For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

The tough job for Wilcox is to evaluate the offense's performance in light of the personnel on the field. For instance, it seems to me that we aren't running the ball well due to the o-line not getting much push. Is that the OC's fault or someone else's? Our receivers are OK, but we don't have that knockout playmaker that some other teams in the Pac-12 have. We also drop a lot of balls.

Lots of points were scored during the Dykes era. How does the offensive personnel of those teams match up with Wilcox's? If they were similar, then a case for a new OC is justified.

BearRaidNation said:

---

Sounds like a fun project for you to answer for us drizzly. Looking forward to your research

---

Sarcasm aside, if we can't answer these questions our calls to remove Baldwin ring hollow.

Rushinbear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

He was given one more year.

Depends.

It's a team.

Yes.

Every player doing his job. Every coach doing his job. My approval/disapproval is immaterial. We fans observe and assess what we see - it's fantasy and we like to do it. To expect more weight given to our assessment is fantasy in and of itself.

---

Its the assess what we see part that I'm trying to get at. Just not seeing much assessment. It's possible we're not capable of it. But that's the point of the OP, to give people a chance to speak to the assessment.

The problem with looking at the bottom line alone is there are so many variables. Of which I'll agree the OC is preeminent. It's not impossible to replace the OC, but it's fraught enough that you do so at some serious risk, so be certain it's your best recourse.

LMK5 said:

---

The tough job for Wilcox is to evaluate the offense's performance in light of the personnel on the field. For instance, it seems to me that we aren't running the ball well due to the o-line not getting much push. Is that the OC's fault or someone else's? Our receivers are OK, but we don't have that knockout playmaker that some other teams in the Pac-12 have. We also drop a lot of balls.

Lots of points were scored during the Dykes era. How does the offensive personnel of those teams match up with Wilcox's? If they were similar, then a case for a new OC is justified.

---

Good stuff. It IS tough to determine, which is why there's a debate, and we won't solve anything definitively, but maybe we can boost the humility and dial back some of the vitriol.

To your first point, I'd say an OC is somewhat culpable regardless, but even a good OC can be undermined by circumstance. I think of Buh, and feel that no amount (or almost no amount) of talent could have been successful.

Offensively the Dykes comparison is tough. Different system, different emphasis, different personnel needs. We can be sure however there's no #1 NFL pick hiding on this roster.

BearRaidNation said:

---

Here's your answer we have been last place in PAC-12 in Offense efficiency all 3 years he has been here.

---

That's true of Wilcox too.

If you can't answer any of these questions it's hard to take you seriously.

TLDR - have fun and chillax - what will be will be. Wilcox will make the call in the next 1-2 months. We will see what happens

Hail2Calif said:

---

Any one can point to any variable, weigh it heavily, and try to make a case that Baldwin should stay - or that he's not to blame for everything that has happened.

I agree Baldwin seems like a really nice guy, and that he can't control injuries for instance, but after 3 years of bottom of the Pac-12 offense, I don't see the huge risk of not renewing and trying to find a better candidate.

As for broad assessment, looking at out last 4 recruiting classes (2016-2019), with exception to our really thin 2017 class, in each of the other 3 seasons we out recruited WSU and OSU (according to 24/7 site only, since I wasn't going to do all the research and look at every ranking service).

This year, both WSU and OSU are in the top half (top 6) of the conference in total yards per game and points scored per game.

So while we don't have a ton of 5* and 4* guys, we have been recruiting in the middle of the conference (even going back 2015 if you want to include potential RS seniors) for every person on our roster, and we are the bottom ranked O

To me, you can be selective of any number of variable to excuse this, but after 3 years, we shouldn't be the worst O in the conference. We've recruited well enough that our entire roster is a middle of the conference roster.

We can look at the teams with all the shiny 4* and 5* guys and keep excusing our O performance by saying, "give him something to work with, our guys aren't good enough" - or we can look at 3* OKG athletes that collectively rank in the middle of the conference (at least based on a 5 year recruiting cycle) and conclude that solid coaching (and that is so much more than X's and O's) should land us in the middle of the Pac - and superior O coaching should get us into the upper tier (since WSU and OSU recruit at the bottom of the conference and both rank upper half of the conference)

And yes - 3 years should be long enough to at least establish some kind of overall system - even if we're not dropping 38-40 points a game on opponents yet

We're now 8-1 in the Wilcox era when we score 24 or more. So 28-29 (which is typically what the #6-8 offenses score) would probably get us into 9-3 territory and a chance to recruit even better athletes - this is just getting solid coaching to take our average roster from last to middle of the Pac-12

---

I think your points are totally fair, but you didn't answer a single one of my questions.

