FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I agree changes should be made if the offense is really poor again but I expect them to be significantly better on all levels.

---

That makes two of us who have posted that we expect the Bears to be significantly better on O. Anyone else care to join us?

---

I wish I could be as optimistic as you two but I see some serious question marks at pretty much every position group. I'm probably the most optimistic about our running backs. But that should tell you something since we just lost probably our most productive offensive player over the last two seasons from that position group. As for the rest of the offense, QB is still a big question mark. OL is a big question mark. WR is a really big question mark.

One of our biggest problems was the inability to complete passes down the field, even 15 yards. And the only positive change in that regard is the recruitment of Modster, who is promising but somewhat of an unknown commodity. IOW the passing game is still a big question mark at this point. Production in spring practice just doesn't mean all that much.

I am also perplexed by Baldwin. I really liked his offenses at EWU, and I do firmly believe you don't just forget how to coach overnight. I am at a loss to explain why we were so bad last year. True, we had below average P12 talent on offense but it was better-regarded talent than his FCS EWU teams, who seemed to regularly slice and dice P12 defenses.

If we are "significantly better" on O I will be pleasantly surprised. If it happens I guess that it would likely be a result of great improvement at the QB position, whether because Chase figures it out or Modster is a revelation. I have my fingers crossed. So why are you so optimistic?

---

I read from your post an assumption that better QB play solves all problems. To me that doesn't take into account that receiver speed factors into down field opportunities as well as how dominate your OL is, which affords the QB time to wait a little longer for plays to develop. You could have a NFL Hall of Famer behind your line, but if he can't hang in their long enough to make throws because of the other position groups being deficient in some way then the QB won't be able to execute. We need incremental increases across all position groups so that the sum of those increases together result in a more potent attack. We all love to find blame in one thing. Systems don't work that way.

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wr - can more, faster and healthier wrs not be an improvement? Better.

---

You're taking it on faith that they are faster and their health remains to be seen. A lot of the guys that were injured last year weren't injured at all the previous year.

---

Remigio faster. Hawkins adds a year. Duncan stays healthy because there are enough wrs now to rotate and stay fresh. If the rumors about Taariq are true, he just makes a good corps better.

Noa was always getting dinged. Wharton was not himself. The UM guy had trouble with routes and catching.

---

In 2016, we were the number 1 offense in the PAC-12.

In 2017 we had plenty of fast, highly rated WRs: Robertson, Stoval, Wharton, Duncan, Noa....and were 11th in the PAC-12 on offense.

Baldwin barely used McMorris, probably our biggest difference maker on offense. His playcalling was abysmal.

McIlwain had an issue with interceptions but was our leading rusher. So what does Baldwin do? Starts Mcillwain and has him sit in the pocket and throw 50 times and not run at all with predictable results. Our offense got worse and worse, culminating in the Cheezit Bowl embarrassment. Baldwin just kept changing QBs, but when the offense sucks under 5 highly rated QBs, maybe it isn't the QB? Look at Chase Forrest's good stats as a freshman verses his horrible stats as a senior.

I want the offense to be great, but I've seen nothing from Baldwin it give me any confidence. Oh, last year EWU's offense was #2 in all of college football, so those who cite his impressive wins over OSU....

---

You devalue your point by referencing Stovall and Robertson, who suffered season ending injuries prior to week 3.

Injuries don't matter. Next man up. The internet is not really stupid, it's the content.

baldwin needs to step it up.. has moraga turned into a sunshine pumper ?? after the cheez it bowl i have to see it to believe it.

chazzed said:

---

I'm not asking for 15 touches a game, but how about 3 or 4? This would be enough to establish a threat and take some heat off of Laird and Garbers. Also, it makes little sense to me that one's high school career should dictate exactly how we utilize him. Finally, McMorris didn't get drafted because he's a fullback, and there is no demand for that by NFL teams anymore.

---

And with Patrick's and Malik's hands we'd have had 5-6 freaking receiving threats on the field.

BearGreg said:

---

chazzed said:

---

I'm not asking for 15 touches a game, but how about 3 or 4? This would be enough to establish a threat and take some heat off of Laird and Garbers. Also, it makes little sense to me that one's high school career should dictate exactly how we utilize him. Finally, McMorris didn't get drafted because he's a fullback, and there is no demand for that by NFL teams anymore.

