CalBarn said:

---

Someone who "needs a few years to show what he can do"????

---

Agree totally. Whoever becomes the OC needs to both up our recruiting prowess and improve our offensive performance, immediately. I really don't care what system they implement as long as it works.

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

Brennan Marion. Unique run-based offense and a young guy with Bay Area connections.

---

What's your opinion of his offense?

---

I have only watched it briefly and listened to a little clip of him explaining it. I think it fills some criteria that would work at Cal. It looks like a strong identity (as opposed to a multiple offense, which I am always wary of at this level), and a unique identity - shotgun with two backs offset to one side. This creates some very interesting run game/option flexibility, with both the triple and lead options available to the strong side, QB lead with two lead blockers in that direction, plus easy to go backside with a lead blocker. The gun element with 2-3 receivers also means that you shouldn't be pigeon-holed in recruiting as an under center option team might be.
This would also fit Garbers' skill set in the short term, and get back to taking advantage of the Bay Area, which has consistently produced top level running backs.
I don't like if he is 100% firm on being up tempo all of the time. I can't know that. I don't think this meshes with what Wilcox does. However, the potential of the run game element has me excited.
Long story short, Baldwin's offense tried to run, but I did not see how it had a systematic approach to doing so. An offense like this does. It is at the forefront of innovation and would be unique to defend, which are both enticing for a program like Cal's.
I'll probably look more later and see if I can pick up anything else. For what it's worth, I was also impressed with how he teaches in the short clip I watched.

---

Forefront of innovation? Nope.

Unique to defend? Probably, but not in the way you think it is.

Hard pass.

---

Conclusory statements? Yes.
Explanations? No.
Mind reader? Apparently.

Do tell, what is an innovative offense?

---

Running what essentially is a combination of conventional 21 I Run Game (Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Duo, and Power) out of an unconventional two back set is definitely not innovative. Perhaps the marriage of that to triple option elements could be? But then again that's nothing hugely novel. At that point you might just want to go all in and take the service academy route -- never win a conf championship but be a total pain in the ass to the rest of the conference (like AFA in the MWC).

That dudes stuff is what you would call creative repackaging, at best.

Innovative to me, by comparison would be say Tedford's adaptation of spread concepts, particularly the screen game to pro-set personnel groupings and formations back in the early 2000's.

Or, on a different spectrum, Art Briles use of extreme splits and 10 personnel groupings with mauler sized OL to run the ball on light boxes and then attack with play action downfield utilizing run and shoot principles with vertical choice reads.

Likewise, the Air Raid Six Concept (Verticals) -- as adapted by Dykes and Holgerson at TTU then popularized throughout all of HS football, the entire Big 12, and then seen live this year destroy our defense (by USC). That was another huge innovative leap.

Im Air Raid partial -- but if you view the 1.0 version of that scheme with Mumme and Leach as the evolution of the west coast, adapted to the spread, then the 2.0 version is really what has happened over the last six-seven years as Dykes, Holgerson, Kingsbury, Harrell etc. have adapted the offense to RPOS, Play Action, Zone and Gap Runs, Screen Game, Screen-Pass Option elements etc.

Innovative would thereby also be the Run and Shoot 2.0 as run recently by Hawaii -- adapting QB run and RPO elements married to the core Run and Shoot Passing Game -- major weakness therein in my eyes is the inability of that scheme to contend with drop 8 using only 4 out in a pattern.

Innovation would also be the prevalence of Four Strong route concepts and rule breakers as used by Kingsbury and then copied verbatim by Joe Brady and employed at LSU.

I could go on in further detail on a specific concept by concept basis. But in my eyes, that W&M stuff is not what I would classify as innovative or uniquely difficult to defend. That's just repackaged 21 -- throw numbers in the box, be assignment sound, and have contingency assignments to counter. If your personnel matchup you can win -- I am not threatened by any pass game that could arise from that set.

Even Wilcox would just alternate between living in Man Free or potentially pattern match 3 mixing in run blitzes. That **** would get shut down quick.

Contending with rule breaking, space eating pass concepts that adjust on the fly to what you are doing -- while also having to contain the QB as a run threat and throwing sufficient numbers at the box to stop the rb, while also having to throw numbers and pass rush diversity at the QB to disrupt timing, while also having to cover down to stop the screen game, and also having to mix up presnap depth at DB to eliminate the quick game.