I'll reiterate that I'm agnostic on Baldwin (as such I do get annoyed with what I consider overly simplified rationalizing of our frustration with the offense's performance that gets expressed so negatively), and don't consider myself qualified to truly know what's best.

I have been impressed by Wilcox and trust he's much better positioned to make a better choice than I would. When he makes choice with which I don't agree, I resist the temptation to think I know better.

The reason I pose these questions is I'm trying to understand where Wilcox might be coming from.

LMK5 said:

---

The tough job for Wilcox is to evaluate the offense's performance in light of the personnel on the field. For instance, it seems to me that we aren't running the ball well due to the o-line not getting much push. Is that the OC's fault or someone else's? Our receivers are OK, but we don't have that knockout playmaker that some other teams in the Pac-12 have. We also drop a lot of balls.

Lots of points were scored during the Dykes era. How does the offensive personnel of those teams match up with Wilcox's? If they were similar, then a case for a new OC is justified.

---

Baldwin is also responsible for the offensive personnel he recruited or failed to recruit over the three years he has been here.

After shutting down WSU, the Washington D coach said "it's always easy to prepare for teams that do the same thing each year." It got me thinking- has Baldwin's offense (multiple) also been "the same" for three years, and thus easy for other coordinators to stop? Results don't lie.

XXXBEAR said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

The tough job for Wilcox is to evaluate the offense's performance in light of the personnel on the field. For instance, it seems to me that we aren't running the ball well due to the o-line not getting much push. Is that the OC's fault or someone else's? Our receivers are OK, but we don't have that knockout playmaker that some other teams in the Pac-12 have. We also drop a lot of balls.

Lots of points were scored during the Dykes era. How does the offensive personnel of those teams match up with Wilcox's? If they were similar, then a case for a new OC is justified.

---

Baldwin is also responsible for the offensive personnel he recruited or failed to recruit over the three years he has been here.

After shutting down WSU, the Washington D coach said "it's always easy to prepare for teams that do the same thing each year." It got me thinking- has Baldwin's offense (multiple) also been "the same" for three years, and thus easy for other coordinators to stop? Results don't lie.

---

Thats interesting that you would chose to transpose that to Cal despite him saying it about WSU, and not Cal.

there are several types of offenses

in the modern college era, I think there are only two that Cal should consider ... the spread and the rpo

both somewhat equalize the advantages of the powerhouse programs that can load up on 4 and 5 star OL, big, fast, talented WRs and RBs, and it puts another offensive threat in the line up ... the QB

i just don't think Cal can return to a pure pro offense that we had with Rodgers

Baldwin is primarily a rpo coach

if we think rpo is best for cal, then I think we should keep him. it will also be better for our pocketbook, as we can't afford the binge and purge approach. it's obvious that cal sports are short on funds across the board

if we think spread is best, I'm good with that as I think it's the superior college offense. in that case, we might be better with a change.

if we want to go to a pro set, or something else, I think we should abandon all hope, although a very mobile pro style QB may be ok

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

1. Wilcox decided to give him another year (maybe plus buy-out considerations).

2. Depends on the offense. From Spring Practice to Game One for some offenses. More for others. Depends on how different the offense is from what was previously in place. If you are talking about building personnel, that's a different story. Longer.

3. I am of the non-traditionalist opinion that ALL of the position groups are equally important (and that offense and defense are equally important). Football is the ultimate team game. That said, the o-line needs to be at least competent.

4-5. When we're at full strength, the offense looks decent. Baldwin has not yet had a chance to work with personnel that were above average in the conference.

In general, I believe that our mid-season injuries were the biggest cause of our offensive short-comings this year. That and an O-line that is no better than average, even when fully healthy. (The Will Craig injury was devastating.) That said, Baldwin hasn't been very good. I would point to decisions he made last year that indicate that we could do better.

