BearRaidNation said:

---

Here's your answer we have been last place in PAC-12 in Offense efficiency the last 2 years. This years offense is better than last years. Last years '18 was 27.9 and this year '19 is 41.6.

last is last. Wilcox will make the call at the end of the day.

---

One thing we'll never know (altho there are bound to be some posters who will argue that they do) is what alternatives JW would have, should he decide to let BB go. Who is actually better qualified than BB and standing in line to get the job. That's the third consideration after: does JW want him gone; and does BB want to stay?

Another interesting point is when the decision will be made? Could make it now. Could wait til after the bowl game. Could wait until after Feb LOI Day (least likely). So, if nothing happens now, we'd still have 2 more handwringing periods to suffer through.

I don't know anything about the coaching staff, though I suppose this thread is about dumping the guy in charge of the offense. Hmmm.

Here's what I do know:
I watched the second half last night (after watching a couple games with Modster earlier this season). Chase Garbers looks pretty damn good me me!!!
So I went to see who he was.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4242408/chase-garbers

I scroll down to Career Stats and see a sophomore who has improved tremendously over his Frosh season, in which he played a ton. That's great to see! Where will he be as a jr or sr?

I then looked at who played in our losses. Garbers was undefeated at 5-0, but then was injured vs ASU, playing little, and injured again vs USC, playing little again. Both losses, and then Modster loses those 2 and 3 more solo.

Garbers comes back uninjured, and we win 2 more games.

As Papadikos (whatever his name, the old USC sportscaster) said last night, "This offense is all about Chase Garbers from here on out"! (That's a paraphrase.)

The future looks bright!

Seems BI is in three camps

Think Baldwin should be kept and sees the game with those goggles

Think Baldwin should go and sees the game with those goggles

Have an open mind and tries to be objective, considers other factors, and understands they are wearing 20-20 goggles

HoopDreams said:

---

Seems BI is in three camps

Think Baldwin should be kept and sees the game with those goggles

Think Baldwin should go and sees the game with those goggles

Have an open mind and tries to be objective, considers other factors, and understands they are wearing 20-20 goggles

---

Wonder which way you think we should lean? The longest answer and the most complementary is always the one that the writer thinks should be chosen.

adujan said:

---

Most of this thread was written prior to the UCLA game. I watched the majority of the game and feel our offense took significantly more chances downfield last night than in any game the past few seasons.

Beginning with the Ole Miss game, Garbers looked a lot more confident running the offense. He also looked like an above average college QB beginning in that game and continuing with both Stanford and UCLA. His injury was a major blow to our chances for a much better season. A healthy Garbers would have given us potentially 3 more wins - ASU, OSU and possibly even Oregon. That would have been a nearly historic Cal season.

I don't know what changed with Baldwin's play calling the past couple games. Whether he feels like he has nothing to lose or he has new confidence in his personnel, the difference was clear. We took more chanced and brought more creativity.

I don't know what Wilcox will do about Baldwin, but I won't have an issue with him staying for another year. While Cal's offense was again at the bottom of the Pac-12, we made big improvements in efficiency ratings and will bring back a solid core to continue that momentum. Starting over with a new OC and new system brings a lot of risk of moving backwards.

---

2 more wins possibly
No way would we have defeated Oregon

HoopDreams said:

---

Seems BI is in three camps

Think Baldwin should be kept and sees the game with those goggles

Think Baldwin should go and sees the game with those goggles

Have an open mind and tries to be objective, considers other factors, and understands they are wearing 20-20 goggles

---

This reminds me of the Dykes era, the absurd belief that the opposing sides of the discussion are equally deluded.

Those who think Baldwin should be kept do so in complete contravention to 3 years of miserable results.

Those who think Baldwin should not be kept do so because of those miserable results.

Those are just facts.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

adujan said:

---

Most of this thread was written prior to the UCLA game. I watched the majority of the game and feel our offense took significantly more chances downfield last night than in any game the past few seasons.

