okaydo said:

---

---

Lead the Pac-12 in total offense, top WR class in the country including 5 star Freshman All-American WR....hard to believe that was only 3 years ago.

Looking forward to having a good offense AND and good defense (like we had for a shining moment under Tedford).

okaydo said:

---

---

Peeler is a good coach. He'll do well

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?

---

They had better players.

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

Wilcox arguably doesn't beat Stanford USC teams four years ago. If Cal's defense was merely mediocre Cal is better during the Dykes years.

calumnus said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Lead the Pac-12 in total offense, top WR class in the country including 5 star Freshman All-American WR....hard to believe that was only 3 years ago.

Looking forward to having a good offense AND and good defense (like we had for a shining moment under Tedford).

---

Led the Pac-12 in yards, but...

As usual, rang up the teams that were either bad defensively or vastly out-talented and then sputtered against teams with good defenses that weren't vastly out-talented.

Against the teams that were outside the Top-50 nationally in PPG allowed (Texas, ASU, OSU, UO, UCLA; avg def PPG rank = 96th) or were vastly out-talented (UH, SDSU) we averaged 44.9 PPG, which was 12.3 PPG higher than the average PPG allowed by those teams. Our record vs them was 4-3.

Against the teams that were Top-50 nationally in PPG allowed and weren't vastly out-talented (Utah, USC, UW, WSU, Stanford; avg def PPG rank = 30th) we averaged 26.2 PPG, which was just 3.7 PPG higher than their average PPG allowed. Our record vs them was 1-4.

Air Raid is a great offense for a G5 school. It's a terrible offense for us. It will lead us straight back into competitive mediocrity followed by another painful transition when we again realize we have bought snake oil. I cannot understand how Cal fans of all people don't get this.

---

Hung 50 on Texas, 52 on Oregon and 36 on UCLA that year all in victories. You are overselling your point, no one wants Sonny and no attention to defense back. I prefer a TE oriented, power run/playaction offense (offenses like the Niners and Rams) but Air Raid is a legit offense, just not the way I think we should go.

---

Texas, Oregon and UCLA all had losing records that season. Total record = 13-23. Avg Def PPG rank = 92nd. Texas and Oregon fired their HCs.

I oversold nothing. I sold it precisely at true value, which I took pains to clearly display. YOU oversold your point, either ignorantly or hoping no one would check under the hood, you hypocrite.


Edit: UCLA didn't fire Mora, though I'm sure they wish they had

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

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?

---

They had better players.

---

That doesn't explain the differential issue. The hallmark of Sonnyball was scoring way above the PPG allowed vs bad defenses, but not against good defenses.

---

I'm listening:

Do you have some examples of offenses that consistently perform equally well against better defenses as they do against poorer defenses (yes, relative to those defenses' ppg against all teams)?

Lots and lots of teams use something fairly similar to the Air Raid now (with their own variations... even "Air Raid teams" have individual variations). Hard to find an active coach nowadays who considers it a gimmick offense.

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

*** is with the image embedding here?

Wilcox hasn't beaten Oregon. Just sayin'.

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

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?

---

They had better players.

---

That doesn't explain the differential issue. The hallmark of Sonnyball was scoring way above the PPG allowed vs bad defenses, but not against good defenses.

---

What team doesn't have that issue tho, to an extent. This is why Oklahoma is going to get boatraced in a couple weeks and they're the 4th best team in the nation, supposedly.

CAL reminds me of a program like Virginia. They aren't in a power conference, they are in a recruiting hot bed, they're excellent schools, and tradition be damned, if you can't win 8 games a year there, you're probably not a good coach.

ducktilldeath said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

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?

---

They had better players.

---

That doesn't explain the differential issue. The hallmark of Sonnyball was scoring way above the PPG allowed vs bad defenses, but not against good defenses.

---

What team doesn't have that issue tho, to an extent. This is why Oklahoma is going to get boatraced in a couple weeks and they're the 4th best team in the nation, supposedly.

CAL reminds me of a program like Virginia. They aren't in a power conference, they are in a recruiting hot bed, they're excellent schools, and tradition be damned, if you can't win 8 games a year there, you're probably not a good coach.

---

Yes, obviously any offense is going to be less effective against a good defense, than against a poorer one. Cave Bear is arguing that this differential is even more skewed in the case of Air Raid teams, than teams with other offenses. I'd be interested in seeing statistics on that, because my feeling has long been that the differential has been used to argue against Air Raid by people who just don't like Air Raid.