That's a much bigger challenge for any DC.

---

Don't get me wrong, I love the air raid and it's history, I love the run and shoot, it's all good stuff even if I don't think it's the best here. But you are basically saying that what is essentially generic spread at this point is innovative while a two offset back shotgun option offense is not. Repackaging is innovation. Briles and his extreme splits and stacks - cool. How is that more innovative? 4 verts? Yes, it's cool how good the Air Raid guys got at it, but my freshman football team was running that in 1998. A spread offensive coach saying that he also wants to run? Wow...that's 75% of the teams in the country.
Put another way: you criticized this guy's offense as "creative repackaging," and proceeded to describe a bunch of creative repackaging, which you labeled as "innovative."
It's all semantics. Ignoring any "innovative" argument, let me put it this way. I haven't seen any other major college doing what this guy is doing in the way he is doing it. It appears to be based on sound principles. Schematically, it also appears to be a good fit for Cal's talent base.

---

That's certainly a fair argument. I suppose it comes down in some ways to personal preference -- that's usually the dividing factor in offensive taste regardless. Bi-product of the cult-like level of attachment that offensive coaches develop with the schemes to which they align with.

All offenses are basically creatively repackaging of things that have been done before. But the problem I have with W&M stuff is that there is no real run-pass conflict created, nor is that conflict necessarily made in true space. My criticism would divulge from my belief from a defensive standpoint that I could easily stop it.

I get that the general consensus of this fan base is to now attempt to play small ball -- largely in part to the bad aftertaste left w/ Sonny's all offense approach.

I do believe that we need to be able to have an effective passing game that sets up the run rather than the other way around -- this is a largely a contrarian view here, but that's the way I would do it. Id rather build my constraint package around the pass game than attempt to built a constraint passing game around the run.

Repackaging, as you noted is innovation, but the specific application herein exemplified by W&M truly is just 21 I run game mixed with option elements run from the gun -- there is little to no spatial difference achieved relative to the other schematic instances cited above.

The idea of reading and attacking coverage on the fly is infinitely more innovative than that, by itself.

---

A few points of contention here.
1. No run/pass conflict? On what grounds? How did the 49ers (the team who uses a fullback most in the nfl) look against the saints? Do the Ravens (condensed formations, often a fullback and multiple tight ends on the field) pose a decent run/pass conflict, or have I misunderstood Lamar setting the qb rushing record along with 30+ passing TDs? This makes no sense to me.
2. What do you mean by "true space"? With the spread craze, people have forgotten that there are other ways to attack the entire field. The goal of many spread offenses is to spread the defense to attack the interior. Totally valid strategy. It is also a valid strategy to force the defense to condense so as to attack the flanks and vertically.
3. Likewise, what do you mean by no spatial difference?
4. General generic spread thoughts: I have nothing against it in principle. The problem is, it - and up tempo - used to have the advantage of novelty. They no longer do. So then you look at the pros and cons, because everyone runs it. As you said, what does it do well? It isolates players in space. It looks very good on paper. But isolating players in space and working with space are also the cons. Space is great when your guys are better than their guys. You are gonna have a bunch of one on one matchups on the line and on the perimeter. Please, run this if you are Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and LSU. Accentuate your talent advantages. But happens if your guys are worse than their guys? You get beat on the line and can't help, and/or your receivers can't get open, and your qb is stranded. It all looks great on paper. Woo, RPO, we are gonna isolate that linebacker in space and if he plays the run we pass into that space and if he is tentative we hand off! Yeah, not so good when the 3 tech whips your guard, their CB is pasted on your WR, and your QB is holding the ball waiting to get blasted by the DE. As opposed to a two back running offense, when you can use creativity and misdirection to double team and get more players to the point of attack.
5. Now, let's match that to Cal. Cal has had some great talent over the years. But let's be honest. Have they ever, and do we expect them to, recruit with USC or the other top dogs in the conference (Oregon atm) for an extended period of time with depth across the entire roster? Not likely. So is it really the smartest strategy to choose offensive and defensive systems that isolate and magnify talent discrepancies, and lengthen, as opposed to condense, the length of the game?
6. This is why I don't like the up-tempo aspect of this "go go" offense - I started looking into this guy this morning haha - having a broader conversation at this point.
7. So for a team and program like Cal, which has historically been unable to recruit "better" talent across the board for the entire team, I want a true system, and I want it to be unique. Option offense have a methodical if/then approach to offense that allows production greater than the sum of its parts. Condensed formations give great flexibility in terms of run game misdirection and creativity (please, watch Juszczyk and Kittle start to block in one direction and end up leading the play in the opposite direction) and the ability to help.
8. When you talk about reading and reacting coverage on the fly, you are really talking about going pure run and shoot. Which I have no problem with. It's a great offense. It is NOT generic spread. But you have to go 100% all in, and I don't think it matches JW's defensive philosophy. That being said, the notion that defenses ever stopped or "figured out" the run and shoot is as laughable as the old "can't run the option in the nfl" argument (Kaep ripped things up with it before they tried to make him something he was not, been a key selective element to Wilson's game throughout, Jackson obviously dominating with it now).
9. As you can tell, what I like is a real system with a real identity. I honestly don't think BB was a bad coach for what he does, but I cautioned against the "multiple" offense idea from the start. If you try to do everything, you won't be able to do anything.
10. It sounds like you wouldn't necessarily disagree with that last point.
11. So why do I like the idea of a gun/option offense, other than previously stated? These offenses are true, methodical system offenses. No one else in the conference is running one now. They are versatile (much more proficient passing games than under center option offenses) and can attract "pro" interested talent. They are good for smart/versatile talent, and can function well without dominating talent, both of which jive with Cal's profile. They fit well with JW in terms of complimentary football.
12. This isn't to say I'm option offense or bust. In the end, please give me a true system and identity with a coach who has a mastery/ownership/confidence in that system.