Beginning with the Ole Miss game, Garbers looked a lot more confident running the offense. He also looked like an above average college QB beginning in that game and continuing with both Stanford and UCLA. His injury was a major blow to our chances for a much better season. A healthy Garbers would have given us potentially 3 more wins - ASU, OSU and possibly even Oregon. That would have been a nearly historic Cal season.

I don't know what changed with Baldwin's play calling the past couple games. Whether he feels like he has nothing to lose or he has new confidence in his personnel, the difference was clear. We took more chanced and brought more creativity.

I don't know what Wilcox will do about Baldwin, but I won't have an issue with him staying for another year. While Cal's offense was again at the bottom of the Pac-12, we made big improvements in efficiency ratings and will bring back a solid core to continue that momentum. Starting over with a new OC and new system brings a lot of risk of moving backwards.

---

2 more wins possibly
No way would we have defeated Oregon

---

Why do you say that? It isn't like they took the foot off the pedal to be nice to Wilcox. We played them tough but had zero O. That game was definitely winnable.

Cave Bear said:

---

Baldwin apologists rival Dykes apologists in their capacity for rationalizing failure. The offense puts up less points against both Stanford and UCLA than their defenses average and yet these performances somehow encourage them. Our OL and RBs simply crushed UCLA up front from start to finish. The only reason our RBs didn't have 200+ rush yards is because Brown, Collins and Dancy were only allowed a total of 24 carries. Yet somehow our apologists find a way to praise his playcalling.

Baldwin's offense has averaged 23 PPG over three years. Our average offensive scoring rank is 103rd and has declined from the start. It's incredible how the apologists find ways to simply stick these results in a drawer. Simply incredible.

---

Read the OP

FWIW - which isn't much - my position has evolved again. I said previously it was time to move on because the O was so bad and there weren't any signs of hope to reasonably believe it would ever be better. I now think that last part isn't true. I would still understand if we make a change. But I can also see staying the course given that Garbers is developing under BBs positional coaching and the O is showing signs of being at a different level when healthy. We return nearly everyone on that side of the ball and it is reasonable to think they will individually and collectively be better than what we have seen the past two games.

These last two games were better, but IMO the Baldwin offense is still mediocre even at its best, and too often our success relies on Garbers improvising something out of a broken play. I'd like to see a much higher ceiling.

But I will acknowledge it's not the slam-dunk case for firing him that it was a few weeks ago.

It's been widely reported that Baldwin *wants to leave*. His family has already left. He interviewed for OSU as soon as he had the chance. Who knows what other discussions he's had. Why isn't this front and center in this discussion? If I know a key employee wants to leave, I take care of the situation before it gets critical. Hating your life because of your job is not conducive to success.

IssyBear said:

---

Reading this thread has been less than illuminating. Discounting those that want a change regardless and those that want to stay pat regardless, the future of our current OC is still a mystery to most of us. I think that the actual decision will be made based on factors most of us don't currently know. I suspect they include:

• Wilcox's vision for the type of offense he thinks fits best at Cal, and how Baldwin's offense reflects that vision;
• Wilcox's regard for Baldwin's effectiveness as an OC as a leader, recruiter, player developer, game planner, and play caller;
• Wilcox's assessment of Baldwin's responsibilities for the offense's poor performance during our mid-season losing streak;
• Wilcox's current relationship with Baldwin;
• Baldwin's relationship with the other coaches, his players and our current recruits;
• Wilcox's honest assessment of his chances of getting, paying for, and retaining a better OC than Baldwin;
• Baldwin's actual interest in staying at Cal next year;
• The practical impacts of Baldwin's expiring contract, and how bringing back Baldwin would be handled contractually, and
• The actual impacts of the level of dissatisfaction with Baldwin among the Cal football program's major donors, if that dissatisfaction exits and has been expressed.

Bottom line is: what does Wilcox think, and what does Baldwin want to do? Frankly, I currently can't answer either question.