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

Wilcox arguably doesn't beat Stanford USC teams four years ago. If Cal's defense was merely mediocre Cal is better during the Dykes years.

---

Dykes arguably doesn't beat Oregon or Texas today. If our offense today was merely mediocre, Wilcox might be coming off back-to-back 10 win seasons.

---

So would Dykes

(I like JW over SD)

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

Big C said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

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?

---

They had better players.

---

That doesn't explain the differential issue. The hallmark of Sonnyball was scoring way above the PPG allowed vs bad defenses, but not against good defenses.

---

I'm listening:

Do you have some examples of offenses that consistently perform equally well against better defenses as they do against poorer defenses (yes, relative to those defenses' ppg against all teams)?

Lots and lots of teams use something fairly similar to the Air Raid now (with their own variations... even "Air Raid teams" have individual variations). Hard to find an active coach nowadays who considers it a gimmick offense.

---

Yes, I have an example. It's the very first team I thought to compare, my ideal offense: 2002-2005 Tedford.

Methodology**: I followed the same methodology as I used above, separating the schedule into BAD and GOOD opponents, with BAD including all non-P5 OOC teams. There was one issue which was that the Pac-10 was more offensive oriented relative to the rest of the country in the early-2000s than in the mid-2010s so there wasn't a single national ranking that could be used for both. Instead I took the median national scoring defense rank of the P5 teams in each offenses' sample and put the top half into the GOOD and the bottom half into the BAD. I also excluded 2013 since it's obviously an entire outlier season.

TEDFORD (02-05) [P5 median opponent def rank = 65th]
Average PPG: 34.4 [national avg = 26.7]
DIFF vs BAD: +8.1
DIFF vs GOOD: +6.5
Margin BAD - GOOD = 1.6

DYKES (14-16) [P5 median opponent def rank = 50th]
Average PPG: 37.8 [national avg = 29.4]
DIFF vs BAD: +13.9
DIFF vs GOOD: +2.6
Margin BAD - GOOD = 11.3

**There are simplifications in this analysis that are practically unavoidable without a much more intense methodology, but as the simplifications are uniformly applied to both of the offenses, I think the impact must be very small.

The results could not be more clear. Both coaches' offenses were very high scoring in raw PPG relative to the national average, but Tedford's offenses performed almost equally well by differential vs GOOD teams and BAD whereas Dykes' offenses were enormously more effective vs BAD defenses than GOOD. This is just a single comparison, but the results are so striking that I challenge anyone to deny the conclusion they suggest.

LunchTime said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Dude, Cal hasn't been over .500 in conference. Their one upset was Wash last year and Wash St in 2017?

GBear4Life said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Dude, Cal hasn't been over .500 in conference. Their one upset was Wash last year and Wash St in 2017?

---

The win over Washington doesn't qualify as an upset in your mind?

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Dude, Cal hasn't been over .500 in conference. Their one upset was Wash last year and Wash St in 2017?

---

The win over Washington doesn't qualify as an upset in your mind?

---

Last year yes. This year no. Wash had identical record as Cal. They were trash.

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

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?

---

They had better players.

---

That doesn't explain the differential issue. The hallmark of Sonnyball was scoring way above the PPG allowed vs bad defenses, but not against good defenses.

---

Here are the 3 best defenses we faced that year:

Stanford went 10-3 and had the #18 defense, giving up 20.4 ppg. We scored 31.

San Diego State went 11-3 and had the #17 defense giving up 20.2 ppg. We scored 40

Washington went 12-2 and had the #8 defense giving up 17.7 ppg. We scored 27.

Now comparing to the above:
UCLA gave up 27.5 ppg we scored 36
Texas gave up 31.ppg we scored 50
Oregon gave up 41.4 ppg we scored 52

We consistently scored roughly 10 points more than our opponents' average ppg surrendered, versus the good defenses and the bad defenses. With the blowout of Texas (then ranked #11) and narrow loss to San Diego State (finished ranked #25) closer to +20.

The reason we lost to the good teams despite scoring more than they typically give up was they scored more than their average against us, and good teams score more on average than they give up (duh).

We lost to good teams because they are good and our defense sucked, not because our offense couldn't score well above their average. There was no "differential."

The offense was flawed, and not nearly as good as the year before with Franklin/Goff , but I would kill for that offense the last three years: Webb at QB, Muhammad, Watson, Laird, Enwere, McMorris at RB, Hansen, Robertson, Stovall, Wharton, Veasy, Rivera, Noa, Duncan, Hudson et al at WR.