Side note, this all may sound contentious, but I appreciate the conversation.

---

So, who's running the gun/option that might be a candidate?

CalBarn said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

mdbear said:

---

Notre Dame just fired its OC even though the reason seems to be a bit of a mystery (their offense was doing well). I can't find any salary data because Notre Dame is so secretive. If the reason for his termination is Notre Dame's totally unrealistic expectations, he might be a possibility.

---

If we got someone from that level, he probably would not be here long. Rather not have to go through this very often, even though we know it's a vagabond profession.

That points to a younger guy from a lower tier conference who needs a few years to show what he can do.

Just guessing that it'll be someone who very few of us have heard of, altho there's some deep diving going on among some BI activists.

---

Someone who "needs a few years to show what he can do"????
PLEASE, our offense has been totally VANILLA for three years now.....how long do
you expect us to wait to see a real offense--2024??? Augh!!!

---

How about "needs a few years to show that he can do it with his system and players?" Not that it'll take him two years to get up and running. We don't want someone who is one or two-and-gone.

Rushinbear said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

Brennan Marion. Unique run-based offense and a young guy with Bay Area connections.

---

What's your opinion of his offense?

---

I have only watched it briefly and listened to a little clip of him explaining it. I think it fills some criteria that would work at Cal. It looks like a strong identity (as opposed to a multiple offense, which I am always wary of at this level), and a unique identity - shotgun with two backs offset to one side. This creates some very interesting run game/option flexibility, with both the triple and lead options available to the strong side, QB lead with two lead blockers in that direction, plus easy to go backside with a lead blocker. The gun element with 2-3 receivers also means that you shouldn't be pigeon-holed in recruiting as an under center option team might be.
This would also fit Garbers' skill set in the short term, and get back to taking advantage of the Bay Area, which has consistently produced top level running backs.
I don't like if he is 100% firm on being up tempo all of the time. I can't know that. I don't think this meshes with what Wilcox does. However, the potential of the run game element has me excited.
Long story short, Baldwin's offense tried to run, but I did not see how it had a systematic approach to doing so. An offense like this does. It is at the forefront of innovation and would be unique to defend, which are both enticing for a program like Cal's.
I'll probably look more later and see if I can pick up anything else. For what it's worth, I was also impressed with how he teaches in the short clip I watched.

---

Forefront of innovation? Nope.

Unique to defend? Probably, but not in the way you think it is.

Hard pass.

---

Conclusory statements? Yes.
Explanations? No.
Mind reader? Apparently.

Do tell, what is an innovative offense?

---

Running what essentially is a combination of conventional 21 I Run Game (Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Duo, and Power) out of an unconventional two back set is definitely not innovative. Perhaps the marriage of that to triple option elements could be? But then again that's nothing hugely novel. At that point you might just want to go all in and take the service academy route -- never win a conf championship but be a total pain in the ass to the rest of the conference (like AFA in the MWC).

