Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
Sigh...Pigskin Pete said:We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).LunchTime said:He has a one track mind. His opinion is irrelevant because it's comically predictable. Why bother? If you didn't quote him, I'd never know he said anything.Cave Bear said:The win over Washington doesn't qualify as an upset in your mind?GBear4Life said:Dude, Cal hasn't been over .500 in conference. Their one upset was Wash last year and Wash St in 2017?LunchTime said:The major reason I like Wilcox is that he can, and has, beat teams top to bottom. Consistently. Year in and out. Dykes miracled a couple wins (like the goal line stand against Utah), but largely only beat the worst teams, sometimes in absurdly close games (like Colorado). Rarely did Dykes special offense deliver against top teams, including that Utah game.FremontBear said:Wilcox has already beaten all the California schools, and everyone else in the Pac-North. That's something Dykes and his so-called high-power offense couldn't do. Indications are, with an outstanding defense, and just an average Pac-12 offense, Cal could be a force in the Pac-North.oskirules said:
The problem with our bear raid offense was it struggled against good Pac-12 defenses.Don't remember putting up 40+ against Furd, USC, or Utah, maybe Oregon once?
The thing I don't like about Wilcox is he will lose to any team, top to bottom, year in year out. Dykes would nearly always win those games.
Depends on what you are after. For me the "any given Saturday" matters more than knowing the outcome for 90% of games but having a high scoring offense sometimes.
But, FWIW, the facts are facts. Dykes beat good teams very rarely and lost to bad teams very rarely. Wilcox beats good teams and loses to bad teams.
The best conference team Wilcox has beat was Washington State in 2017 (9-4/6-3). The second best team we beat that year was a 6-6 Ole Miss team.
In 2018, the best team we beat was Washington (10-4/7-2). The second best team we beat that year was 7-6 BYU, USC, much as people want to believe otherwise, was not a good team. They had a losing record overall and a losing conference record.
In 2019, the best team we beat was Washington (7-5/4-5). The second best team we beat was whichever team you think was better between Washington State (6-6, but only 3-6 in conference) or UCLA (Only 4-8, but 4-5 in conference).
We have two wins against genuinely good teams in the entirety of Wilcox's tenure. You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
The best teams we have beat in each of the last 7 years:Quote:
In 2018, the best team we beat was Washington (10-4/7-2). The second best team we beat that year was 7-6 BYU, USC, much as people want to believe otherwise, was not a good team. They had a losing record overall and a losing conference record.
You know, I actually missed this part, because I just went straight to data I have been collecting on these topics, but what the hell are you on about with this comment?Pigskin Pete said:
You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
LT,LunchTime said:You know, I actually missed this part, because I just went straight to data I have been collecting on these topics, but what the hell are you on about with this comment?Pigskin Pete said:
You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
>if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions
>but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves
>We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).
Are you so far up your own ahole that you dont see the irony in your post?
YOU are too damn lazy to look things up. I am not. I have looked it up. I have, several times, posted the data to back up the claim. You are even too lazy to look up Washington's strength THIS YEAR (probably the easiest data point to track down of the whole megillah). Yet you insist on posting your "preconceived notions" for all to see. Your intellectual bankruptcy rivals Enron. Just a quick look under the hood and your entire being is found wanting.
I want to be in a galaxy far, far away when you post things like the stuff in bold.Quote:
Pigskin said:
repo
We have two wins against genuinely good teams in the entirety of Wilcox's tenure. You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
Cave Bear said:Obviously. Some Cal fans somehow still defend Sonny.Bobodeluxe said:
We beat one team with a winning record. Sonny's defensive recruits are graduating.
There is no limit to Cal fan delusion.
If Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel then it doesn't matter what offense you run, does it? If it does just come down to personnel, why were the Tedford 02-05 offenses so much more effective against better defenses than the Dykes offenses? The relevancy and success of the Air Raid can be argued. I argued it using empirical data that you haven't addressed at all. The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses. The exception is if you have super-elite talent like Oklahoma, in which case it shouldn't matter what offense you run.killa22 said:
The relevancy and success of the Air Raid cannot be argued.
Relative success vs. Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel.
To beat those top teams you can either a) play turtle ball, and keep the margins close and win based on execution and luck or b) go full guns blazing and try to win in a shootout based also on execution and luck.
The Air Raid is a philosophy more than a scheme -- its a rep driven, concept driven, and tempo driven approach to offensive football. The concepts utilized are streamlined and borrowed from some of the best passing games out there -- quick game is entirely west coast, the vertical game is run and shoot, etc.
The route concepts, splits and spacing of skill positions, and QB progressions utilize space and grass -- from an raw game theory and spatial geometry standpoint the Air Raid is solid.
As stated earlier, variance in success comes from personnel -- particulary:
Run Success -- Ability of OL to work vs 5-6 man boxes -- Run Threat @ QB simplifies this significantly.
Pass Pro Pressure Threshold -- can those 5 OL protect 3 seconds to allow for both the dropback and quick game routes to bloom.
Skill Position Success -- do the 5 skills matchup against the defense from a speed / size / physicality standpoint. Can they block on edge for screen / run, can they win contested iso matchups?
QB Execution -- Can the QB process information and distribute the ball to space without forcing it, or being subject to pressure that would negatively impact performance...
Well damn, the above just looks the same as any other offense doesn't it?
Running the ball out of 10 personnel is the same physical problem as running it out of 21 -- just the box count is different and the spacing is better.
Why do you think even the NFL has moved to exclusively 11 personnel spread formations? A league with less margin for matchup delta...