---

The locker room, what is the vibe? Are players working for each other and their coaches or every man for himself. Wilcox has been around enough to know the feel of a healthy locker room.

sycasey said:

---

These last two games were better, but IMO the Baldwin offense is still mediocre even at its best, and too often our success relies on Garbers improvising something out of a broken play. I'd like to see a much higher ceiling.

But I will acknowledge it's not the slam-dunk case for firing him that it was a few weeks ago.

---

Honestly, this offense is not yet even mediocre. But, it certainly seems to be getting there, and that's saying something after what we saw in Oct....

And, I can't imagine this is the best we'll see from a BB offense. So much is on the QB, the games played, consecutive ones, starts, means a lot.

The best or good as it gets is what I think of in 2015 when SD and TF had Goff for 3 seasons. He had a ton of starts and throws under his belt, more than most 4 year QBs. Our 2015 team was the most experienced in all of the P5 too. With a super-seasoned generational QB at the helm, and a very talented receiving corps too, it was our time for the offense to explode onto the scene. It frickin' regressed and averaged less than 32 PPG in conference games (6th best in the Pac). So dang clear TF had to go, and it happened.

JW and BB didn't walk into CMS with a Jared Goff chomping at the bit nor guys like Treggs, Davis, Lawler, Powe, Harris, Anderson, Rodgers Hudson and Harper.

I feel rather confident that if BB had a starting QB for three years straight, such discussions would have never materialized. Note, I'm not even saying a Jared Goff type of talent either. That said, I put the mystery departure of Ross Bowers and the fiasco of the 2018 QB rotation squarely upon BB, and JW. I personally needed to see signs of the 2017 offense this season, and while not there, I sense it is heading that way the more we have continuity at QB... CG has not had more than 4 consecutive complete games. He has a run of two now...

Can't wait for the bowl game!

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

---

I don't see how this question matters. Only Wilcox can know the answer, he's not talking, and assuming the answer is "because Wilcox believes in Baldwin" it doesn't really bear on how we as individuals should appraise Baldwin's performance with our own eyes and brains.

Quote:

---

Hypothetically, how long should it take to build an offense from scratch?

---

There is an expected schedule of improvement. The offense should be better at the end of Year 1 than the beginning. It should be better at the start of Year 2 than the end of Year 1 and should be improved on top of that by the end of Year 2. By Year 3 the offense should be judged entirely on its own merits without reference to the challenges of rebuilding. The key is the rate and extent of progression.

That said, Baldwin was not building from scratch. QB and OL had to be built from scratch but he appeared to have inherited well stocked RB and WR groups. It is a damning mark of his failure that those position groups steadily went from being well stocked to bare cupboard.

Quote:

---

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

---

I don't see prioritization as being an useful way to look at the groups outside of QB. Obviously everything begins with the player taking the snaps, but after that everyone is a cog in the machine.

Quote:

---

Have you found any occasions of success for the offense under Baldwin?

---

I don't really get this question. The occasions of success and failure should be readily apparent from the results of each game. To put it mildly, those occasions were notable only for being infrequent and still not particularly impressive even when they did occur.

Quote:

---

If so, what factors contributed, and were those factors in place during the periods in which you disapprove?

---

The failure of the offense is a two-part story. Part One is the inability to consistently develop players and ensure proficient execution as a unit. Part Two is an offense that is structurally haphazard. The compliment to a strong, physical defense is a power offense that seeks to dominate at the LOS. Despite how many carries per game our offense averages, its preoccupation with "creativity" has been the cause of several needless defeats. Contrary to the complaints of "conservative" playcalling by many here, it has been an unwillingness to commit to a conservative game plan that has inflicted needless defeats on our team. By my count there are between 6 and 8 losses that could have been wins if the offense had committed to just pounding the rock and only passing in mandatory situations (3rd and long and hurry up situations). The problem with those who have registered these complaints is an excess of ambition fueled by the misapprehension that winning offense has to rack up huge points and yardage totals.

Our offense is schematically ill-suited to our program and is being run by players who have received a very modest quality of instruction. We don't need tactical genius, we need solid coaching and leadership.