That dudes stuff is what you would call creative repackaging, at best.

Innovative to me, by comparison would be say Tedford's adaptation of spread concepts, particularly the screen game to pro-set personnel groupings and formations back in the early 2000's.

Or, on a different spectrum, Art Briles use of extreme splits and 10 personnel groupings with mauler sized OL to run the ball on light boxes and then attack with play action downfield utilizing run and shoot principles with vertical choice reads.

Likewise, the Air Raid Six Concept (Verticals) -- as adapted by Dykes and Holgerson at TTU then popularized throughout all of HS football, the entire Big 12, and then seen live this year destroy our defense (by USC). That was another huge innovative leap.

Im Air Raid partial -- but if you view the 1.0 version of that scheme with Mumme and Leach as the evolution of the west coast, adapted to the spread, then the 2.0 version is really what has happened over the last six-seven years as Dykes, Holgerson, Kingsbury, Harrell etc. have adapted the offense to RPOS, Play Action, Zone and Gap Runs, Screen Game, Screen-Pass Option elements etc.

Innovative would thereby also be the Run and Shoot 2.0 as run recently by Hawaii -- adapting QB run and RPO elements married to the core Run and Shoot Passing Game -- major weakness therein in my eyes is the inability of that scheme to contend with drop 8 using only 4 out in a pattern.

Innovation would also be the prevalence of Four Strong route concepts and rule breakers as used by Kingsbury and then copied verbatim by Joe Brady and employed at LSU.

I could go on in further detail on a specific concept by concept basis. But in my eyes, that W&M stuff is not what I would classify as innovative or uniquely difficult to defend. That's just repackaged 21 -- throw numbers in the box, be assignment sound, and have contingency assignments to counter. If your personnel matchup you can win -- I am not threatened by any pass game that could arise from that set.

Even Wilcox would just alternate between living in Man Free or potentially pattern match 3 mixing in run blitzes. That **** would get shut down quick.

Contending with rule breaking, space eating pass concepts that adjust on the fly to what you are doing -- while also having to contain the QB as a run threat and throwing sufficient numbers at the box to stop the rb, while also having to throw numbers and pass rush diversity at the QB to disrupt timing, while also having to cover down to stop the screen game, and also having to mix up presnap depth at DB to eliminate the quick game.

That's a much bigger challenge for any DC.

---

Don't get me wrong, I love the air raid and it's history, I love the run and shoot, it's all good stuff even if I don't think it's the best here. But you are basically saying that what is essentially generic spread at this point is innovative while a two offset back shotgun option offense is not. Repackaging is innovation. Briles and his extreme splits and stacks - cool. How is that more innovative? 4 verts? Yes, it's cool how good the Air Raid guys got at it, but my freshman football team was running that in 1998. A spread offensive coach saying that he also wants to run? Wow...that's 75% of the teams in the country.
Put another way: you criticized this guy's offense as "creative repackaging," and proceeded to describe a bunch of creative repackaging, which you labeled as "innovative."
It's all semantics. Ignoring any "innovative" argument, let me put it this way. I haven't seen any other major college doing what this guy is doing in the way he is doing it. It appears to be based on sound principles. Schematically, it also appears to be a good fit for Cal's talent base.

---

That's certainly a fair argument. I suppose it comes down in some ways to personal preference -- that's usually the dividing factor in offensive taste regardless. Bi-product of the cult-like level of attachment that offensive coaches develop with the schemes to which they align with.

All offenses are basically creatively repackaging of things that have been done before. But the problem I have with W&M stuff is that there is no real run-pass conflict created, nor is that conflict necessarily made in true space. My criticism would divulge from my belief from a defensive standpoint that I could easily stop it.

I get that the general consensus of this fan base is to now attempt to play small ball -- largely in part to the bad aftertaste left w/ Sonny's all offense approach.

I do believe that we need to be able to have an effective passing game that sets up the run rather than the other way around -- this is a largely a contrarian view here, but that's the way I would do it. Id rather build my constraint package around the pass game than attempt to built a constraint passing game around the run.