Baldwin looks less incompetent since we got Saffell and Garbers back. He might even look "pretty good" next season, with all of the returnees it looks like we'll have. However, if Wilcox is going to succeed as a Head Coach, we're going to need a better offense, one way or another. Heck, better Special Teams, too.

We're actually fairly healthy right now (sure, could really use Crawford and Craig, but nobody's fully healthy this time of year). Let's see how we look against the Bruins.

Big C said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

1. Wilcox decided to give him another year (maybe plus buy-out considerations).

2. Depends on the offense. From Spring Practice to Game One for some offenses. More for others. Depends on how different the offense is from what was previously in place. If you are talking about building personnel, that's a different story. Longer.

3. I am of the non-traditionalist opinion that ALL of the position groups are important (and that offense and defense are equally important). Football is the ultimate team game. That said, the o-line needs to be at least competent.

4-5. When we're at full strength, the offense looks decent. Baldwin has not yet had a chance to work with personnel that were above average in the conference.

In general, I am of the opinion that our mid-season injuries were the biggest cause of our offensive short-comings this year. That and an O-line that is no better than average, even when fully healthy. (The Will Craig injury was devastating.) That said, Baldwin hasn't been very good. I would point to decisions he made last year that indicate that we could do better.

Baldwin looks less incompetent since we got Saffell and Garbers back. He might even look "pretty good" next season, with all of the returnees it looks like we'll have. However, if Wilcox is going to succeed as a Head Coach, we're going to need a better offense, one way or another. Heck, better Special Teams, too.

We're actually fairly healthy right now (sure, could really use Crawford and Craig, but nobody's fully healthy this time of year). Let's see how we look against the Bruins.

---

Totally fair responses. It's really question #1 I'd like to know, and doubt I ever will. The other questions might help us get to #1, but as I've asked it on this board on multiple threads no one is able to answer it - only speculation.

Throughout 2018 and in the first games of 2019, Garbers did not seem like he was very good (which is why Mac got a lot of time and they did all that QB shuffling also year).. Now it's pretty apparent that Garbers is quite good. and then it took Modster several games this year before he looked good against WSU. Even now, I don't think Garbers is playing up to his potential. So.. one gripe I have is that it seems that they haven't done a very good job in getting their QBs up to speed. But I admit that I know little about football.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

He was given one more year.

Depends.

It's a team.

Yes.

Every player doing his job. Every coach doing his job. My approval/disapproval is immaterial. We fans observe and assess what we see - it's fantasy and we like to do it. To expect more weight given to our assessment is fantasy in and of itself.

---

Its the assess what we see part that I'm trying to get at. Just not seeing much assessment. It's possible we're not capable of it. But that's the point of the OP, to give people a chance to speak to the assessment.

The problem with looking at the bottom line alone is there are so many variables. Of which I'll agree the OC is preeminent. It's not impossible to replace the OC, but it's fraught enough that you do so at some serious risk, so be certain it's your best recourse.

---

I think any possible risk is minimal. The offense under his leadership has been awful. He is wedded to a system that has not reaped any results. Clearly the offense has areas that need improvement regardless of BB's staying or leaving. The OL and lack of any dynamic playmakers has been problematic. The OL should improve next season as the young players (Cindric and Mettauer) will be more experience and stronger. Craig hopefully returns and all the others will be a year more experienced and stronger.

I am hopeful that Polk, Clark and Crawford with a year under their belts will emerge next season. RB is interesting. All are ok, but none are dynamic. My biggest concern frankly is in regards to recruiting. Recruits look at results. The results are not very good.

Rushinbear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

He was given one more year.

Depends.

It's a team.

Yes.

Every player doing his job. Every coach doing his job. My approval/disapproval is immaterial. We fans observe and assess what we see - it's fantasy and we like to do it. To expect more weight given to our assessment is fantasy in and of itself.

---

It sounds like you're giving yourself the license to be completely irrational and make assertions based on nothing whatsoever, "fantasy" in your words, and thus proclaim anybody who demands some accountability for such foolishness is out of line.

Sounds like some women I used to date.

6956bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

He was given one more year.

Depends.

It's a team.

Yes.

Every player doing his job. Every coach doing his job. My approval/disapproval is immaterial. We fans observe and assess what we see - it's fantasy and we like to do it. To expect more weight given to our assessment is fantasy in and of itself.

