Waterloo. The record the 5+ years before and the record the 5+ years after are night and day (and were getting progressively worse).

Yea, starting in 2008 (for simplicity as I don't want to split 2007 into two parts), late Tedford averaged 6.4 wins, Dykes averaged 4.5 (or 5.7 if you consider the first season as an outlier due to the state of the program when he took over), and Wilcox has averaged 6 (but, really its too early to pass long-term judgment).

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, starting in 2008 (for simplicity as I don't want to split 2007 into two parts), late Tedford averaged 6.4 wins, Dykes averaged 4.5 (or 5.7 if you consider the first season as an outlier due to the state of the program when he took over), and Wilcox has averaged 6 (but, really its too early to pass long-term judgment).

---

Yeah, but that is because 2010 and 2012 drag the numbers down. In 2008 we won 9 games and went 6-3 in conference. In 2009 we won 8 games and went 5-4 in conference. That is completely consistent with our results from 2002-2007. If you want to divide things differently, we won 8.5 games per season from 2002-2007. We won 8.5 games per season from 2008-2009. Then we won 5 games per season from 2010-2012.

That OSU game was really not a dividing line. We recovered and played two seasons at about our normal level.

Honestly, I never bought the Good Tedford/Bad Tedford thing. Tedford pretty much went as his quarterbacks went and he just didn't do well enough at that position. In 2010, we started the year with an okay Riley and we did okay. Then he went down and we had awful QB play. we went 1-4 scoring 7, 20, 13, 14, and 13 the rest of the way. Then Maynard happened. Honestly, those years looked a lot like Tedford and Ayoob or Tedford and Injured Longshore. Even in 2012 we gave tOSU all they could handle. I think that you had a team full of players that had very high expectations for themselves and when they weren't met they lost faith in the coach and they crashed and burned. And that is exactly why Tedford needed to go at that point. He wasn't getting them back. IMO, if Goff was 4 years older, Tedford would still be here. (of course, Tedford would still be here if he'd found a QB in any of the last 5 years.)

OaktownBear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, starting in 2008 (for simplicity as I don't want to split 2007 into two parts), late Tedford averaged 6.4 wins, Dykes averaged 4.5 (or 5.7 if you consider the first season as an outlier due to the state of the program when he took over), and Wilcox has averaged 6 (but, really its too early to pass long-term judgment).

---

Yeah, but that is because 2010 and 2012 drag the numbers down. In 2008 we won 9 games and went 6-3 in conference. In 2009 we won 8 games and went 5-4 in conference. That is completely consistent with our results from 2002-2007. If you want to divide things differently, we won 8.5 games per season from 2002-2007. We won 8.5 games per season from 2008-2009. Then we won 5 games per season from 2010-2012.

That OSU game was really not a dividing line. We recovered and played two seasons at about our normal level.

Honestly, I never bought the Good Tedford/Bad Tedford thing. Tedford pretty much went as his quarterbacks went and he just didn't do well enough at that position. In 2010, we started the year with an okay Riley and we did okay. Then he went down and we had awful QB play. we went 1-4 scoring 7, 20, 13, 14, and 13 the rest of the way. Then Maynard happened. Honestly, those years looked a lot like Tedford and Ayoob or Tedford and Injured Longshore. Even in 2012 we gave tOSU all they could handle. I think that you had a team full of players that had very high expectations for themselves and when they weren't met they lost faith in the coach and they crashed and burned. And that is exactly why Tedford needed to go at that point. He wasn't getting them back. IMO, if Goff was 4 years older, Tedford would still be here. (of course, Tedford would still be here if he'd found a QB in any of the last 5 years.)

---

Tedford had losing conference records 4 of his last 6 years. The uptick turned out to be a dead cat bounce in a bear market. Again using 2007 OSU as the "Waterloo":

Conference record:
Tedford A 29-14 .670
Tedford B 21-31 .400
Dykes 10-26 .280
Dykes* 10-15 .400
Wilcox 6-12 .330
Wilcox* 4-5 .440
*If first year excluded

calumnus said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, starting in 2008 (for simplicity as I don't want to split 2007 into two parts), late Tedford averaged 6.4 wins, Dykes averaged 4.5 (or 5.7 if you consider the first season as an outlier due to the state of the program when he took over), and Wilcox has averaged 6 (but, really its too early to pass long-term judgment).

---

Yeah, but that is because 2010 and 2012 drag the numbers down. In 2008 we won 9 games and went 6-3 in conference. In 2009 we won 8 games and went 5-4 in conference. That is completely consistent with our results from 2002-2007. If you want to divide things differently, we won 8.5 games per season from 2002-2007. We won 8.5 games per season from 2008-2009. Then we won 5 games per season from 2010-2012.

That OSU game was really not a dividing line. We recovered and played two seasons at about our normal level.

Honestly, I never bought the Good Tedford/Bad Tedford thing. Tedford pretty much went as his quarterbacks went and he just didn't do well enough at that position. In 2010, we started the year with an okay Riley and we did okay. Then he went down and we had awful QB play. we went 1-4 scoring 7, 20, 13, 14, and 13 the rest of the way. Then Maynard happened. Honestly, those years looked a lot like Tedford and Ayoob or Tedford and Injured Longshore. Even in 2012 we gave tOSU all they could handle. I think that you had a team full of players that had very high expectations for themselves and when they weren't met they lost faith in the coach and they crashed and burned. And that is exactly why Tedford needed to go at that point. He wasn't getting them back. IMO, if Goff was 4 years older, Tedford would still be here. (of course, Tedford would still be here if he'd found a QB in any of the last 5 years.)

---

Tedford had losing conference records 4 of his last 6 years. The uptick turned out to be a dead cat bounce in a bear market. Again using 2007 OSU as the "Waterloo":

Conference record:
Tedford A 29-14 .670
Tedford B 21-31 .400
Dykes 10-26 .280
Dykes* 10-15 .400
Wilcox 6-12 .330
Wilcox* 4-5 .440
*If first year excluded

---

There is no such thing as a 2 year dead cat bounce. Hasn't changed my point at all. He had a losing record in conference his last 3 years. You are just attaching 2 good seasons to that and calling them bad. It's all how you draw the dividing line. I can say he had one losing season out of his first 8. 2008 and 2009 look very much like the first 6 seasons and very much not like the last 3. If I jumbled the seasons and asked you to say what belongs where, 2008 and 2009 would not go in the bad pile. If I sort his seasons by record, they go: 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009/2003, 2005, 2002, 2011, 2007, 2010, 2012.

2008 is the third best year by any measure. 2009 is the 4th best by overall record (half game better than 2003) and 5th best in conference (half game worse than 2003)

On the other hand, the three worst years involved 1. Good QB play turning to bad due to injury, 2. Averag QB play turning horrendous due to injury, 3 very bad QB play turning horrific due to injury

It wasn't just QB play. The end of Tedford era teams had lost all semblance of DISCIPLINE. Penalties were way up, academics were way down.