Repackaging, as you noted is innovation, but the specific application herein exemplified by W&M truly is just 21 I run game mixed with option elements run from the gun -- there is little to no spatial difference achieved relative to the other schematic instances cited above.

The idea of reading and attacking coverage on the fly is infinitely more innovative than that, by itself.

---

A few points of contention here.
1. No run/pass conflict? On what grounds? How did the 49ers (the team who uses a fullback most in the nfl) look against the saints? Do the Ravens (condensed formations, often a fullback and multiple tight ends on the field) pose a decent run/pass conflict, or have I misunderstood Lamar setting the qb rushing record along with 30+ passing TDs? This makes no sense to me.
2. What do you mean by "true space"? With the spread craze, people have forgotten that there are other ways to attack the entire field. The goal of many spread offenses is to spread the defense to attack the interior. Totally valid strategy. It is also a valid strategy to force the defense to condense so as to attack the flanks and vertically.
3. Likewise, what do you mean by no spatial difference?
4. General generic spread thoughts: I have nothing against it in principle. The problem is, it - and up tempo - used to have the advantage of novelty. They no longer do. So then you look at the pros and cons, because everyone runs it. As you said, what does it do well? It isolates players in space. It looks very good on paper. But isolating players in space and working with space are also the cons. Space is great when your guys are better than their guys. You are gonna have a bunch of one on one matchups on the line and on the perimeter. Please, run this if you are Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and LSU. Accentuate your talent advantages. But happens if your guys are worse than their guys? You get beat on the line and can't help, and/or your receivers can't get open, and your qb is stranded. It all looks great on paper. Woo, RPO, we are gonna isolate that linebacker in space and if he plays the run we pass into that space and if he is tentative we hand off! Yeah, not so good when the 3 tech whips your guard, their CB is pasted on your WR, and your QB is holding the ball waiting to get blasted by the DE. As opposed to a two back running offense, when you can use creativity and misdirection to double team and get more players to the point of attack.
5. Now, let's match that to Cal. Cal has had some great talent over the years. But let's be honest. Have they ever, and do we expect them to, recruit with USC or the other top dogs in the conference (Oregon atm) for an extended period of time with depth across the entire roster? Not likely. So is it really the smartest strategy to choose offensive and defensive systems that isolate and magnify talent discrepancies, and lengthen, as opposed to condense, the length of the game?
6. This is why I don't like the up-tempo aspect of this "go go" offense - I started looking into this guy this morning haha - having a broader conversation at this point.
7. So for a team and program like Cal, which has historically been unable to recruit "better" talent across the board for the entire team, I want a true system, and I want it to be unique. Option offense have a methodical if/then approach to offense that allows production greater than the sum of its parts. Condensed formations give great flexibility in terms of run game misdirection and creativity (please, watch Juszczyk and Kittle start to block in one direction and end up leading the play in the opposite direction) and the ability to help.
8. When you talk about reading and reacting coverage on the fly, you are really talking about going pure run and shoot. Which I have no problem with. It's a great offense. It is NOT generic spread. But you have to go 100% all in, and I don't think it matches JW's defensive philosophy. That being said, the notion that defenses ever stopped or "figured out" the run and shoot is as laughable as the old "can't run the option in the nfl" argument (Kaep ripped things up with it before they tried to make him something he was not, been a key selective element to Wilson's game throughout, Jackson obviously dominating with it now).
9. As you can tell, what I like is a real system with a real identity. I honestly don't think BB was a bad coach for what he does, but I cautioned against the "multiple" offense idea from the start. If you try to do everything, you won't be able to do anything.
10. It sounds like you wouldn't necessarily disagree with that last point.
11. So why do I like the idea of a gun/option offense, other than previously stated? These offenses are true, methodical system offenses. No one else in the conference is running one now. They are versatile (much more proficient passing games than under center option offenses) and can attract "pro" interested talent. They are good for smart/versatile talent, and can function well without dominating talent, both of which jive with Cal's profile. They fit well with JW in terms of complimentary football.
12. This isn't to say I'm option offense or bust. In the end, please give me a true system and identity with a coach who has a mastery/ownership/confidence in that system.

Side note, this all may sound contentious, but I appreciate the conversation.

---

So, who's running the gun/option that might be a candidate?

---

The name that started this conversation is Brennan Marion, currently the William and Mary OC, a young guy/up and comer who has coached in High School in the Bay Area. I have also been a big fan of what Willie Fritz has done over the years, though I do not know if he has any connections out here and who from his staff(s) might be interested/available (he is not gonna leave as HC at Tulane).

