Bears Add Commitment From Hart QB Johnson

Setting SD and Goff aside from the discussion

As OC ? Who would you choose Franklin or Baldwin?

going4roses said:

---

Setting SD and Goff aside from the discussion

As OC ? Who would you choose Franklin or Baldwin?

---

Baldwin.

Next question, please.

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

7I was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Baldwin's playcalling was utterly predictable and unimaginative and his personnel decisions questionable the year before too when we managed to nudge out OSU for 11th best offense in the PAC-12. The year before that we had the number 1 offense in the PAC-12. Spring of 2017 we were told we were 5 deep at WR....

---

Quite a difference between having a QB who was drafted in the 3rd Round (2016) and a QB who subsequently left the program and found a home at the FCS level (2017), eh?

Here is your five deep:

Wharton, Noa, Veasy, Singleton, Duncan (all caught 10+ passes in 2017). Add in Robertson who was injured early in the season and you actually have six guys. What strikes me about the aforementioned fivesome is that none of them were star receivers. All of them were ok to good but none were sterling.

---

Here are the guys we listed as WR returners from 2016 and newcomers for 2017: Robertson, Stovall, Duncan, Echols, Noa, Hudson, Bankhead, Wharton, Veasy, Singleton, Rockett, Austin, Kobayashi, Peterson, Ashton, Gamble, Dunn, Locklin, Worstell, Laris, Hawkins, Taariq Johnson, Netherda, Phillip, Caldwell, King. Other than Hansen it was the core WR corps that was part of the #4 passing offense in the country in 2016 plus some very highly rated newcomers.

We dropped from the #10 offense in 2016 to the #90 offense in 2017 and #115 in 2018.

By contrast, in 2012 Tedford's last year, we had the #95 defense. Dykes's defenses were terrible, but it is not like we were good before he showed up. He took a bad defense and made it terrible. Baldwin inherited a good offense and made it terrible. Sure, injuries played a role in both, but at least on offense you can adjust your strategy accordingly and play to your strengths (as opposed to having your weaknesses exposed).

I just haven't seen anything that looks coherent from Baldwin. People here point to bad QBs and WRsthen why run a passing spread with 4 and 5 WR spreads? He does claim to be "multiple." Hope to be proven wrong about him this year.

---

I noticed that you conveniently ignored my comment about the QB situation. You could have 10 Jerry Rice's on the roster; however, without a QB to get any one of the Jerry's the ball, their collective talent would be wasted.

The 2017 O was saddled with a bad QB and a porous OL. That is a recipe for disaster.....

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Disagree. QBs who transferred out could not perform.
Baldwin and Wilcox showed an unwillingness to stick with a QB who could not perform and to give let the next guy in line a chance. Unfortunately none of the next guys in line were able to perform.
If Goff had been available I am certain he would have won (and kept) the starting job.

---

Goff struggled at times as a freshman. Remember that game up in Oregon? Most on this board were pining for Kline or even Hinder. He clearly developed year over year under that staff. They got Davis Webb drafted.

Baldwin was handed 4 and 5 star QBs. Are they really all terrible?

Chase Forrest had a 138 passing rating as a freshman in 2015 as the #2 behind Goff (better than Goff's 123 as a freshman). He looked good. He (and every other quarterback) has looked bad under Baldwin. In the Cheezit Bowl Forrest had a 49 passing rating.

---

Just for the record, the only four or five star QB that Baldwin "was handed" is Garbers (4 star). It is my belief that he will justify his rating before he finishes his career at Cal.

Source: Rivals

I know you dislike Baldwin but try and stick to the facts as you attempt to build your case against him.

TF developed a number overall pick has Baldwin?

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

OJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Setting SD and Goff aside from the discussion

As OC ? Who would you choose Franklin or Baldwin?

---

Baldwin.

Next question, please.

---

Why?

going4roses said:

---

TF developed a number overall pick has Baldwin?