I do note that the three best defenses we played were three teams that finished ranked. It is critical to have a good defense and with Wilcox we now have that. We just need a good offense too.

I prefer power running/play action emphasizing TEs both for strategic and esthetic reasons, but Air Raid is a legitimate offense, just not my preference.

When WSU had an average to above average defense in 2018 they went 11-2 and finished ranked #10.

Oklahoma runs Air Raid and they are currently 12-1 with a shot at a National Championship because they average 8.2 yards per play (#1) and 554.4 yards per game including 251 rushing yards per game. There are many other P5 and NFL examples now. It is not considered "snake oil" by coaches even if it is not what we want.

LunchTime said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

FremontBear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Dude, Cal hasn't been over .500 in conference. Their one upset was Wash last year and Wash St in 2017?

---

The win over Washington doesn't qualify as an upset in your mind?

---

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.

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.

---

We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).

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.

Pigskin said:

---

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.

---

I want to be in a galaxy far, far away when you post things like the stuff in bold.

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.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Lead the Pac-12 in total offense, top WR class in the country including 5 star Freshman All-American WR....hard to believe that was only 3 years ago.

Looking forward to having a good offense AND and good defense (like we had for a shining moment under Tedford).

---

Led the Pac-12 in yards, but...

As usual, rang up the teams that were either bad defensively or vastly out-talented and then sputtered against teams with good defenses that weren't vastly out-talented.

Against the teams that were outside the Top-50 nationally in PPG allowed (Texas, ASU, OSU, UO, UCLA; avg def PPG rank = 96th) or were vastly out-talented (UH, SDSU) we averaged 44.9 PPG, which was 12.3 PPG higher than the average PPG allowed by those teams. Our record vs them was 4-3.

Against the teams that were Top-50 nationally in PPG allowed and weren't vastly out-talented (Utah, USC, UW, WSU, Stanford; avg def PPG rank = 30th) we averaged 26.2 PPG, which was just 3.7 PPG higher than their average PPG allowed. Our record vs them was 1-4.

Air Raid is a great offense for a G5 school. It's a terrible offense for us. It will lead us straight back into competitive mediocrity followed by another painful transition when we again realize we have bought snake oil. I cannot understand how Cal fans of all people don't get this.

---

Agree with your last sentence Cave Bear.
There were so many complaints that we had fallen from the great heights of SD's offensive performance. Without acknowledging that despite all the impressive yardage and stats, it was really not that great an Offense when we faced a quality opponent.

---

As I demonstrated above, the offense scored about 10 points more than opponents gave up on average. Good opponents and bad opponents we did +10. The defense gave up about 10 points more than average. We lost to good teams and beat bad teams. That is what mediocre teams do. The offense was good, the defense was terrible. Under Wilcox it has been the opposite with similar results. We have not had a winning record in conference in a decade? However now we have a chance to be good on BOTH sides of the ball with the right OC hire.

calumnus said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

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?

---

They had better players.

---

That doesn't explain the differential issue. The hallmark of Sonnyball was scoring way above the PPG allowed vs bad defenses, but not against good defenses.

---

Here are the 3 best defenses we faced that year:

Stanford went 10-3 and had the #18 defense, giving up 20.4 ppg. We scored 31.

San Diego State went 11-3 and had the #17 defense giving up 20.2 ppg. We scored 40

Washington went 12-2 and had the #8 defense giving up 17.7 ppg. We scored 27

---

Those weren't the three best defenses we faced. Stanford and UW were but not SDSU. Yes they were the 3rd highest in PPG allowed but we were the only P5 school they played that season. Their Sagarin SOS was 103rd. Their defense was nowhere near as good as their PPG allowed would suggest, a reality which will naturally apply to G5 schools since their schedules are so weak.

Yes, we scored 10 pts above the average allowed by each of Stanford and UW...but why do you stop there? We played 3 other good P5 defenses that season -- Utah, USC, WSU -- and scored a total of 0.9 LESS against those three than they gave up on average. What justifies your cutting the sample to look only at the results you want to?

Quote:

---

Now comparing to the above:
UCLA gave up 27.5 ppg we scored 36
Texas gave up 31.ppg we scored 50
Oregon gave up 41.4 ppg we scored 52

We consistently scored roughly 10 points more than our opponents' average ppg surrendered, versus the good defenses and the bad defenses. With the blowout of Texas (then ranked #11) and narrow loss to San Diego State (finished ranked #25) closer to +20.