Bear19 said:

---

C6Bear said:

---

Living in the Sacramento area and watching Sac St all year, the transformation from 2 win to a 10 win team was amazing with basically the same team from 2018. With even half the imagination of Sac St's offense this year, Cal would have been a 9 or 10 win team. I'm not advocating Taylor for OC, but Cal would be lucky to have him and should find someone like him to hire.

---

Taylor isn't leaving the HC position at Sac State to become the OC at any school. He's been there & done that. If he wanted to be an OC, that's what he would have done after Utah. Also don't forget Taylor brought several close friends he coached with at Folsom HS to Sac State. He's not going to uproot them after only one year.

---

As far as location, going to Sacramento from Folsom isn't exactly uprooting. Only about a twenty minute drive, if that.
The coaches from Folsom have probably benefitted a lot from their experience at Sac St. Every coach knows that any coaching job at the college level can change at the drop of a hat.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

SoCalie said:

---

71Bear said:

---

I fully expect Wilcox to select a guy with whom he is familiar or a guy who receives a strong recommendation from someone whose opinion is highly valued by Wilcox.

---

What about Kiesau?

---

Why do you people have such low standards?

---

How would Kiesau reflect having low standards?

GBear4Life said:

---

No established P5 coordinator is gonna take the Cal job. Nobody gonna make a lateral or backwards move.

Cal was lucky to get Spavital after A&M and that's only because Spavital knew he could rack up points under Dykes' uptempto system. Nobody like Spavital is taking a job with Wilcox.

It's either going to be a P5 position coach looking for the promotion in title or a G5 coordinator/FCS HC looking for a promotion

---

The possible exception to what you wrote is a P5 OC who is overshadowed or micromanaged by an offensive minded HC. Working for Wilcox would give him free reign and full credit.

There is enough returning talent on offense to be average. A bit above or below that depends on 1) injuries during the season, and 2) how good the new OC is at earning his $.

Wilcox already has made his choice, most certainly.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There is enough returning talent on offense to be average.

---

Based on what? Certainly not the eye test or the recruiting rankings

Bear19 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

I'm hard pressed to think of an alum other than Lupoi that actually was able to do that and in light of his success at other universities, he was just a good recruiter period.

---

Yea, he recriuted real jems. They all attended class, graduated with a Cal degree, treated Freshmen & new players with respect & supported them, stuck with Cal after Tedford left, and finished Lupoi's last year at Cal with a 9-3 record!

Oh, wait, that last year was 3-9. They were the lowest graduating bunch in Cal's history (graduated only 47 percent of football players who entered school between 2002 and 2005 -- the lowest rate in the Pac-12), engaged in fights with new team members in the locker room, and abandoned Cal the minute it became clear they'd actually have to go to class, while Lupoi himself was recruiting for Washington while employed at Cal & on Cal recruiting trips. Yep, Lupoi did a 1st Class job of recruiting at Cal alright.

---

In his defense, he was auditioning for Alabama.

Oski87 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

I'm hard pressed to think of an alum other than Lupoi that actually was able to do that and in light of his success at other universities, he was just a good recruiter period.

---

Yea, he recriuted real jems. They all attended class, graduated with a Cal degree, treated Freshmen & new players with respect & supported them, stuck with Cal after Tedford left, and finished Lupoi's last year at Cal with a 9-3 record!

Oh, wait, that last year was 3-9. They were the lowest graduating bunch in Cal's history (graduated only 47 percent of football players who entered school between 2002 and 2005 -- the lowest rate in the Pac-12), engaged in fights with new team members in the locker room, and abandoned Cal the minute it became clear they'd actually have to go to class, while Lupoi himself was recruiting for Washington while employed at Cal & on Cal recruiting trips. Yep, Lupoi did a 1st Class job of recruiting at Cal alright.

---

In his defense, he was auditioning for Alabama.

---

Legit programs like Bama and UW saw Tosh's value more accurately than Cal. They paid and got the value, while Cal is left in the dust whining like little girls.

GBear4Life said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There is enough returning talent on offense to be average.

---

Based on what? Certainly not the eye test or the recruiting rankings

---

Injuries. The return of all healthy players, plus the addition of another tight end, and the supposed speedy wideout. If the line is average, the skill players can approach that level.