---

The comment should be: Franklin lucked into an extraordinary talent and got out of the way. Baldwin is in the beginning stages of developing his QB talent.

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

OJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

---

First of all, suggesting a decommit should be part of any conversation is ridiculous. Martinez was never serious about Cal. He just threw his name into the hat as a placeholder until he found what he was really looking for.

Who knows if Shrout or Gulbranson were serious. Heck, in this era, a commitment is totally meaningless up to AND INCLUDING after they sign. Now that transfers penalties are being waived left and right, you don't have a guy until he suits up and plays (see USC's Steele and McCoy for example).

Cal dodged a bullet re: all three guys that left. None of them are qualified to play at the P5 level. I consider it good fortune they left and opened up a scholie for another guy.

I have never stated that I have evidence that Cal's O will blossom this fall. I have stated that I believe that Cal will be substantially better on O (in the third quartile off the conference rather than dead last). Heck, none of us have indisputable evidence Cal will be better, the same or worse. However, all of us are speculating how things will be.

As far as I know, the only thing that you said that you possessed evidence for was your comment re: Goff (which you have since withdrawn). I guess I am still waiting for something that will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that things will not improve substantially this season. Otherwise, I will place your comments in the same bucket as mine and everybody else - speculative.

KenBurnski said:

---

71Bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Setting SD and Goff aside from the discussion

As OC ? Who would you choose Franklin or Baldwin?

---

Baldwin.

Next question, please.

---

Why?

---

Because Franklin was a one trick pony.

O K

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Yes BhCOJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

---

First of all, suggesting a decommit should be part of any conversation is ridiculous. Martinez was never serious about Cal. He just threw his name into the hat as a placeholder until he found what he was really looking for.

Who knows if Shrout or Gulbranson were serious. Heck, in this era, a commitment is totally meaningless up to AND INCLUDING after they sign. Now that transfers penalties are being waived left and right, you don't have a guy until he suits up and plays (see USC's Steele and McCoy for example).

Cal dodged a bullet re: all three guys that left. None of them are qualified to play at the P5 level. I consider it good fortune they left and opened up a scholie for another guy.

I have never stated that I have evidence that Cal's O will blossom this fall. I have stated that I believe that Cal will be substantially better on O (in the third quartile off the conference rather than dead last). Heck, none of us have indisputable evidence Cal will be better, the same or worse. However, all of us are speculating how things will be.

As far as I know, the only thing that you said that you possessed evidence for was your comment re: Goff (which you have since withdrawn). I guess I am still waiting for something that will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that things will not improve substantially this season. Otherwise, I will place your comments in the same bucket as mine and everybody else - speculative.

---

71 agree with you. Martinez committed to Spavital. Spav was not retained and no surprise Martinez left. Viramontes, Gilliam would have never played. Dykes guys by the way. Bowers Dykes, was ok until it wasn't, Garbers was re-recruited by Baldwin, verdict still out, Brasch, looks to be good, Modster no slouch either, Johnson looks interesting. So of all the guys Baldwin recruited 2 left. Shrout was a decomit it but can tell you Cal lost interest as he was not as promising as first thought. Gubralson left as he also was becoming less of a prospect and I believe saw the hand writing on the wall.

Now Baldwin needs to step up his game on the field just like the offense as a whole. QB recruiting should be better going forward. Attracting good WR and TE and OL and RB should help to get better guys in.

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

OJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

---

You ask how do we know that the Cal team would be better under Wilcox/Baldwin than under Dykes/Spavitol. I would answer that by pointing out that in Sonny's 4th year when he had Spavitol he went 5-7 with a Pro-caliber QB and a pretty good Offense.
Wilcox/Baldwin in their first year went 5-7 with a rookie QB and no Offense
In their second year they went 7-5 again with no reliable QB and no Offense.
Yes the Cal team is better off with Wilcox/Baldwin.