---

It's curious that not only was McMorris not drafted, he was not signed as a UFA (at least to my knowledge). And while Fullbacks aren't as plentiful today in the NFL as they were 25 years ago, there are plenty on rosters and more than a few were drafted and/or signed as UFAs this year.

Among draft eligible fullbacks, McMorris was not even ranked by the pundits Top 25 Fullbacks for 2019 Draft

---

Malik is following his dream. Working on getting in the NFL. That is what I heard. He is a determined young man

If a few other FBs were taken, that is really strange. I do hope that he catches on somewhere, like the poster immediately before me mentions that Malik is trying. He seems like a great kid.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I agree changes should be made if the offense is really poor again but I expect them to be significantly better on all levels.

---

That makes two of us who have posted that we expect the Bears to be significantly better on O. Anyone else care to join us?

---

I wish I could be as optimistic as you two but I see some serious question marks at pretty much every position group. I'm probably the most optimistic about our running backs. But that should tell you something since we just lost probably our most productive offensive player over the last two seasons from that position group. As for the rest of the offense, QB is still a big question mark. OL is a big question mark. WR is a really big question mark.

One of our biggest problems was the inability to complete passes down the field, even 15 yards. And the only positive change in that regard is the recruitment of Modster, who is promising but somewhat of an unknown commodity. IOW the passing game is still a big question mark at this point. Production in spring practice just doesn't mean all that much.

I am also perplexed by Baldwin. I really liked his offenses at EWU, and I do firmly believe you don't just forget how to coach overnight. I am at a loss to explain why we were so bad last year. True, we had below average P12 talent on offense but it was better-regarded talent than his FCS EWU teams, who seemed to regularly slice and dice P12 defenses.

If we are "significantly better" on O I will be pleasantly surprised. If it happens I guess that it would likely be a result of great improvement at the QB position, whether because Chase figures it out or Modster is a revelation. I have my fingers crossed. So why are you so optimistic?

---

I read from your post an assumption that better QB play solves all problems.

---

Hmmm, I didn't and don't make that assumption at all. That is why I covered all the offensive position groups in my post. That is why the Goff teams were just mediocre - a good QB doesn't solve all problems. On the Goff teams, I would have said that significant improvement by the offense would likely be due to improvement at OL, not at QB. Our guys were getting bulldozed in pass pro, collapsing the pocket in Goff's face. But on this team, I would say significant improvement on O, if it occurs, is most likely to come from QB play. We have a promising new transfer and a returning starter with a year under his belt, primed for improved production. Hopefully one of them pans out.

The O last year was one of the least talented we've seen. It's not an indictment but the QB was a redshirt Frost, RB injured walk-on, WRs were injured and not productive and little production came from the TE position.

Hard to see the O being much worse. How much better is the question. Middle of the pack O would make this Cal team dangerous.

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

For me, the key was not touches for Malik but shuttling him in and out even when he was blocking well at H-back. To my untrained layman's eye, he was the best run-blocker on the entire team. Yet anecdotally, on the few occasions we got a couple good run plays with McMorris in there, we would immediately take him out to split more receivers out wide or run some other formation so Baldwin could be more "multiple." I had no problem with those other formations either but when something works, force the defense to adjust and then run something else (play-fake etc.) out of the same formation. Don't just switch to switch.

I'm sure Baldwin and any OC has forgotten more about football than I will ever know, but it felt like he was all over the place and we never established an identity so we could make our opponents pay for eventually having to make adjustments for that identity.

Cal's offense last season was never going to be good, even with more blocking from #99. But I think it's arguable it could have been a little less bad.

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

Pro scouts evaluate talent based on how they project to the next level not on how they performed in college. McMorris simply does not possess the talent the pros are looking for at either the FB or HBack position. Cal did him no disservice by limiting his touches.

Think of George Kittle. Many thought Iowa did him a disservice by not featuring him more as a receiver. The pros (in this case, SF) saw something in him and selected him anyway. Last year, he set a receiving yardage record for NFL TE's.

10 wins and Rose, Go Bears

Sebastabear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

I'm not sure how he could possibly have been less effective given he got like six touches over the course of the entire season. And if opposing teams had keyed in on him more that would have been great as it would have hopefully opened things up more for the wide receivers, But bottom line is you and Beau Baldwin seem to have come to the same conclusion, it didn't make sense to me (and I agree with OneKeg that the part I really didn't understand was why in the world your best blocker kept running on and off the field) but God bless. Just sad about what might have been.