The defense will be average, or slightly better.

I wait until the games are played to despair, and I never hope for much.

I am never disappointed, and occasionally surprised.

Oski87 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

I'm hard pressed to think of an alum other than Lupoi that actually was able to do that and in light of his success at other universities, he was just a good recruiter period.

---

Yea, he recriuted real jems. They all attended class, graduated with a Cal degree, treated Freshmen & new players with respect & supported them, stuck with Cal after Tedford left, and finished Lupoi's last year at Cal with a 9-3 record!

Oh, wait, that last year was 3-9. They were the lowest graduating bunch in Cal's history (graduated only 47 percent of football players who entered school between 2002 and 2005 -- the lowest rate in the Pac-12), engaged in fights with new team members in the locker room, and abandoned Cal the minute it became clear they'd actually have to go to class, while Lupoi himself was recruiting for Washington while employed at Cal & on Cal recruiting trips. Yep, Lupoi did a 1st Class job of recruiting at Cal alright.

---

In his defense, he was auditioning for Alabama.

---

Speaking of our old friend, per The Athletic, he is being considered for a job on Kiffin's staff at Mississippi.

Everything I'm reading makes it seem like the hiring process is just getting started. Does that mean Wilcox didn't see this coming or that he was planning on retaining him??

I really hope there's more to his plan on offense than this all seems to apply

fat_slice said:

---

Everything I'm reading makes it seem like the hiring process is just getting started. Does that mean Wilcox didn't see this coming or that he was planning on retaining him??

I really hope there's more to his plan on offense than this all seems to apply

---

I can't imagine that he's just getting started. Maybe all the obvious candidates are uptempo guys. Can an uptempo guy slow it down and still have everything else work?

Gotta have a qb guy, tho. Can't be a wr or rb guy.

fat_slice said:

---

Everything I'm reading makes it seem like the hiring process is just getting started. Does that mean Wilcox didn't see this coming or that he was planning on retaining him??

I really hope there's more to his plan on offense than this all seems to apply

---

Well, even if in his mind he had a short list of guys he wanted to interview, he couldn't have interviewed before the end of the season

fat_slice said:

---

Everything I'm reading makes it seem like the hiring process is just getting started. Does that mean Wilcox didn't see this coming or that he was planning on retaining him??

I really hope there's more to his plan on offense than this all seems to apply

---

Being nobody's fool, surely Wilcox has been putting a lot of thought into this for well over a year. In fact, I'd say any coach worth his salt is ALWAYS on the lookout for new position coaches and coordinators. Part of the uncertainty is that the guy needs to be willing to leave his current position and those situations change year to year, even month to month.

No doubt Wilcox has people in mind and has also worked out what kind of salary he can afford to offer.

fat_slice said:

---

Everything I'm reading makes it seem like the hiring process is just getting started. Does that mean Wilcox didn't see this coming or that he was planning on retaining him??

I really hope there's more to his plan on offense than this all seems to apply

---

I, too, would be very disappointed if Wilcox hadn't prepared for this moment. Yet, Wilcox's comments below, in a David Bush article published here, suggest that Wilcox was prepared: "Part of my job is being prepared for moments like this..." I actually liked Wilcox's comments quite a bit.

"Wilcox has a lot on his plate these days, bowl game preparation, recruiting (early signing period starts Wednesday) and hiring a new offensive coordinator as Beau Baldwin departs to become head coach at Cal Poly.

Wilcox said there is no shortage of candidates. "There are a lot of good football coaches out there, a lot of interest in the job," he said. "That's how it goes. I am probably going to have to change my phone number, but that's a good thing. People are interested."

Wilcox declined to be specific about what traits he wants in his new OC.

"There are certain criteria we are looking for," he said, "We will find somebody who fits our program who fits our players well, treats them well and fits in with our staff.

"I won't talk about the hiring process publicly. I appreciate the interest. I know it matters to a lot of folks. Part of my job is being prepared for moments like this. They are dynamic, things change. We will get somebody very good who will fit in well, be a great coach and a great person.""

GBear4Life said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There is enough returning talent on offense to be average.

---

Based on what? Certainly not the eye test or the recruiting rankings

---

Did you say the sane thing about Oregon State before Jonathan Smith took over?