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Disagree. QBs who transferred out could not perform.
Baldwin and Wilcox showed an unwillingness to stick with a QB who could not perform and to give let the next guy in line a chance. Unfortunately none of the next guys in line were able to perform.
If Goff had been available I am certain he would have won (and kept) the starting job.

---

Goff struggled at times as a freshman. Remember that game up in Oregon? Most on this board were pining for Kline or even Hinder. He clearly developed year over year under that staff. They got Davis Webb drafted.

Baldwin was handed 4 and 5 star QBs. Are they really all terrible?

Chase Forrest had a 138 passing rating as a freshman in 2015 as the #2 behind Goff (better than Goff's 123 as a freshman). He looked good. He (and every other quarterback) has looked bad under Baldwin. In the Cheezit Bowl Forrest had a 49 passing rating.

---

Just for the record, the only four or five star QB that Baldwin "was handed" is Garbers (4 star). It is my belief that he will justify his rating before he finishes his career at Cal.

Source: Rivals

I know you dislike Baldwin but try and stick to the facts as you attempt to build your case against him.

---

Umm

Garbers was a 4 star, Gilliam was a 4 star and McIllwain (who he brought in) was a 4, even 5 star. That is 2 he was given and 3 he had available to him.

Bowers, Forrest, Viramontes and even Rubenzer were 3 stars but had other Pac-12 offers.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Our history of turning a commitment thread into a full blown shiitshow is alive and well.

---

Well said NYC. Must be a lot of lawyers on this board. Arguing until the cows come home. How is Vegas?

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

OJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

---

You ask how do we know that the Cal team would be better under Wilcox/Baldwin than under Dykes/Spavitol. I would answer that by pointing out that in Sonny's 4th year when he had Spavitol he went 5-7 with a Pro-caliber QB and a pretty good Offense.
Wilcox/Baldwin in their first year went 5-7 with a rookie QB and no Offense
In their second year they went 7-5 again with no reliable QB and no Offense.
Yes the Cal team is better off with Wilcox/Baldwin.

---

Looks like a lot of 5-7 win seasons under both coaches, which was my point. Yes, if you focus on only 1 side of the ball, it makes the current group look like they did more with less. However, the record reflects the entire team. So, what is your prediction for this year. I say 5-7 but what do you say?

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Our history of turning a commitment thread into a full blown shiitshow is alive and well.

---

Hey, Premium Board members (Goober and putz), relax, it's free so why should you be so over wrought? You clowns want to control everything if it doesn't suit you......good grief! C'mon, by the number of appearances that you make here, you both seem to like a "shiitshow" or at least like to contribute some shiit to such show!.....ahahahaahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH.........you guys want to use some of my brown shoe polish?

Folks Garbers was absolutely not recruited by Baldwin. He was committed at Cal before Baldwin even was hired. Yes he stayed committed after Baldwin was hired but Baldwin did not discover him.

The only ones of recent that consistently put points on the board or at least the expectation of doing so were tall QBs used by Sonny.

Goobear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Yes BhCOJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

---

First of all, suggesting a decommit should be part of any conversation is ridiculous. Martinez was never serious about Cal. He just threw his name into the hat as a placeholder until he found what he was really looking for.

Who knows if Shrout or Gulbranson were serious. Heck, in this era, a commitment is totally meaningless up to AND INCLUDING after they sign. Now that transfers penalties are being waived left and right, you don't have a guy until he suits up and plays (see USC's Steele and McCoy for example).

Cal dodged a bullet re: all three guys that left. None of them are qualified to play at the P5 level. I consider it good fortune they left and opened up a scholie for another guy.

I have never stated that I have evidence that Cal's O will blossom this fall. I have stated that I believe that Cal will be substantially better on O (in the third quartile off the conference rather than dead last). Heck, none of us have indisputable evidence Cal will be better, the same or worse. However, all of us are speculating how things will be.

As far as I know, the only thing that you said that you possessed evidence for was your comment re: Goff (which you have since withdrawn). I guess I am still waiting for something that will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that things will not improve substantially this season. Otherwise, I will place your comments in the same bucket as mine and everybody else - speculative.