---

Stamina? (maybe the production outgrowth of excessive weight).

Sebastabear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

I'm not sure how he could possibly have been less effective given he got like six touches over the course of the entire season. And if opposing teams had keyed in on him more that would have been great as it would have hopefully opened things up more for the wide receivers, But bottom line is you and Beau Baldwin seem to have come to the same conclusion, it didn't make sense to me (and I agree with OneKeg that the part I really didn't understand was why in the world your best blocker kept running on and off the field) but God bless. Just sad about what might have been.

---

he had 9 touches.

Either way, it was not nearly enough. If we had numerous other weapons, then it would have made sense. Unfortunately, we had no other outstanding options.

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

I'm not sure how he could possibly have been less effective given he got like six touches over the course of the entire season. And if opposing teams had keyed in on him more that would have been great as it would have hopefully opened things up more for the wide receivers, But bottom line is you and Beau Baldwin seem to have come to the same conclusion, it didn't make sense to me (and I agree with OneKeg that the part I really didn't understand was why in the world your best blocker kept running on and off the field) but God bless. Just sad about what might have been.

---

he had 9 touches.

---

Yikes. My wild-ass guess was (depressingly) close to being right.

MoragaBear said:

---

If Garbers carries over his development since the season or Modster plays good enough to beat him out, I believe we'll see a lot less interceptions and QB fumbles, more balls completed downfield and a higher completion percentage. Garbers was far better in the spring than he was last season, even with a lot of receivers out. He was more poised and in control and hit balls downfield he didn't hit last season. Keep in mind, he wouldn't even have played last season as a rs freshman if Bowers didn't have his injury and McIlwain wasn't a turnover machine.

Laird was not the same player in 2018 as he was in '17 after coming back from knee surgery right before the season. I expect Brown, Dancy, Collins and Netherda to be a very effective group, with more rotation to keep guys fresher and healthier. Brown made a nice step up this spring and Dancy and Collins bring explosiveness, ability to pick up consistent yardage as receiving weapons and are hard to bring down. Much like Laird, Netherda's a lot better than a lot of people think.

The WR corps will be a lot deeper. Noa, Wharton and Duncan missed a bunch of games and played hurt a lot. I expect Duncan, Hawkins, Remigio, Clark, Crawford, Polk and walk-ons -Walker and Skinner plus hopefully Taariq to give them a wide-range of skillsets and ways to move the chains.

The TE position should become an offensive weapon again with Castles and Reinwald plus receiving TE's, though the power running game could suffer a bit with their lack of bulk.

The OL should be much better. Expect OT's Curhan and Craig to make nice steps up based on their springs and additional experience. Saffell missed much of last year and he'll bring an aggressive streak to center. The light's come on for Williams at OG and Daltoso will be back from injuries with 2 seasons of starting. I think Cindric's good enough to replace either of them sooner than later and brings a tough and nasty streak and technical ability to the field.

Toler seems to be at home at WR coach and did a nice job with a depleted group in the spring.
The RB's are responding really well to Edwards at RB coach and are running with toughness and ball security.
Baldwin coaching QB's is a big step up from Tui.

Bottom line: I think the offense could be better at virtually every position. Feel free to save this and quote me.

---

What would your feeling be about Baldwin if the offense was only marginally better? For example, lets say that the game costing turnovers are reduced but they are still miserable passing the ball and end up 5-7 largely because of the offense. Or, better yet, lets say they finish 10th in the pac-12 in most offensive stats.

As speculative as this is, I personally think it is likely to be the case. I can see Cal improving in every phase on offense but still not enough to reflect what you would expect from a competent pac-12 offense.

Last season Cal's offense was so bad they were literally losing winnable games. This season I don't think they will actively lose games, but I don't think they will win them either.

Sebastabear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

I'm not sure how he could possibly have been less effective given he got like six touches over the course of the entire season. And if opposing teams had keyed in on him more that would have been great as it would have hopefully opened things up more for the wide receivers, But bottom line is you and Beau Baldwin seem to have come to the same conclusion, it didn't make sense to me (and I agree with OneKeg that the part I really didn't understand was why in the world your best blocker kept running on and off the field) but God bless. Just sad about what might have been.