Although OK is a stretch...

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

---

I don't see how this question matters. Only Wilcox can know the answer, he's not talking, and assuming the answer is "because Wilcox believes in Baldwin" it doesn't really bear on how we as individuals should appraise Baldwin's performance with our own eyes and brains.

Quote:

---

Hypothetically, how long should it take to build an offense from scratch?

---

There is an expected schedule of improvement. The offense should be better at the end of Year 1 than the beginning. It should be better at the start of Year 2 than the end of Year 1 and should be improved on top of that by the end of Year 2. By Year 3 the offense should be judged entirely on its own merits without reference to the challenges of rebuilding. The key is the rate and extent of progression.

That said, Baldwin was not building from scratch. QB and OL had to be built from scratch but he appeared to have inherited well stocked RB and WR groups. It is a damning mark of his failure that those position groups steadily went from being well stocked to bare cupboard.

Quote:

---

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

---

I don't see prioritization as being an useful way to look at the groups outside of QB. Obviously everything begins with the player taking the snaps, but after that everyone is a cog in the machine.

Quote:

---

Have you found any occasions of success for the offense under Baldwin?

---

I don't really get this question. The occasions of success and failure should be readily apparent from the results of each game. To put it mildly, those occasions were notable only for being infrequent and still not particularly impressive even when they did occur.

Quote:

---

If so, what factors contributed, and were those factors in place during the periods in which you disapprove?

---

The failure of the offense is a two-part story. Part One is the inability to consistently develop players and ensure proficient execution as a unit. Part Two is an offense that is structurally haphazard. The compliment to a strong, physical defense is a power offense that seeks to dominate at the LOS. Despite how many carries per game our offense averages, its preoccupation with "creativity" has been the cause of several needless defeats. Contrary to the complaints of "conservative" playcalling by many here, it has been an unwillingness to commit to a conservative game plan that has inflicted needless defeats on our team. By my count there are between 6 and 8 losses that could have been wins if the offense had committed to just pounding the rock and only passing in mandatory situations (3rd and long and hurry up situations). The problem with those who have registered these complaints is an excess of ambition fueled by the misapprehension that winning offense has to rack up huge points and yardage totals.

Our offense is schematically ill-suited to our program and is being run by players who have received a very modest quality of instruction. We don't need tactical genius, we need solid coaching and leadership.

---

You are much more patient and understanding than am I.

Rushinbear said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

---

I don't see how this question matters. Only Wilcox can know the answer, he's not talking, and assuming the answer is "because Wilcox believes in Baldwin" it doesn't really bear on how we as individuals should appraise Baldwin's performance with our own eyes and brains.

Quote:

---

Hypothetically, how long should it take to build an offense from scratch?

---

There is an expected schedule of improvement. The offense should be better at the end of Year 1 than the beginning. It should be better at the start of Year 2 than the end of Year 1 and should be improved on top of that by the end of Year 2. By Year 3 the offense should be judged entirely on its own merits without reference to the challenges of rebuilding. The key is the rate and extent of progression.

That said, Baldwin was not building from scratch. QB and OL had to be built from scratch but he appeared to have inherited well stocked RB and WR groups. It is a damning mark of his failure that those position groups steadily went from being well stocked to bare cupboard.

Quote:

---

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

---

I don't see prioritization as being an useful way to look at the groups outside of QB. Obviously everything begins with the player taking the snaps, but after that everyone is a cog in the machine.

Quote:

---

Have you found any occasions of success for the offense under Baldwin?

---

I don't really get this question. The occasions of success and failure should be readily apparent from the results of each game. To put it mildly, those occasions were notable only for being infrequent and still not particularly impressive even when they did occur.

Quote:

---

If so, what factors contributed, and were those factors in place during the periods in which you disapprove?