---

71 agree with you. Martinez committed to Spavital. Spav was not retained and no surprise Martinez left. Viramontes, Gilliam would have never played. Dykes guys by the way. Bowers Dykes, was ok until it wasn't, Garbers was re-recruited by Baldwin, verdict still out, Brasch, looks to be good, Modster no slouch either, Johnson looks interesting. So of all the guys Baldwin recruited 2 left. Shrout was a decomit it but can tell you Cal lost interest as he was not as promising as first thought. Gubralson left as he also was becoming less of a prospect and I believe saw the hand writing on the wall.

Now Baldwin needs to step up his game on the field just like the offense as a whole. QB recruiting should be better going forward. Attracting good WR and TE and OL and RB should help to get better guys in.

---

How do you know what Brasch will look like at Cal? And Johnson just committed and you say he looks interesting. So did about a million HS QBs who never were good enough to take a college snap once they got to the next level. We never know, especially about QBs. We do know that they have a better chance when coached well. I remember when folks were high on Brock Mansion. I was high on Bridgeford. At one time we had 4 4 star (3 elite 11) QBs on the roster and settled for a rather mediocre Zach Maynard, a 2 star transfer from Buffalo. That hurt us tremendously. This is precisely where we are now, only we are now starting at a lower baseline of talent and depth. And the coaching is not even what it was for Maynard. We will settle for the best of a bad lot and hope they get coached up. LOL, that is what I mean when I say I am burned out on hope. I'm burned out on hope for Baldwin.

heartofthebear said:

---

How do you know what Brasch will look like at Cal? And Johnson just committed and you say he looks interesting. So did about a million HS QBs who never were good enough to take a college snap once they got to the next level. We never know, especially about QBs. We do know that they have a better chance when coached well. [...AND ARE TALL,too] I remember when folks were high on Brock Mansion. I was high on Bridgeford. At one time we had 4 4 star (3 elite 11) QBs on the roster and settled for a rather mediocre Zach Maynard, a 2 star transfer from Buffalo. That hurt us tremendously. This is precisely where we are now, only we are now starting at a lower baseline of talent and depth. And the coaching is not even what it was for Maynard. We will settle for the best of a bad lot and hope they get coached up. LOL, that is what I mean when I say I am burned out on hope. I'm burned out on hope for Baldwin.

---

Goobear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Our history of turning a commitment thread into a full blown shiitshow is alive and well.

---

Well said NYC. Must be a lot of lawyers on this board. Arguing until the cows come home. How is Vegas?

---

Vegas has been great. Mostly have avoided the strip and have seen lots of my wife's good friends. Just had an amazing dinner for my in laws 50th anniversary. Thanks for asking.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Goobear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Our history of turning a commitment thread into a full blown shiitshow is alive and well.

---

Well said NYC. Must be a lot of lawyers on this board. Arguing until the cows come home. How is Vegas?

---

Vegas has been great. Mostly have avoided the strip and have seen lots of my wife's good friends. Just had an amazing dinner for my in laws 50th anniversary. Thanks for asking.

---

Awesome! Dutch Apple Pie for desert?

heartofthebear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

"
Yes BhCOJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

---

First of all, suggesting a decommit should be part of any conversation is ridiculous. Martinez was never serious about Cal. He just threw his name into the hat as a placeholder until he found what he was really looking for.

Who knows if Shrout or Gulbranson were serious. Heck, in this era, a commitment is totally meaningless up to AND INCLUDING after they sign. Now that transfers penalties are being waived left and right, you don't have a guy until he suits up and plays (see USC's Steele and McCoy for example).

Cal dodged a bullet re: all three guys that left. None of them are qualified to play at the P5 level. I consider it good fortune they left and opened up a scholie for another guy.