Look, you can play ball control out of any personnel grouping or any scheme, it all comes down to packaging and delivery.
Every college coach who takes over a program uses the personnel recruited by the previous staff. If the next staff is successful, you will always be able to say they won with the players recruited by the previous staff. That by itself means nothing. If you think Weaver, JK, Hawkins, Davis, Paul, etc would have had this success if Dykes had been retained you're out of your mind. If you think Dykes left this program well stocked with talent -- on either side of the ball -- you're out of your mind.going4roses said:SD' s staff recruited the defensive personnel that this team is now based on. Wilcox has won with the players recruited by SDCave Bear said:Obviously. Some Cal fans somehow still defend Sonny.Bobodeluxe said:
We beat one team with a winning record. Sonny's defensive recruits are graduating.
There is no limit to Cal fan delusion.
No SD no weaver no JK no Hawkins no Davis no Paul
I clearly stated sagarin ranking at the end of the season (or current ranking for 2019).bearup said:LT,LunchTime said:You know, I actually missed this part, because I just went straight to data I have been collecting on these topics, but what the hell are you on about with this comment?Pigskin Pete said:
You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
>if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions
>but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves
>We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).
Are you so far up your own ahole that you dont see the irony in your post?
YOU are too damn lazy to look things up. I am not. I have looked it up. I have, several times, posted the data to back up the claim. You are even too lazy to look up Washington's strength THIS YEAR (probably the easiest data point to track down of the whole megillah). Yet you insist on posting your "preconceived notions" for all to see. Your intellectual bankruptcy rivals Enron. Just a quick look under the hood and your entire being is found wanting.
My response to PP is on the first page and is below (please read). He is using a different metric for "good"=>
the record of opponents at the end of the season. I haven't checked, but I believe your data is based on the ranking of opponents at the time CAL played them???
FWIW: I and others have tried to discourage PP from taking such shots. I fear that's a lost cause at this point...
but I hold tight to some hope.
bearup
In reply to Pigskin Pete 2:26a, 12/13/19I want to be in a galaxy far, far away when you post things like the stuff in bold.Quote:
Pigskin said:
repo
We have two wins against genuinely good teams in the entirety of Wilcox's tenure. You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
BUT, I did look up (it isn't all that difficult...with some experience) what you say about the lack of wins over good teams in the Wilcox era...so far:
and
although, I suppose, the definition of "good team" can be debated a bit, IMO.....you are correct.
Because no matter how many fancy passing offenses people come up with, no offense will ever beat a team with a dominant offensive line that can physically dominate the other line and get 5 yards a pop. It's the most reliable thing in football and it always will be and it works on any part of the field, while Dykes offenses struggle more in the red zone because they don't have the option of power running.Cave Bear said:
If Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel then it doesn't matter what offense you run, does it? If it does just come down to personnel, why were the Tedford 02-05 offenses so much more effective against better defenses than the Dykes offenses?
I'll accept that as your concession, graceless as it is.going4roses said:
Blah blah blah same ole story
Cave Bear said:I'll accept that as your concession, graceless as it is.going4roses said:
Blah blah blah same ole story
Some day, I look forward to when they put the top 8 Sagarin rated teams in something, as opposed to measuring them by some bull**** measure like wins.going4roses said:
Blah blah blah same ole story
I truly believe that.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
Keep in mind though, Patton wanted to blow the Russians off the map right after they dealt with the Nazi's. Detente can only last so long.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
I hate you for making me look and see if he'd somehow gotten mixed up in all of this.bearup said:I truly believe that.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
This thread deteriorates even more the further down we go.......
Here's what I want to know:
What does Paris Austin have to do with all of this?
A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition
LOL......Pigskin Pete said:I hate you for making me look and see if he'd somehow gotten mixed up in all of this.bearup said:I truly believe that.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
This thread deteriorates even more the further down we go.......
Here's what I want to know:
What does Paris Austin have to do with all of this?
JMHO, but Sonny-ball was mostly about who had the ball last. Alright. that's a slight exaggeration, butGBear4Life said:
Who is arguing Dykes beat good teams (or more good teams than JW)?
Wilcox has made the Bears more competitive in games that they lose. Pigskin pointed out the wins vs good teams for JW. It's not good (which again is not necessarily to blame JW)
Replying to GB4L. I wouldnt have seen the post except you quoted him.bearup said:JMHO, but Sonny-ball was mostly about who had the ball last. Alright. that's a slight exaggeration, butGBear4Life said:
Who is arguing Dykes beat good teams (or more good teams than JW)?
Wilcox has made the Bears more competitive in games that they lose. Pigskin pointed out the wins vs good teams for JW. It's not good (which again is not necessarily to blame JW)
Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition
See, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
I just said it. things get harder as your competition gets better. It's not profound.Cave Bear said:How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
I charted the performance against qualify of competition for both Dykes' offense and Tedford's. It's not the same. Relatively, Dykes performs better against weaker competition and Tedford performs better against better competition.GBear4Life said:I just said it. things get harder as your competition gets better. It's not profound.Cave Bear said:How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
Methodology**: The schedule is separated into BAD and GOOD opponents, with BAD including all non-P5 OOC teams. All G5 teams are put in the BAD category along with the half of the P5 opponents below the median of PPG allowed in each sample. Opponents above the median are placed in the GOOD category. Then the DIFF is calculated as the avg points the offense scored above the defense's avg PPG allowed.GBear4Life said:I just said it. things get harder as your competition gets better. It's not profound.Cave Bear said:How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
Bobodeluxe said:
We beat one team with a winning record. Sonny's defensive recruits are graduating.
There is no limit to Cal fan delusion.