---

NO we didn't! I posted the entire season for you and very neatly drew our opponents into two very clear and logical categories:

(A) Teams that we either had vastly out-talented (ie. G5 teams UH, SDSU) and P5 teams with poor defenses (Texas, ASU, OSU, UO, UCLA...the teams below the median Def PPG among our P5 opponents)

(B) Teams we didn't vastly out-talent with good defenses (Utah, USC, UW, WSU, Stanford...the teams above the median Def PPG among our P5 opponents)

Against Cat (A) teams we outscored their average PPG allowed by +12.3

Against Cat (B) teams we outscored their average PPG allowed by +3.7

That's a HUGE margin of differential -- 8.6 points -- and you completely ignored it. If you can't address this directly you have no argument at all.

Quote:

---

The reason we lost to the good teams despite scoring more than they typically give up was they scored more than their average against us, and good teams score more on average than they give up (duh).

We lost to good teams because they are good and our defense sucked, not because our offense couldn't score well above their average. There was no "differential."

---

Not only was there a clear differential in 2016, the differential becomes even more clear when Dykes' tenure as a whole is examined -- as I did in my reply above to Big C. From 2014-2016 (generously pretending that 2013 didn't happen), the differential is even larger in our scoring against our opponents when divided into the two categories (A) and (B) I used in analyzing our 2016 results.

Against Cat (A) teams we outscored their average PPG allowed by +13.9

Against Cat (B) teams we outscored their average PPG allowed by +2.6

That's an 11.3 point margin of differential over a 37 game sample.

Quote:

---

Oklahoma runs Air Raid and they are currently 12-1 with a shot at a National Championship because they average 8.2 yards per play (#1) and 554.4 yards per game including 251 rushing yards per game. There are many other P5 and NFL examples now. It is not considered "snake oil" by coaches even if it is not what we want.

---

I'm starting to think you don't read much of what I write to you, but I'll repeat myself again. Oklahoma's last 5 recruiting ranks: 5th, 8th, 7th, 16th, 14th. Lincoln Riley's three starting QBs were Baker Mayfield, Kyler Murray and Jalen Hurts -- the first two were #1 overall picks and the third will likely be another 1st rounder. If you have that kind of talent you should be able to run ANY offensive system and be spectacular. Oh and BTW even with all of that talent Oklahoma's defense still couldn't help but be brought down by the Air Raid. Their average scoring defense rank: 73rd

The question you should ask yourself is what do the results look like of the Air Raid teams that aren't stuffed full or 4 and 5 star talent and super elite NFL prospect QBs? Let's look at Texas Tech, WSU, and Cal (three P5 teams with similar talent levels) under 18 seasons of Kingsbury, Leach and Dykes (all in approximately the same time frame). Total record: 109-116. Off PPG: 34.6, Def PPG: 34.5. Seven winning seasons vs ten losing seasons (WSU is currently 6-6 this season). Total of ONE season finished in the Top-25 (WSU 2018). And not for nothing but those teams included six seasons of Goff and Mahomes as startng QBs. The record of those six seasons: 32-43

Quote:

---

It is critical to have a good defense and with Wilcox we now have that. We just need a good offense too.

---

Why are you pretending there is no relationship between the Air Raid and the terrible defenses it overwhelmingly tends to feature?

Stop trying to cherry pick and then exclude any result that doesn't conform to your narrative. Look at the large and comprehensive data which I have taken great pains to compile for you and which you have so diligently ignored both in this thread and the "What should our offensive philosophy" thread. I never said the Air Raid was a gimmick and never denied that it's a common offense in CFB. What I have said about the Air Raid is:

(1) Teams running the Air Raid* have mediocre W/L records

(2) Teams running the Air Raid* very strongly tend to score way above the avg PPG allowed by poor/out-talented defenses, but then drop down to the avg PPG allowed when facing good defenses with comparable talent

(3) Teams running the Air Raid** very strongly tend to have terrible defenses

You have managed to fix blinders over anything you don't want to see. The only conclusion I can draw is that you refuse to address all of this in any comprehensive fashion because you know there is no defense you can offer.

*Except when the Air Raid team has super elite talent
**Even Air Raid teams with super elite talent still suffer from this, which should tell you something

LunchTime said:

---

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.

---

Just not true (and it's not on Wilcox, necessarily)