---

The failure of the offense is a two-part story. Part One is the inability to consistently develop players and ensure proficient execution as a unit. Part Two is an offense that is structurally haphazard. The compliment to a strong, physical defense is a power offense that seeks to dominate at the LOS. Despite how many carries per game our offense averages, its preoccupation with "creativity" has been the cause of several needless defeats. Contrary to the complaints of "conservative" playcalling by many here, it has been an unwillingness to commit to a conservative game plan that has inflicted needless defeats on our team. By my count there are between 6 and 8 losses that could have been wins if the offense had committed to just pounding the rock and only passing in mandatory situations (3rd and long and hurry up situations). The problem with those who have registered these complaints is an excess of ambition fueled by the misapprehension that winning offense has to rack up huge points and yardage totals.

Our offense is schematically ill-suited to our program and is being run by players who have received a very modest quality of instruction. We don't need tactical genius, we need solid coaching and leadership.

---

You are much more patient and understanding than am I.

---

Numbers apparently don't have meaning

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

---

I don't see how this question matters. Only Wilcox can know the answer, he's not talking, and assuming the answer is "because Wilcox believes in Baldwin" it doesn't really bear on how we as individuals should appraise Baldwin's performance with our own eyes and brains.

Quote:

---

Hypothetically, how long should it take to build an offense from scratch?

---

There is an expected schedule of improvement. The offense should be better at the end of Year 1 than the beginning. It should be better at the start of Year 2 than the end of Year 1 and should be improved on top of that by the end of Year 2. By Year 3 the offense should be judged entirely on its own merits without reference to the challenges of rebuilding. The key is the rate and extent of progression.

That said, Baldwin was not building from scratch. QB and OL had to be built from scratch but he appeared to have inherited well stocked RB and WR groups. It is a damning mark of his failure that those position groups steadily went from being well stocked to bare cupboard.

Quote:

---

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

---

I don't see prioritization as being an useful way to look at the groups outside of QB. Obviously everything begins with the player taking the snaps, but after that everyone is a cog in the machine.

Quote:

---

Have you found any occasions of success for the offense under Baldwin?

---

I don't really get this question. The occasions of success and failure should be readily apparent from the results of each game. To put it mildly, those occasions were notable only for being infrequent and still not particularly impressive even when they did occur.

Quote:

---

If so, what factors contributed, and were those factors in place during the periods in which you disapprove?

---

The failure of the offense is a two-part story. Part One is the inability to consistently develop players and ensure proficient execution as a unit. Part Two is an offense that is structurally haphazard. The compliment to a strong, physical defense is a power offense that seeks to dominate at the LOS. Despite how many carries per game our offense averages, its preoccupation with "creativity" has been the cause of several needless defeats. Contrary to the complaints of "conservative" playcalling by many here, it has been an unwillingness to commit to a conservative game plan that has inflicted needless defeats on our team. By my count there are between 6 and 8 losses that could have been wins if the offense had committed to just pounding the rock and only passing in mandatory situations (3rd and long and hurry up situations). The problem with those who have registered these complaints is an excess of ambition fueled by the misapprehension that winning offense has to rack up huge points and yardage totals.

Our offense is schematically ill-suited to our program and is being run by players who have received a very modest quality of instruction. We don't need tactical genius, we need solid coaching and leadership.

---

Thanks for those answers.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Numbers apparently don't have meaning

---

Or they can be put to any meaning.

ducky23 said:

---

Sure. And of course no one here is implying they are smarter than Baldwin. But here's just one example where fans sometimes do know better

First couple years, cal had been awful on 3rd and 1 because Baldwin kept insisting on running out of shotgun. Fans have been complaining about that since year 1

Only this year, we've run more qb sneaks under center. And have made it every single time (to my knowledge). This is a switch that should have been made immediately. It's inexcusable it's taken this long to change that philosophy.

Yes, no one on this board knows 1/1000th as Baldwin. Doesn't mean that fans are always wrong. And just because Baldwin knows more than everyone here, doesn't mean he should be retained. That sounds like an awful reason to keep an OC.

---

Uh fans don't know sh*t, and they change their narrative weekly.

