when is loi day for fb? do we have anyone who might commit? Week ago or so, someone suggested that good news is coming.
Rushinbear said:
when is loi day for fb? do we have anyone who might commit? Week ago or so, someone suggested that good news is coming.
As is the case with the vast majority of years, long lists of top prospects are shown as having some level of interest in Cal, perhaps merely because we offered them and they acknowledged the offer...only to have the vast, vast majority of them go elsewhere.82gradDLSdad said:Rushinbear said:
when is loi day for fb? do we have anyone who might commit? Week ago or so, someone suggested that good news is coming.
Apparently not from either of these two local recruits. Did they not get the memo that we are the new LBU and the reigning Super Bowl QBU?
... Menlo-Atherton senior inside linebacker Daniel Heimuli, coming off a defensive MVP award at the Polynesian Bowl, is in the middle of his last recruiting trip this weekend at Alabama. Heimuli's other finalists are Washington, Oregon, UCLA and Utah. The Bay Area's top recruit, De La Salle linebacker Henry To'oto'o, announced he will make his final choice Wednesday. The state's No. 8 recruit overall said his finalists are Alabama, Tennessee, Washington, Utah and Oregon.
Checks bounced.packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
How many of them have told you this or you have read that they gave this as their reason?82gradDLSdad said:packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
Very, very few want to play in this offense with these coaches. It's why so many of us were astonished by the rearrangement rather than a dismantling.
AunBear89 said:How many of them have told you this or you have read that they gave this as their reason?82gradDLSdad said:packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
Very, very few want to play in this offense with these coaches. It's why so many of us were astonished by the rearrangement rather than a dismantling.
OR, are you just wildly speculating because you are mad and you need a narrative to justify your anger and dislike for the coaches?
Apparently, the staff seems oblivious to this reality.82gradDLSdad said:packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
Very, very few want to play in this offense with these coaches. It's why so many of us were astonished by the rearrangement rather than a dismantling.
We've had one year of bad quarterbacking and one year of atrocious quarterbacking. It is plausible to argue that is the problem. Modster has been a competent QB. If he comes in and is bad or atrocious, making him the 4th bad or atrocious QB when he wasn't bad at UCLA, the argument is no longer plausible. If he is competent and the offense can't reach at least serviceable, the argument is no longer plausible.Yogi Bear said:Apparently, the staff seems oblivious to this reality.82gradDLSdad said:packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
Very, very few want to play in this offense with these coaches. It's why so many of us were astonished by the rearrangement rather than a dismantling.
If we have a third straight bad year offensively, either the offensive braintrust goes or Wilcox is gonna have to go with it. And nobody wants that.
OaktownBear said:We've had one year of bad quarterbacking and one year of atrocious quarterbacking. It is plausible to argue that is the problem. Modster has been a competent QB. If he comes in and is bad or atrocious, making him the 4th bad or atrocious QB when he wasn't bad at UCLA, the argument is no longer plausible. If he is competent and the offense can't reach at least serviceable, the argument is no longer plausible.Yogi Bear said:Apparently, the staff seems oblivious to this reality.82gradDLSdad said:packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
Very, very few want to play in this offense with these coaches. It's why so many of us were astonished by the rearrangement rather than a dismantling.
If we have a third straight bad year offensively, either the offensive braintrust goes or Wilcox is gonna have to go with it. And nobody wants that.
If we weren't going to change offensive personnel, making Baldwin QB coach at least brings the issue to a head. You can't blame the offense on QB play if you are the QB coach.
IMO, that is a chicken or egg question. Do we have four bad starting QB's or a bad offensive coordinator and former QB coach? If we're asking that same question after next year, then there is no longer a question.OaktownBear said:We've had one year of bad quarterbacking and one year of atrocious quarterbacking. It is plausible to argue that is the problem.Yogi Bear said:Apparently, the staff seems oblivious to this reality.82gradDLSdad said:
Very, very few want to play in this offense with these coaches. It's why so many of us were astonished by the rearrangement rather than a dismantling.
If we have a third straight bad year offensively, either the offensive braintrust goes or Wilcox is gonna have to go with it. And nobody wants that.
I think having the coordinator be the QB coach is just fine if you like your offensive coordinator. I've rooted for good offensive teams with no separate QB coach and with a QB coach and there is no consistent pattern I've seen of one being better than the other.Quote:
Modster has been a competent QB. If he comes in and is bad or atrocious, making him the 4th bad or atrocious QB when he wasn't bad at UCLA, the argument is no longer plausible. If he is competent and the offense can't reach at least serviceable, the argument is no longer plausible.
If we weren't going to change offensive personnel, making Baldwin QB coach at least brings the issue to a head. You can't blame the offense on QB play if you are the QB coach.