---

Its the assess what we see part that I'm trying to get at. Just not seeing much assessment. It's possible we're not capable of it. But that's the point of the OP, to give people a chance to speak to the assessment.

The problem with looking at the bottom line alone is there are so many variables. Of which I'll agree the OC is preeminent. It's not impossible to replace the OC, but it's fraught enough that you do so at some serious risk, so be certain it's your best recourse.

---

I think any possible risk is minimal. The offense under his leadership has been awful. He is wedded to a system that has not reaped any results. Clearly the offense has areas that need improvement regardless of BB's staying or leaving. The OL and lack of any dynamic playmakers has been problematic. The OL should improve next season as the young players (Cindric and Mettauer) will be more experience and stronger. Craig hopefully returns and all the others will be a year more experienced and stronger.

I am hopeful that Polk, Clark and Crawford with a year under their belts will emerge next season. RB is interesting. All are ok, but none are dynamic. My biggest concern frankly is in regards to recruiting. Recruits look at results. The results are not very good.

---

Do you have any comments regarding the questions in the OP?

HoopDreams said:

---

there are several types of offenses

in the modern college era, I think there are only two that Cal should consider ... the spread and the rpo

both somewhat equalize the advantages of the powerhouse programs that can load up on 4 and 5 star OL, big, fast, talented WRs and RBs, and it puts another offensive threat in the line up ... the QB

i just don't think Cal can return to a pure pro offense that we had with Rodgers

Baldwin is primarily a rpo coach

if we think rpo is best for cal, then I think we should keep him. it will also be better for our pocketbook, as we can't afford the binge and purge approach. it's obvious that cal sports are short on funds across the board

if we think spread is best, I'm good with that as I think it's the superior college offense. in that case, we might be better with a change.

if we want to go to a pro set, or something else, I think we should abandon all hope, although a very mobile pro style QB may be ok

---

I think deciding what type of offense cal should run is a much more interesting question than any of the questions posed by the OP. (Very quickly, when I evaluate an OC I look at 1. Recruiting (poor) 2. Development (fair) 3. Play calling (poor - way too predictable 4. Play design (poor - lack of imagination, poor route concepts).

Whether Baldwin should go is not interesting to me since just based on results, the decision should be clear.

What type of offense cal should run in the long run is much more interesting.

I think spread is out of the question just because it's completely incompatible with wilcox's offense and how he wants to play

RPO relies on recruiting skilled playmakers and a mobile QB. I don't believe that this is necessarily the way cal wants to go in the long run just because of the inherent disadvantages cal has in recruiting those types of players. However, in the short run, we are probably stuck running RPO since that is best suited for garbers.

But in my opinion, I think running a traditional pro style is best for cal in the long run. First, it's the most compatible with how Wilcox wants to play. Second, I think it's easier to recruit OLine and TE's than skilled playmakers. I think OLineman and TE generally have better grades (nothing to do with race - cal has had plenty of very bright non white TE's and olineman).

Also I think we can develop olineman whereas skilled players rely more on god given ability. Wisconsin has done just fine recruiting 3-4 star olineman and developing them.

Lastly, I'm a strong believer in going against trends. When cfb is trending towards more spread/rpo offendes, you gain an advantage by going the opposite direction. For instance, most cfb defenses are going more nickel and dime and going lighter in their back 7. Well, why not run a more heavy offense to take advantage. Unfortunately harbaugh figured this out. No reason we can't replicate.

ducky23 said:

---

I think deciding what type of offense cal should run is a much more interesting question than any of the questions posed by the OP.

---

I think whatever I found in my belly button is much more interesting than the questions posted by the OP.

ducky23 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

there are several types of offenses

in the modern college era, I think there are only two that Cal should consider ... the spread and the rpo

both somewhat equalize the advantages of the powerhouse programs that can load up on 4 and 5 star OL, big, fast, talented WRs and RBs, and it puts another offensive threat in the line up ... the QB

i just don't think Cal can return to a pure pro offense that we had with Rodgers

Baldwin is primarily a rpo coach

if we think rpo is best for cal, then I think we should keep him. it will also be better for our pocketbook, as we can't afford the binge and purge approach. it's obvious that cal sports are short on funds across the board

if we think spread is best, I'm good with that as I think it's the superior college offense. in that case, we might be better with a change.

if we want to go to a pro set, or something else, I think we should abandon all hope, although a very mobile pro style QB may be ok

---

I think deciding what type of offense cal should run is a much more interesting question than any of the questions posed by the OP. (Very quickly, when I evaluate an OC I look at 1. Recruiting (poor) 2. Development (fair) 3. Play calling (poor - way too predictable 4. Play design (poor - lack of imagination, poor route concepts).