I have never stated that I have evidence that Cal's O will blossom this fall. I have stated that I believe that Cal will be substantially better on O (in the third quartile off the conference rather than dead last). Heck, none of us have indisputable evidence Cal will be better, the same or worse. However, all of us are speculating how things will be.

As far as I know, the only thing that you said that you possessed evidence for was your comment re: Goff (which you have since withdrawn). I guess I am still waiting for something that will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that things will not improve substantially this season. Otherwise, I will place your comments in the same bucket as mine and everybody else - speculative.

---

71 agree with you. Martinez committed to Spavital. Spav was not retained and no surprise Martinez left. Viramontes, Gilliam would have never played. Dykes guys by the way. Bowers Dykes, was ok until it wasn't, Garbers was re-recruited by Baldwin, verdict still out, Brasch, looks to be good, Modster no slouch either, Johnson looks interesting. So of all the guys Baldwin recruited 2 left. Shrout was a decomit it but can tell you Cal lost interest as he was not as promising as first thought. Gubralson left as he also was becoming less of a prospect and I believe saw the hand writing on the wall.

Now Baldwin needs to step up his game on the field just like the offense as a whole. QB recruiting should be better going forward. Attracting good WR and TE and OL and RB should help to get better guys in.

---

How do you know what Brasch will look like at Cal? And Johnson just committed and you say he looks interesting. So did about a million HS QBs who never were good enough to take a college snap once they got to the next level. We never know, especially about QBs. We do know that they have a better chance when coached well. I remember when folks were high on Brock Mansion. I was high on Bridgeford. At one time we had 4 4 star (3 elite 11) QBs on the roster and settled for a rather mediocre Zach Maynard, a 2 star transfer from Buffalo. That hurt us tremendously. This is precisely where we are now, only we are now starting at a lower baseline of talent and depth. And the coaching is not even what it was for Maynard. We will settle for the best of a bad lot and hope they get coached up. LOL, that is what I mean when I say I am burned out on hope. I'm burned out on hope for Baldwin.

---

Heart, I get it about Baldwin.This will be a make or break year for him. I am sure he knows that. Wilcox ain't a dummy. As far as me saying a QB looks good, it is in terms of potential. If he can't play when the lights go on then looking good is not going to cut it obviously.

Goobear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

"
Yes BhCOJI was just having fun.
BTW
Congrats Mr. Johnson and good luck at Cal.

---

Keep your head turned away as I realize that this post exposes me further!

Well I'll be! So was I or is it so was me? (I get nervous as AunBear89 is dogging my grammar!)

---

At least you're not in denial.
I wonder if some of those that are offended by your posts are just irritated that you have burst their euphoric bubble of preseason sunshine. I burned out on hope a long time ago. I find your posts refreshingly honest, even if they don't always prove to be accurate. Being honest about how we feel about recruits is a dangerous business here and I choose to keep my thoughts to myself.

I'll give you this, I don't see a huge difference between Wilcox (Defensive guy) and Dykes (offensive guy). I do think Wilcox has more upside and Justin did not lay a big stinking egg his first season like Dykes did but there are some stunning mirror images:

• Dykes elevated a bad offense to tops in the nation almost immediately. Wilcox did the same on defense.
• Each coach accomplished the above at the expense of the other side of the ball.
• Each coach was able to secure above average coordinates on the side of the ball they resurrected.
• Each coach was unable to secure quality coordinators on the other side of the ball, regardless of name recognition or prior resume.
• Each coach recruits mostly 3 star talent, with the exception of the position they know the most (Wilcox = LB, Dykes = WR). Those exceptions include 4 star talent.
• Each coach showed that the are capable of getting to a bowl game in one of the first 3 years.
• Each coach made headways in surprising out of conference teams (Dykes vs. Texas, Wilcox vs. North Carolina)
• Neither coach has had much success against the big 5 conference schools (Furd, Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon) although Cal broke through against USC under Wilcox.
• Each coach has shown they are capable of playing and losing close conference games.
• Each coach has kept the academics at Cal a focus.
• Each coach has made good use of walk ons.
• Each coach has made recruiting inroads (Dykes in Texas and Wilcox with local high schools)
• Each coach has had huge attrition at positions that had been deep at Cal (Dykes at LB, Wilcox at WR)

I do have more hope with Wilcox in place because I think he has more overall coaching connections nationwide and is better respected by those coaches. I also think he is more competent overall. Plus Wilcox is coaching under a better administration at Cal. But, like I said, I'm kind of burned out on hope.