Not one of 'em has had a gun. In BB's O you need a good athlete WITH a gun. Garbers is closest. We'll see about Modster. He and Garbers will fight it out. Brasch may figure in in the second half of the season.calumnus said:OaktownBear said:We've had one year of bad quarterbacking and one year of atrocious quarterbacking. It is plausible to argue that is the problem. Modster has been a competent QB. If he comes in and is bad or atrocious, making him the 4th bad or atrocious QB when he wasn't bad at UCLA, the argument is no longer plausible. If he is competent and the offense can't reach at least serviceable, the argument is no longer plausible.Yogi Bear said:Apparently, the staff seems oblivious to this reality.82gradDLSdad said:packawana said:
Did we just lose one of our WR commits? What's going on???
Very, very few want to play in this offense with these coaches. It's why so many of us were astonished by the rearrangement rather than a dismantling.
If we have a third straight bad year offensively, either the offensive braintrust goes or Wilcox is gonna have to go with it. And nobody wants that.
If we weren't going to change offensive personnel, making Baldwin QB coach at least brings the issue to a head. You can't blame the offense on QB play if you are the QB coach.
Modster will be the 5th
Bowers
Garbers
McIlwain
Forrest
You have to wonder why Cal is not closing on any of the local defensive recruits. That side of the ball has proven P5 coaching and players.golden sloth said:
I know we aren't due for any big and pleasant surprises, but is there any chance at one or two more recruits signing today to fill out the roster?
wifeisafurd said:You have to wonder why Cal is not closing on any of the local defensive recruits. That side of the ball has proven P5 coaching and players.golden sloth said:
I know we aren't due for any big and pleasant surprises, but is there any chance at one or two more recruits signing today to fill out the roster?
Serviceable is going to be the ceiling for the Cal offense until/unless better talent is recruited.OaktownBear said:
We've had one year of bad quarterbacking and one year of atrocious quarterbacking. It is plausible to argue that is the problem. Modster has been a competent QB. If he comes in and is bad or atrocious, making him the 4th bad or atrocious QB when he wasn't bad at UCLA, the argument is no longer plausible. If he is competent and the offense can't reach at least serviceable, the argument is no longer plausible.
Or you need to coach the players you do have so they play at a level at or near their potential (which also has not been happening).BearSD said:Serviceable is going to be the ceiling for the Cal offense until/unless better talent is recruited.OaktownBear said:
We've had one year of bad quarterbacking and one year of atrocious quarterbacking. It is plausible to argue that is the problem. Modster has been a competent QB. If he comes in and is bad or atrocious, making him the 4th bad or atrocious QB when he wasn't bad at UCLA, the argument is no longer plausible. If he is competent and the offense can't reach at least serviceable, the argument is no longer plausible.
You can and should coach 'em up, but ... If you're going to win big with "less heralded recruits", you have to discover players with tons of talent who were overlooked by others, can't just take players who were accurately "less heralded" and turn them into Rodgers/Goff/etc.
It's both. But don't overestimate the potential of the QBs on the current roster. None of them would be even close to the level of Rodgers or Goff even if you gave them the best coaching in the history of college football.golden sloth said:Or you need to coach the players you do have so they play at a level at or near their potential (which also has not been happening).BearSD said:Serviceable is going to be the ceiling for the Cal offense until/unless better talent is recruited.OaktownBear said:
We've had one year of bad quarterbacking and one year of atrocious quarterbacking. It is plausible to argue that is the problem. Modster has been a competent QB. If he comes in and is bad or atrocious, making him the 4th bad or atrocious QB when he wasn't bad at UCLA, the argument is no longer plausible. If he is competent and the offense can't reach at least serviceable, the argument is no longer plausible.
You can and should coach 'em up, but ... If you're going to win big with "less heralded recruits", you have to discover players with tons of talent who were overlooked by others, can't just take players who were accurately "less heralded" and turn them into Rodgers/Goff/etc.
wifeisafurd said:You have to wonder why Cal is not closing on any of the local defensive recruits. That side of the ball has proven P5 coaching and players.golden sloth said:
I know we aren't due for any big and pleasant surprises, but is there any chance at one or two more recruits signing today to fill out the roster?
Washington got 9 of the top 50 California HS players, according to this:TheSouseFamily said:wifeisafurd said:You have to wonder why Cal is not closing on any of the local defensive recruits. That side of the ball has proven P5 coaching and players.golden sloth said:
I know we aren't due for any big and pleasant surprises, but is there any chance at one or two more recruits signing today to fill out the roster?
In fairness, Wife, it's not just us. Of the top 20 HS recruits from CA, all but 4 of them left the state. The SEC schools got more CA recruits than the CA schools got.