Whether Baldwin should go is not interesting to me since just based on results, the decision should be clear.

What type of offense cal should run in the long run is much more interesting.

I think spread is out of the question just because it's completely incompatible with wilcox's offense and how he wants to play

RPO relies on recruiting skilled playmakers and a mobile QB. I don't believe that this is necessarily the way cal wants to go in the long run just because of the inherent disadvantages cal has in recruiting those types of players. However, in the short run, we are probably stuck running RPO since that is best suited for garbers.

But in my opinion, I think running a traditional pro style is best for cal in the long run. First, it's the most compatible with how Wilcox wants to play. Second, I think it's easier to recruit OLine and TE's than skilled playmakers. I think OLineman and TE generally have better grades (nothing to do with race - cal has had plenty of very bright non white TE's and olineman).

Also I think we can develop olineman whereas skilled players rely more on god given ability. Wisconsin has done just fine recruiting 3-4 star olineman and developing them.

Lastly, I'm a strong believer in going against trends. When cfb is trending towards more spread/rpo offendes, you gain an advantage by going the opposite direction. For instance, most cfb defenses are going more nickel and dime and going lighter in their back 7. Well, why not run a more heavy offense to take advantage. Unfortunately harbaugh figured this out. No reason we can't replicate.

---

I agree, it is the more interesting question.

RPO is highly dependent on getting at great athlete at QB and having speed at WR. Good defenses (like ours) know the offense and have learned how to bait QBs into making a decision to their benefit.

Go back and look at Stanford's first drive against us. It was completely driven by scheme and playcalling. 3 TE sets? Players wide open? Our scoring drives consisted of a lot of individual heroics. Fortunately, Stanford's playcalling became far more predictable after that first (scripted?) drive.

TEs give your offense a lot of versatility and allow for core unpredictability of power running and playaction passing. We have been playing our TEs more, but in keeping with our "spread" concept, our TEs are in "big/inside receiver" weight range and not the huge advantage to our running game that bigger TEs would offer.

Conceptually, I like "Power Spread" as the direction. I like the Rams offense in that most plays start out looking very similar, either a run (with a equal number between the tackles and outside) or a pass off playaction. Similarly Shanahan has the Niners emphasizing power running and counters with passing to the tight end off playaction.

One opportunity to be exploited: Hawaii is solidly Run n Shoot. Thus big tight ends need to play defense or leave the islands to play. USC is currently Air Raid and chip is at UCLA, so again, SoCal tight ends should be in play. Work with Fox for guys that want to play basketball too.

Finally, TE is a major focus of Stanford recruiting and they devote a lot of resources in identifying players who have good academics. These days "offers" are all public information. We should track their offers and in most cases offer too. Invite them to make an unofficial visit when Stanford flies them out for an official visit.

Some of the big athletic 18 year olds you bring in might continue to grow into OLs, DLs or just huge TEs.

calumnus said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

there are several types of offenses

in the modern college era, I think there are only two that Cal should consider ... the spread and the rpo

both somewhat equalize the advantages of the powerhouse programs that can load up on 4 and 5 star OL, big, fast, talented WRs and RBs, and it puts another offensive threat in the line up ... the QB

i just don't think Cal can return to a pure pro offense that we had with Rodgers

Baldwin is primarily a rpo coach

if we think rpo is best for cal, then I think we should keep him. it will also be better for our pocketbook, as we can't afford the binge and purge approach. it's obvious that cal sports are short on funds across the board

if we think spread is best, I'm good with that as I think it's the superior college offense. in that case, we might be better with a change.

if we want to go to a pro set, or something else, I think we should abandon all hope, although a very mobile pro style QB may be ok

---

I think deciding what type of offense cal should run is a much more interesting question than any of the questions posed by the OP. (Very quickly, when I evaluate an OC I look at 1. Recruiting (poor) 2. Development (fair) 3. Play calling (poor - way too predictable 4. Play design (poor - lack of imagination, poor route concepts).