---

Oh come on now
Wilcox went to a bowl game in his 2nd season Sonny in his 3rd. Saying that both went to a bowl within 3 years is correct but misleading
Wilcox beat both USC and UW in his 2nd season.
Sonny dominated poor teams and was clobbered by the good teams. Yes Wilcox lost to some good teams but he also beat some good teams and was rarely clobbered.
Sonny also had the advantage of the best QB in college football at the time (according to the NFL draft) to make his offense a success.
Wilcox is winning by building a strong TEAM and not relying on superstars.
No I would not say that Wilcox is the same as Sonny
Yes I see a reason to hope

---

Thanks, I realized after posting that I had forgotten that Wilcox has only been here 2 years.
But give Dykes/Franklin some credit. Would Goff had become one of the best all time under Baldwin?
Would Goff had developed in a system that did not have a high octane passing scheme?
And Dykes had his share of upsets.
He also beat Washington under Petersen.

---

The biggest gripes I have heard about Baldwin are that 1. he cannot "coach up" 3* talent. 2. His play calling became conservative and predictable (IMO this was ordered by Wilcox when the available QBs became turnover-machines)

IMO if Goff had played for Wilcox he would have been the star QB of a top 20 (top 10?) team.
Admittedly his OL would have underperformed but this was also true for Sonny Dykes. (Have we already forgotten how harassed Goff was as the Cal QB all of his time at Cal). Yet Goff was able to put up a ton of points.

With a few more TDs per game Wilcox's Bears would have been amazing.

Admittedly Goff's passing yards and TD's would not have been as high under Wilcox as they were under Sonny. But his winning percentage would have been much higher

His draft status would not have suffered.

---

Goff probably would have transferred out under Wilcox. I say that because the evidence supports that.

---

What is this evidence you speak of? I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

---

De-commitments and transfers out by QBs since Baldwin came on board are the evidence I refer to. I think there were at least 3.

---

Hmmm... First you cite "evidence", then you suggest that you "think" there were transfers and/or decommits for which Baldwin was responsible. I think you need to specifically name names. Anything short of that indicates that you do not have "evidence". Instead you are merely speculating. There is nothing wrong with speculation. However, it is important to identify your comments accordingly. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

By the way, I do not believe that Goff would have left (see Moraga's post for details).

---

OK
I concede that Goff would not have transferred out, although Kline did even though he was all Cal. And it still doesn't mean that Goff would have been as good under Baldwin. That is mere speculation.
Decommits since Baldwin came on board:
Adrian Martinez (April 2017)
JT Shrout (December 2017)
Ben Gulbranson (Feb. 2019)

QB That Left the Program since Baldwin came on board:
Max Gilliam (2017)
Victor Viramontes (2017)
Ross Bowers (2019)

They have had one QB transfer in
Devon Modster (2018)

They have had 3 QB commits:
Chase Garbers
Spencer Brasch
Zach Johnson

Adrian Martinez is a starting QB at Nebraska
JT shrout is a back up at Tennessee
Gulbranson is in the 2020 class and is not in college yet.
Max Gilliam is the starting QB at UNLV
Victor Viramontes is no longer a QB but is still playing college football
Ross Bowers has not yet started his post Cal career, having just transferred to Northern Illinois this season.