Fans latch on to BB sucks bandwagon cuz it's a simpleton's rationale: offense sucks, ergo BB sucks. They can then pat themselves on the back

Wilcox went from being the answer to he needs to be fired for tolerating the offense to he's the answer again and this just gets recycled based on weekly game outcomes. Cal beat two of the worst teams in the conference, and that's changed the narrative 180 for some.

GBear4Life said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Sure. And of course no one here is implying they are smarter than Baldwin. But here's just one example where fans sometimes do know better

First couple years, cal had been awful on 3rd and 1 because Baldwin kept insisting on running out of shotgun. Fans have been complaining about that since year 1

Only this year, we've run more qb sneaks under center. And have made it every single time (to my knowledge). This is a switch that should have been made immediately. It's inexcusable it's taken this long to change that philosophy.

Yes, no one on this board knows 1/1000th as Baldwin. Doesn't mean that fans are always wrong. And just because Baldwin knows more than everyone here, doesn't mean he should be retained. That sounds like an awful reason to keep an OC.

---

Uh fans don't know sh*t, and they change their narrative weekly.

Fans latch on to BB sucks bandwagon cuz it's a simpleton's rationale: offense sucks, ergo BB sucks. They can then pat themselves on the back

Wilcox went from being the answer to he needs to be fired for tolerating the offense to he's the answer again and this just gets recycled based on weekly game outcomes. Cal beat two of the worst teams in the conference, and that's changed the narrative 180 for some.

---

... and then when one person who actually DOES know sh*t, posts on this very thread (no Cal fans, not me, I'm talking about killa22), nobody wants to discuss it.

killa22 said:

---

I don't understand the Harbaugh Iove here at all.

Where is that guy at now? He went to a spread / RPO to just try to keep up with Ohio State (who by the way is basically an air raid team) and even that's not enough for him.

I've said it since day 1 the Wisconsin model is the wrong template to follow...

---

I'm not Harbaugh sycophant, but come on. OSU is on an unprocedented 5 year run, even by theirs or any blue blood standard (except for maybe current Bama). They are 60-6 since 2015. Michigan has never been a perennial top 5-8 program. Ever. Harbaugh has them winning 10 games 4 out of 5 years if they win bowl this year.

Of course if you want to blame him for not beating OSU once in 5 years during an all-time unprecedented run, fine. But he turned Michigan around from the worst run in their program's history back to where they've always been: A perennial top 15-20 team.

52-14 Wisconsin
47-17 Michigan
OSU 60-6

GBear4Life said:

---

killa22 said:

---

I don't understand the Harbaugh Iove here at all.

Where is that guy at now? He went to a spread / RPO to just try to keep up with Ohio State (who by the way is basically an air raid team) and even that's not enough for him.

I've said it since day 1 the Wisconsin model is the wrong template to follow...

---

I'm not Harbaugh sycophant, but come on. OSU is on an unprocedented 5 year run, even by theirs or any blue blood standard (except for maybe current Bama). They are 60-6 since 2015. Michigan has never been a perennial top 5-8 program. Ever. Harbaugh has them winning 10 games 4 out of 5 years if they win bowl this year.

Of course if you want to blame him for not beating OSU once in 5 years during an all-time unprecedented run, fine. But he turned Michigan around from the worst run in their program's history back to where they've always been: A perennial top 15-20 team.

52-14 Wisconsin
47-17 Michigan
OSU 60-6

---

Yeah, I don't get the knocks on Harbaugh either. He can't beat Ohio State, but otherwise his record there is the best they've had in a while.

Rigth, and moreover, virtually NOBODY has beaten OSU in 5 years, even better teams than Michigan.

I know some die-hard Michigan fans who want Harbaugh fired. Insane. When I pin them down as to why given all the facts, they invariably stomp their feet with a "well how come we can't be more like OSU!!! How come we can't beat them once!". It's program-envy. Kinda like Cal Stanford 5-10 years ago. We just couldn't stand that our rivals were having national success.

When you point out that Michigan has always been a "regional" program in the top 25 but never an every-year CFP type program, they get even more flustered.