Helfrich is much more likely to be on the market after todays loss to Green Bay. Thanks A-Rod!

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

I'm hard pressed to think of an alum other than Lupoi that actually was able to do that and in light of his success at other universities, he was just a good recruiter period.

---

Yea, he recriuted real jems. They all attended class, graduated with a Cal degree, treated Freshmen & new players with respect & supported them, stuck with Cal after Tedford left, and finished Lupoi's last year at Cal with a 9-3 record!

Oh, wait, that last year was 3-9. They were the lowest graduating bunch in Cal's history (graduated only 47 percent of football players who entered school between 2002 and 2005 -- the lowest rate in the Pac-12), engaged in fights with new team members in the locker room, and abandoned Cal the minute it became clear they'd actually have to go to class, while Lupoi himself was recruiting for Washington while employed at Cal & on Cal recruiting trips. Yep, Lupoi did a 1st Class job of recruiting at Cal alright.

---

Nevertheless, I'd like to thank Mr. Lupoi for weighing in.

---

That's not a very fair statement. It's fairly indisputable that Lupoi has been an excellent recruiter at the various places he's worked, no matter how bitter people want to be about it.

+1

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

As far as location, going to Sacramento from Folsom isn't exactly uprooting. Only about a twenty minute drive, if that.
The coaches from Folsom have probably benefitted a lot from their experience at Sac St. Every coach knows that any coaching job at the college level can change at the drop of a hat.

---

Taylor was the co-HC with Kris Richardson at Folsom & won the State title with him. The drive from Folsom to Sacramento obviously isn't a big deal. The drive from Folsom to Berkeley is a different matter altogether. Richardson had been at Folsom for a long time and had built that team into one of the top programs in the State. I'm pretty sure that Taylor gave Richardson the assurances Richardson needed to justify leaving Folsom. My point is that Taylor isn't going to leave Sac State after only one year to become an OC at Cal (which he had already done at Utah) or anywhere for that matter.

If Taylor leaves Sac State it will be because he is either forced out, or the job he goes to is so attractive that Richardson will agree it is obvious that Taylor should take it.

GBear4Life said:

---

[quoLegit programs like Bama and UW saw Tosh's value more accurately than Cal. They paid and got the value, while Cal is left in the dust whining like little girls.

---

Saban, who you can't trust to tell you the time of day at high noon, and the alcoholic Sark, who came to games drunk. That's quite a pair upon which to validate your value. Add in Kiffin, and you have all you need to know about Lupoi's character.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There is enough returning talent on offense to be average.

---

Based on what? Certainly not the eye test or the recruiting rankings

---

Injuries. The return of all healthy players, plus the addition of another tight end, and the supposed speedy wideout. If the line is average, the skill players can approach that level.

The defense will be average, or slightly better.

I wait until the games are played to despair, and I never hope for much.

I am never disappointed, and occasionally surprised.

---

I would add that teams tend to improve as their lines mature.
Cal has a significant percentage of both lines returning next season.
They lose Toailoa on the DL and Ben Hawk-Schrider OLB/DE and Bazakas on the OL.
Curhan may leave do to graduation but that has not been determined.
Anyway, that's it.
Cal will have returners on the DL that were at least part time starters.
They will have at least 4 of the 5 players slated to start on the OL at the beginning of the season.

Overall on offense Cal has at least 7 difference makers returning on offense:
Curhan
Craig
Saffell
Remigio
Garbers
Brown
Crawford
And they only lose one impact player J. Duncan and 3 players overall on offense.

Cal will lose only 8 players overall on defense but it will include 5 impact players
Toalioa
Hawkins
Davis
Weaver
Beck

But they do return several key players due to being granted 6th year eligibility and, in general they will return 9 significant players with
Maldonado
Bequette
Z. Johnson
B. Johnson
Drayden
Deng
Goode
Hicks
Bynum

While Cal has serviceable players to start at safety and nickle in Drayden, Humphries, Smith Woodson and Scott and at ILB with Deng, Smith and Antzoulatos, we will have very little depth in the interior back 7.

And there is always the question of how many R-Jr. players will not return because they have graduated and elect another school or the NFL over Cal for their post-grad football. Those players include guys like
Paul OLB/DE
Bynum CB
Goode OLB
Williams OG
Curhan OT
Udeogu OLB/DE

Most of those last players are key components to Cal's future success