Whether Baldwin should go is not interesting to me since just based on results, the decision should be clear.

What type of offense cal should run in the long run is much more interesting.

I think spread is out of the question just because it's completely incompatible with wilcox's offense and how he wants to play

RPO relies on recruiting skilled playmakers and a mobile QB. I don't believe that this is necessarily the way cal wants to go in the long run just because of the inherent disadvantages cal has in recruiting those types of players. However, in the short run, we are probably stuck running RPO since that is best suited for garbers.

But in my opinion, I think running a traditional pro style is best for cal in the long run. First, it's the most compatible with how Wilcox wants to play. Second, I think it's easier to recruit OLine and TE's than skilled playmakers. I think OLineman and TE generally have better grades (nothing to do with race - cal has had plenty of very bright non white TE's and olineman).

Also I think we can develop olineman whereas skilled players rely more on god given ability. Wisconsin has done just fine recruiting 3-4 star olineman and developing them.

Lastly, I'm a strong believer in going against trends. When cfb is trending towards more spread/rpo offendes, you gain an advantage by going the opposite direction. For instance, most cfb defenses are going more nickel and dime and going lighter in their back 7. Well, why not run a more heavy offense to take advantage. Unfortunately harbaugh figured this out. No reason we can't replicate.

---

I agree, it is the more interesting question.

RPO is highly dependent on getting at great athlete at QB and having speed at WR. Good defenses (like ours) know the offense and have learned how to bait QBs into making a decision to their benefit.

Go back and look at Stanford's first drive against us. It was completely driven by scheme and playcalling. 3 TE sets? Players wide open? Our scoring drives consisted of a lot of individual heroics. Fortunately, Stanford's playcalling became far more predictable after that first (scripted?) drive.

TEs give your offense a lot of versatility and allow for core unpredictability of power running and playaction passing. We have been playing our TEs more, but in keeping with our "spread" concept, our TEs are in "big/inside receiver" weight range and not the huge advantage to our running game that bigger TEs would offer.

Conceptually, I like "Power Spread" as the direction. I like the Rams offense in that most plays start out looking very similar, either a run (with a equal number between the tackles and outside) or a pass off playaction. Similarly Shanahan has the Niners emphasizing power running and counters with passing to the tight end off playaction.

One opportunity to be exploited: Hawaii is solidly Run n Shoot. Thus big tight ends need to play defense or leave the islands to play. USC is currently Air Raid and chip is at UCLA, so again, SoCal tight ends should be in play. Work with Fox for guys that want to play basketball too.

Finally, TE is a major focus of Stanford recruiting and they devote a lot of resources in identifying players who have good academics. These days "offers" are all public information. We should track their offers and in most cases offer too. Invite them to make an unofficial visit when Stanford flies them out for an official visit.

Some of the big athletic 18 year olds you bring in might continue to grow into OLs, DLs or just huge TEs.

---

I couldn't agree more with this more. The TE has become the ultimate weapon because of their versatility. Plus there's no reason we can't recruit a bunch of big dudes who can run and convert them to TE (just like furd). I'd also love to see the return of the FB. Tedford used manderino brilliantly both as a blocker, pass catcher and short yardage guy.

The Niners aren't a bad model to follow. They have an elite TE and an elite FB and poor talent at WR and maybe average to above avg talent at QB. And yet their offense is at least above average. Both kittle and Juszczyk weren't highly recruited. No reason we can't unearth guys like that.

But the days of us recruiting guys like djax or best are probably over.

I also love your point about unpredictability. Some of our best plays this year have come under center when we play action. If you recruit a bunch of TE's, you are both a run and pass threat. Right now, Baldwin is way too predictable and often running out of disadvantageous formations.

ducky23 said:

---

...But the days of us recruiting guys like djax or best are probably over.

---

Why?

southseasbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

...But the days of us recruiting guys like djax or best are probably over.

---

Why?

---

Yeah, I would never say never. Just 4 years ago we landed a 5 star WR out of Georgia who was a Freshman All American. You need an offense that can utilize guys like that when you land them, but is not dependent on landing guys like that. 49ers are largely winning with scheme and guys that were perceived as second tier.