---

he had 9 touches.

---

Yikes. My wild-ass guess was (depressingly) close to being right.

---

he is a fullback. 9 touches is a lot. i dont remember if that play where he got hit and turned over the ball counted as a touch or not (fumble vs drop and interception)... also when you said keyed on him more, you meant keyed on him at all. id venture the only time he was keyed on was when defenses were trying to figure out where a run was going.

with that said, he is a good blocker.

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

I'm not sure how he could possibly have been less effective given he got like six touches over the course of the entire season. And if opposing teams had keyed in on him more that would have been great as it would have hopefully opened things up more for the wide receivers, But bottom line is you and Beau Baldwin seem to have come to the same conclusion, it didn't make sense to me (and I agree with OneKeg that the part I really didn't understand was why in the world your best blocker kept running on and off the field) but God bless. Just sad about what might have been.

---

he had 9 touches.

---

Yikes. My wild-ass guess was (depressingly) close to being right.

---

he is a fullback. 9 touches is a lot. i dont remember if that play where he got hit and turned over the ball counted as a touch or not (fumble vs drop and interception)... also when you said keyed on him more, you meant keyed on him at all. id venture the only time he was keyed on was when defenses were trying to figure out where a run was going.

with that said, he is a good blocker.

---

I am no football guru like some posters in this Board. And I like Malik a lot. But to me it appeared that Malik's effectiveness was better when passes to him were least expected.
So making him an obvious receiver, would simply be counterproductive

GivemTheAxe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

I'm not sure how he could possibly have been less effective given he got like six touches over the course of the entire season. And if opposing teams had keyed in on him more that would have been great as it would have hopefully opened things up more for the wide receivers, But bottom line is you and Beau Baldwin seem to have come to the same conclusion, it didn't make sense to me (and I agree with OneKeg that the part I really didn't understand was why in the world your best blocker kept running on and off the field) but God bless. Just sad about what might have been.

---

he had 9 touches.

---

Yikes. My wild-ass guess was (depressingly) close to being right.

---

he is a fullback. 9 touches is a lot. i dont remember if that play where he got hit and turned over the ball counted as a touch or not (fumble vs drop and interception)... also when you said keyed on him more, you meant keyed on him at all. id venture the only time he was keyed on was when defenses were trying to figure out where a run was going.

with that said, he is a good blocker.

---

I am no football guru like some posters in this Board. And I like Malik a lot. But to me it appeared that Malik's effectiveness was better when passes to him were least expected.
So making him an obvious receiver, would simply be counterproductive

---

In 2017 he only appeared in 6 games and had 5 catches.

Last year he had 2 carries and 7 catches in 13 games (2 for TDs).

He was not in for most sets/plays. Every time he was in it was a highlight playa pancake block or a pass reception.

He was a great blocker who could have also been regularly used to catch passes off play-action. Mix it up. That makes the LBs not know whether to 1) avoid him or 2) defend him. It stops the defense from crashing the LOS. Laird was good about following blocks. Again, mix it up. He could have easily had 5 to 10 catches a game.

Of course a walkon FB/TE who was barely used by his college OC does not get drafted. People using that to justify the OC barely using him are confusing cause and effect.

Sebastabear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I can't help but believe we did Malik a disservice in how we used him/didn't use him last year. As a GM if you see his number of touches and factor in how our offense struggled last year, you aren't going to think "this guy has definitely got what it takes to make it at the pro level." More likely you are going to think "if he was any good they would have used him more because they definitely needed the help."

For those of us who watched him play every snap of his career we know he'll make a difference if given a chance. Just hope someone gives him one.

---

I'm sorry, I know there is a big Malik contingent here. And he seems like a good kid - but he needs to lose weight if he wants to be an NFL fullback, and the same was true here. It boggles my mind that some here think we would have fixed our offense by getting him the ball more. The majority of his plays were short yardage, and even then his effectiveness comes from rarely being used. If he had been heavily featured, teams would have keyed on him and he would have been less effective.

---

I'm not sure how he could possibly have been less effective given he got like six touches over the course of the entire season. And if opposing teams had keyed in on him more that would have been great as it would have hopefully opened things up more for the wide receivers, But bottom line is you and Beau Baldwin seem to have come to the same conclusion, it didn't make sense to me (and I agree with OneKeg that the part I really didn't understand was why in the world your best blocker kept running on and off the field) but God bless. Just sad about what might have been.