Anyway, I "thought" there were 3 or so and there were 3 each (3 de-commits and 3 transfer outs). To be fair, Cal did have one transfer in and one of the transfer outs is no longer a QB so Cal has a net loss of only 1. But the decommits have hurt Cals depth and Cal only recruited 1 QB per year during a time when they needed help at that position. And no 4 stars have been recruited under Baldwin. According to 247, Garbers was recruited by Tony Franklin and according to Rivals, Garbers committed in June 2016 long before Baldwin was hired.

Since you brought up the issue of speculation vs. evidence, the whole basis of the discussion about next season is based on speculation. I am speaking of the debate about our offense and if it will be better under Baldwin. So I brought up that I had evidence and I provided it and now you can go back to speculating about next year and ignore what I said since my evidence doesn't matter to speculators anyway.

Here's a question: What evidence do you have that the Cal team will be better this year under Wilcox/Baldwin vs. Dykes/Spavitol? There is no way to know that. We do know that the offense would likely be much better with the latter and the defense much worse. That is all we really know. The rest is just speculation and shameless promotion in order to sell hope and tickets by speculating that things are improving.

I have stated that I think there may be some marginal improvements under Wilcox, but I don't think the general flavor of Cal football will be much different and I see nothing in our current recruiting class that changes that for me.

---

First of all, suggesting a decommit should be part of any conversation is ridiculous. Martinez was never serious about Cal. He just threw his name into the hat as a placeholder until he found what he was really looking for.

Who knows if Shrout or Gulbranson were serious. Heck, in this era, a commitment is totally meaningless up to AND INCLUDING after they sign. Now that transfers penalties are being waived left and right, you don't have a guy until he suits up and plays (see USC's Steele and McCoy for example).

Cal dodged a bullet re: all three guys that left. None of them are qualified to play at the P5 level. I consider it good fortune they left and opened up a scholie for another guy.

I have never stated that I have evidence that Cal's O will blossom this fall. I have stated that I believe that Cal will be substantially better on O (in the third quartile off the conference rather than dead last). Heck, none of us have indisputable evidence Cal will be better, the same or worse. However, all of us are speculating how things will be.

As far as I know, the only thing that you said that you possessed evidence for was your comment re: Goff (which you have since withdrawn). I guess I am still waiting for something that will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that things will not improve substantially this season. Otherwise, I will place your comments in the same bucket as mine and everybody else - speculative.

---

71 agree with you. Martinez committed to Spavital. Spav was not retained and no surprise Martinez left. Viramontes, Gilliam would have never played. Dykes guys by the way. Bowers Dykes, was ok until it wasn't, Garbers was re-recruited by Baldwin, verdict still out, Brasch, looks to be good, Modster no slouch either, Johnson looks interesting. So of all the guys Baldwin recruited 2 left. Shrout was a decomit it but can tell you Cal lost interest as he was not as promising as first thought. Gubralson left as he also was becoming less of a prospect and I believe saw the hand writing on the wall.

Now Baldwin needs to step up his game on the field just like the offense as a whole. QB recruiting should be better going forward. Attracting good WR and TE and OL and RB should help to get better guys in.

---

How do you know what Brasch will look like at Cal? And Johnson just committed and you say he looks interesting. So did about a million HS QBs who never were good enough to take a college snap once they got to the next level. We never know, especially about QBs. We do know that they have a better chance when coached well. I remember when folks were high on Brock Mansion. I was high on Bridgeford. At one time we had 4 4 star (3 elite 11) QBs on the roster and settled for a rather mediocre Zach Maynard, a 2 star transfer from Buffalo. That hurt us tremendously. This is precisely where we are now, only we are now starting at a lower baseline of talent and depth. And the coaching is not even what it was for Maynard. We will settle for the best of a bad lot and hope they get coached up. LOL, that is what I mean when I say I am burned out on hope. I'm burned out on hope for Baldwin.

---

Heart, I get it about Baldwin.This will be a make or break year for him. I am sure he knows that. Wilcox ain't a dummy. As far as me saying a QB looks good, it is in terms of potential. If he can't play when the lights go on then looking good is not going to cut it obviously.

---

Thank you.