I'd say a few things have changed since then

- cal is not as good (at least this is within our control)

- local guys (for whatever reason) aren't staying home as often

- cal now has stricter academic requirements

- arms race more prevalent and influential

- pac 12 teams all have better coaching staffs now (remember back in tedford days furd, UCLA, UW were down and Oregon wasn't quite Oregon yet)

ducky23 said:

---

I'd say a few things have changed since then

- cal is not as good (at least this is within our control)

- local guys (for whatever reason) aren't staying home as often

- cal now has stricter academic requirements

- arms race more prevalent and influential

- pac 12 teams all have better coaching staffs now (remember back in tedford days furd, UCLA, UW were down and Oregon wasn't quite Oregon yet)

---

If I recall correctly, D. Jax had a near perfect SAT. i think he is exactly the type of athlete we seek. I don't recall any academic issues regarding Best.

Yes, local guys aren't staying home as often, but there is always ebb and flow.

When we recruited Jackson and Best, USC had good coaching. We beat them with a number of recruits.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

No, but many think that it was smarter to wait until his contract expired, which is this year not last year.

Tedford built an offense from scratch in about 1 year but that was because his personnel stuck around. Many offensive players left when Baldwin came on, a symptom that is parallel to the way several defensive players left after Dykes came on. I think it can take around 3 or 4 years for a head coach to build a program to the point where 4 and 5 star players are attracted and you are competing for conference championships but there should be clear signs of progress along the way. And individual units should be competent at the start of the 2nd or 3rd year.

I think the offensive line and QB are by far the most important and I would put the OL at the top. personally, I think Greatwood is a bit over-rated. I give him a C. But it is also possible that Greatwood and Baldwin are not a good match. There are too many breakdowns and key penalties on the OL at key point in the game and key locations on the field.

I think that Baldwin's offenses are more successful when he is throwing downfield as a part of the offense. He recently, finally, started doing that more.

The factors that contributed to Baldwin throwing downfield more recently are unclear to me. It may be because Garbers was healthy. But Garbers was also healthy a good portion of last year, although last year we didn't have the receivers to do that.

In conclusion, I understand that Baldwin's success has been affected by limitations in personnel. But some of those limitations were created by, in my opinion, the Baldwin presence as OC. For example, when we had a QB shortage last season after Bowers went down with injury, we did not have Gilliam to step in because he had left. When Garbers came on late, we didn't have receivers because several had left. The combination of the folks leaving and a sluggish process of recruiting replacements for them has cost us.

I realize that the reasons for these problems are assumptions on my part, but after seeing the exact same thing happen on defense under Dykes with the same results, only to have those problems corrected almost immediately once Dykes left gives me the same sense of deductive reasoning that Sherlock Holmes used.

As fans, we are always disadvantaged with a lack of information. So we are often forced to use the limited chances we have to observe the team and combine that with our past experience and our analytic abilities to be able to educated assumptions based on deductive reasoning.

I'll say that, when I had the chance to observe Cal in person this season, I saw Cal running run plays right at the very part of our OL that was injured and they did it repeatedly. The result was only 17 points scored against a very poor Oregon St. defense. That resulted in a loss that could have kept us out of a bowl. I also saw them use the hand off too many times when Modster could have faked the hand off and run for miles. I know they were concerned about Modster getting injured but it was more dangerous to Modster that we ran a vanilla offense and Modster ended up getting injured anyway. It's possible that Wilcox is forcing Baldwin to be conservative or vanilla for fear of injuries etc. If that is the case, Wilcox will not be successful here either.

I hope I have answered your questions. I have been watching Cal football for nearly 50 years. I have been deeply involved in analyzing problems at Cal for a very long time. It took me a while, but recently I have concluded that coaching and administrative commitment are the 2 main problems that chronically plague the Cal football program. I do not feel I have the ability and insight to make specific comments on the administrative problems, but it is much cleared to me what goes on with the coaching.