---

he had 9 touches.

---

Yikes. My wild-ass guess was (depressingly) close to being right.

---

he is a fullback. 9 touches is a lot. i dont remember if that play where he got hit and turned over the ball counted as a touch or not (fumble vs drop and interception)... also when you said keyed on him more, you meant keyed on him at all. id venture the only time he was keyed on was when defenses were trying to figure out where a run was going.

with that said, he is a good blocker.

---

All fair, but my thoughts about how Malik was being used were not made in a vacuum. This was not a team with Marshawn Lynch and Jahvid Best in the backfield, Djax in the slot and pre-injury Longshore under center. This was a team begging for any kind of offensive production at all. From anyone. In the context of last year's offense I think his touches should have been closer to 90 than 9.

---

Agreed! I wrote "5 to 10 per game" which is almost exactly your 90.

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I agree changes should be made if the offense is really poor again but I expect them to be significantly better on all levels.

---

That makes two of us who have posted that we expect the Bears to be significantly better on O. Anyone else care to join us?

---

qb - can a player go from fr to soph and not improve? Better.
rb - can more, faster and healthier rbs not be an improvement? Better.
wr - can more, faster and healthier wrs not be an improvement? Better.
te - can more and more talented tes not be an improvement? Better.
ol - the $64 question. Expected better last year (granted 2 injured). Same.

Overall, better. Significantly? Enough for one more win.

8 wins.

---

To win 8 games against the odd year schedule, Cal will have to be more than significantly better on O.

---

Not really. As I've said before, if the defense continues to improve and the offense is no better but simply avoids the dumb mistakes of 2018 (which would be a big improvement, but not an improvement in quality or point production) the team will likely win 8 games in regular season.

And also as mentioned by others, looking at Cal's offense from a position-by-position analysis avoids the most glaring problem with the Cal offense - the really bad play calling, execution and player development by Baldwin. Switching QBs at the wrong times for the wrong reasons, obviously bad play calls, horrible execution, a ridiculous number of turnovers and TOs that led directly to points, terrible line play - these are not related to talent or experience. They're directly attributable to bad coaching, and that guy is still there and has shown no evidence that he is capable of improving as a coach. In fact he regressed. It was a massive improvement in defense that is the reason Cal went from 5 wins to 7, overshadowing the regression on offense.

But even with Baldwin being Baldwin, Cal can get to 8 wins simply by not being *quite* as Baldwin as 2018 and defense improving.

Uthaithani said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I agree changes should be made if the offense is really poor again but I expect them to be significantly better on all levels.

---

That makes two of us who have posted that we expect the Bears to be significantly better on O. Anyone else care to join us?

---

qb - can a player go from fr to soph and not improve? Better.
rb - can more, faster and healthier rbs not be an improvement? Better.
wr - can more, faster and healthier wrs not be an improvement? Better.
te - can more and more talented tes not be an improvement? Better.
ol - the $64 question. Expected better last year (granted 2 injured). Same.

Overall, better. Significantly? Enough for one more win.

8 wins.

---

To win 8 games against the odd year schedule, Cal will have to be more than significantly better on O.

---

Not really. As I've said before, if the defense continues to improve and the offense is no better but simply avoids the dumb mistakes of 2018 (which would be a big improvement, but not an improvement in quality or point production) the team will likely win 8 games in regular season.

And also as mentioned by others, looking at Cal's offense from a position-by-position analysis avoids the most glaring problem with the Cal offense - the really bad play calling, execution and player development by Baldwin. Switching QBs at the wrong times for the wrong reasons, obviously bad play calls, horrible execution, a ridiculous number of turnovers and TOs that led directly to points, terrible line play - these are not related to talent or experience. They're directly attributable to bad coaching, and that guy is still there and has shown no evidence that he is capable of improving as a coach. In fact he regressed. It was a massive improvement in defense that is the reason Cal went from 5 wins to 7, overshadowing the regression on offense.

But even with Baldwin being Baldwin, Cal can get to 8 wins simply by not being *quite* as Baldwin as 2018 and defense improving.

---

If only it was an easy as you suggest. Your extreme oversimplification of the matter says everything one needs to know about your post. In essence, you failed to take into account variables.