I would like to see more passes/slants in short yardage situations. I'd like to see the run set up play action. I'd like to see more misdirection and more sophisticated blocking schemes with our OL. But all of that requires a well coordinated offense, something Cal has had before but does not now. Cal's offense is limited. They run a limited number of plays. Remember when the Cal defense would rarely blitz or do stunts or anything else creative under Dykes? Remember the result? Do you see how the Cal defense plays now? That is because they are well coordinated. When you listen to DeRuyter talk in interviews, he has specific ideas about how to approach each team. Baldwin says the same general things each time he's interviewed. It's the same damn interview no matter what. It's because the guy has no idea how to coach his team.

heartofthebear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

For those who want Baldwin gone

Do we know why Baldwin was retained last year?

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

In what order would you prioritize the different offensive groups?

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

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

---

No, but many think that it was smarter to wait until his contract expired, which is this year not last year.

Tedford built an offense from scratch in about 1 year but that was because his personnel stuck around. Many offensive players left when Baldwin came on, a symptom that is parallel to the way several defensive players left after Dykes came on. I think it can take around 3 or 4 years for a head coach to build a program to the point where 4 and 5 star players are attracted and you are competing for conference championships but there should be clear signs of progress along the way. And individual units should be competent at the start of the 2nd or 3rd year.

I think the offensive line and QB are by far the most important and I would put the OL at the top. personally, I think Greatwood is a bit over-rated. I give him a C. But it is also possible that Greatwood and Baldwin are not a good match. There are too many breakdowns and key penalties on the OL at key point in the game and key locations on the field.

I think that Baldwin's offenses are more successful when he is throwing downfield as a part of the offense. He recently, finally, started doing that more.

The factors that contributed to Baldwin throwing downfield more recently are unclear to me. It may be because Garbers was healthy. But Garbers was also healthy a good portion of last year, although last year we didn't have the receivers to do that.

In conclusion, I understand that Baldwin's success has been affected by limitations in personnel. But some of those limitations were created by, in my opinion, the Baldwin presence as OC. For example, when we had a QB shortage last season after Bowers went down with injury, we did not have Gilliam to step in because he had left. When Garbers came on late, we didn't have receivers because several had left. The combination of the folks leaving and a sluggish process of recruiting replacements for them has cost us.

I realize that the reasons for these problems are assumptions on my part, but after seeing the exact same thing happen on defense under Dykes with the same results, only to have those problems corrected almost immediately once Dykes left gives me the same sense of deductive reasoning that Sherlock Holmes used.

As fans, we are always disadvantaged with a lack of information. So we are often forced to use the limited chances we have to observe the team and combine that with our past experience and our analytic abilities to be able to educated assumptions based on deductive reasoning.

I'll say that, when I had the chance to observe Cal in person this season, I saw Cal running run plays right at the very part of our OL that was injured and they did it repeatedly. The result was only 17 points scored against a very poor Oregon St. defense. That resulted in a loss that could have kept us out of a bowl. I also saw them use the hand off too many times when Modster could have faked the hand off and run for miles. I know they were concerned about Modster getting injured but it was more dangerous to Modster that we ran a vanilla offense and Modster ended up getting injured anyway. It's possible that Wilcox is forcing Baldwin to be conservative or vanilla for fear of injuries etc. If that is the case, Wilcox will not be successful here either.

I hope I have answered your questions. I have been watching Cal football for nearly 50 years. I have been deeply involved in analyzing problems at Cal for a very long time. It took me a while, but recently I have concluded that coaching and administrative commitment are the 2 main problems that chronically plague the Cal football program. I do not feel I have the ability and insight to make specific comments on the administrative problems, but it is much cleared to me what goes on with the coaching.

I would like to see more passes/slants in short yardage situations. I'd like to see the run set up play action. I'd like to see more misdirection and more sophisticated blocking schemes with our OL. But all of that requires a well coordinated offense, something Cal has had before but does not now. Cal's offense is limited. They run a limited number of plays. Remember when the Cal defense would rarely blitz or do stunts or anything else creative under Dykes? Remember the result? Do you see how the Cal defense plays now? That is because they are well coordinated. When you listen to DeRuyter talk in interviews, he has specific ideas about how to approach each team. Baldwin says the same general things each time he's interviewed. It's the same damn interview no matter what. It's because the guy has no idea how to coach his team.

---

Thanks for those great answers

There are better options out west than there were in 2003. Cal had arguably the second most talented roster in the Pac for the better part of 5 years or so. No reason to expect similar success on the field without similar success recruiting that kind of competitive personnel.