oskirules said:

---

Wilcox looks relaxed, good sign?

---

He's going to a bowl at a university with incredibly low expectations who looks at a less than .500 conf record and a bowl appearence as bliss.

I really don't expect Wilcox to hire somebody who hasn't been a coordinator before. I think the most likely is a G5 OC

10 business days or 10 calendar days?

Gonna guess within a few days after the bowl game.

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I want to open my Christmas presents now!

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

It sounds like Wilcox has opted for the $1 reward for no-rush shipping.

I wonder what the "frequently bought together" recommendations look like on that purchase.

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

---

You guys are extrapolating his words not only to the breaking point but in direct contradiction to what he said.

All he said was that we have a program philosophy. He didn't say he runs the offense or interferes. He definitely didn't say that he wants to limit explosiveness. Putting an "if" in front of that statement doesn't make it better.

A program philosophy means he knows to a certain extent what offense he wants to run and he gets a guy who runs that offense. That is every head coach. There is zero in here that implies that he interfered with Baldwin.

In talking about wide receivers he specifically talked about needing to get guys that can get down the field. He said absolutely nothing about limiting explosiveness.

I'm sorry, but people often read these threads, don't watch the actual video, and assume what people talk about was actually said. Not only is none of this in anything he said, it is contradicted in the video.

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

---

You guys are extrapolating his words not only to the breaking point but in direct contradiction to what he said.

All he said was that we have a program philosophy. He didn't say he runs the offense or interferes. He definitely didn't say that he wants to limit explosiveness. Putting an "if" in front of that statement doesn't make it better.

A program philosophy means he knows to a certain extent what offense he wants to run and he gets a guy who runs that offense. That is every head coach. There is zero in here that implies that he interfered with Baldwin.

In talking about wide receivers he specifically talked about needing to get guys that can get down the field. He said absolutely nothing about limiting explosiveness.

I'm sorry, but people often read these threads, don't watch the actual video, and assume what people talk about was actually said. Not only is none of this in anything he said, it is contradicted in the video.

---

Are you surprised, Oaktown. 90% of the stuff posted here is conjecture based on a foundation of sandy soil. More often that not, the comments are prefabricated to fit a narrative the poster is attempting to sell rather than a thoughtful review of the known facts leading to a rational conclusion.

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

HOB, I think Kiesau could be a fantastic hire. When I mentioned his name last week, someone suggested it reflected having low standards. Not sure why... I also think Gould should receive strong consideration.

SoCalie said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

HOB, I think Kiesau could be a fantastic hire. When I mentioned his name last week, someone suggested it reflected having low standards. Not sure why... I also think Gould should receive strong consideration.

---

As OC? I love Gould as a running backs coach, but his Davis teams sucked and that is the closest thing he has been to being responsible for a whole offense. Don't see any evidence he is an OC.

SoCalie said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

HOB, I think Kiesau could be a fantastic hire. When I mentioned his name last week, someone suggested it reflected having low standards. Not sure why... I also think Gould should receive strong consideration.

---

Yes
It was your post that I was referring to

OaktownBear said:

---

SoCalie said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

HOB, I think Kiesau could be a fantastic hire. When I mentioned his name last week, someone suggested it reflected having low standards. Not sure why... I also think Gould should receive strong consideration.

---

As OC? I love Gould as a running backs coach, but his Davis teams sucked and that is the closest thing he has been to being responsible for a whole offense. Don't see any evidence he is an OC.

---

I understand, but I don't think one's success as a head coach (or their team's record) necessarily translates to their ability/success as a OC/DC - and vice versa. And, maybe his incredible success as a RB coach - for so many years - at multiple schools - should weigh in his favor in terms of the assessment of his ability as an OC. Besides, wasn't he the Co-OC or Co-HC under Tedford for several years? I have to believe that he has tremendous experience, knowledge, skills/talent regarding the offense - and, if true, it's something JW would be aware of since they coached together under Tedford.

I know it's probably a very unpopular opinion...but my ideal would be to bring back Kiesau and Gould as Co-OCs - or with Gould having some sort of Co-HC title. I think Gould adds tremendous value to a team that reaches far beyond that of just the RB coach.

SoCalie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SoCalie said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

HOB, I think Kiesau could be a fantastic hire. When I mentioned his name last week, someone suggested it reflected having low standards. Not sure why... I also think Gould should receive strong consideration.

---

As OC? I love Gould as a running backs coach, but his Davis teams sucked and that is the closest thing he has been to being responsible for a whole offense. Don't see any evidence he is an OC.

---

I understand, but I don't think one's success as a head coach (or their team's record) necessarily translates to their ability/success as a OC/DC - and vice versa. And, maybe his incredible success as a RB coach - for so many years - at multiple schools - should weigh in his favor in terms of the assessment of his ability as an OC. Besides, wasn't he the Co-OC or Co-HC under Tedford for several years? I have to believe that he has tremendous experience, knowledge, skills/talent regarding the offense - and, if true, it's something JW would be aware of since they coached together under Tedford.

I know it's probably a very unpopular opinion...but my ideal would be to bring back Kiesau and Gould as Co-OCs - or with Gould having some sort of Co-HC title. I think Gould adds tremendous value to a team that reaches far beyond that of just the RB coach.

---

He was the run game coordinator for a period of time under JT. He was never an OC, co-OC or co-HC. I'm with Oak on this one. I have no interest in seeing him become the OC at Cal. Besides he is currently under contract at Stanford. Why does anyone think he would want to be a coordinator at Cal?

Regardless, all of this is idle chatter since Wilcox has probably identified his guy and, if so, that person is probably coaching in a bowl game.....

71Bear said:

---

Regardless, all of this is idle chatter since Wilcox has probably identified his guy and, if so, that person is probably coaching in a bowl game.....

---

Or temporarily retired from football due to health reasons.

71Bear said:

---

SoCalie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SoCalie said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

HOB, I think Kiesau could be a fantastic hire. When I mentioned his name last week, someone suggested it reflected having low standards. Not sure why... I also think Gould should receive strong consideration.

---

As OC? I love Gould as a running backs coach, but his Davis teams sucked and that is the closest thing he has been to being responsible for a whole offense. Don't see any evidence he is an OC.

---

I understand, but I don't think one's success as a head coach (or their team's record) necessarily translates to their ability/success as a OC/DC - and vice versa. And, maybe his incredible success as a RB coach - for so many years - at multiple schools - should weigh in his favor in terms of the assessment of his ability as an OC. Besides, wasn't he the Co-OC or Co-HC under Tedford for several years? I have to believe that he has tremendous experience, knowledge, skills/talent regarding the offense - and, if true, it's something JW would be aware of since they coached together under Tedford.

I know it's probably a very unpopular opinion...but my ideal would be to bring back Kiesau and Gould as Co-OCs - or with Gould having some sort of Co-HC title. I think Gould adds tremendous value to a team that reaches far beyond that of just the RB coach.

---

He was the run game coordinator for a period of time under JT. He was never an OC, co-OC or co-HC. I'm with Oak on this one. I have no interest in seeing him become the OC at Cal. Besides he is currently under contract at Stanford. Why does anyone think he would want to be a coordinator at Cal?

Regardless, all of this is idle chatter since Wilcox has probably identified his guy and, if so, that person is probably coaching in a bowl game.....

---

Sorry, Assoc HC for four years.

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

...With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games...

---

30 PPG is average and very doable; and we've done so under JW already. We averaged 26 points in conference games in year one in BB's offense. In our last six games that season we scored on average over 31 PPG.

Very anxious to find-out who we get!

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

Because....it is underwhelming? When a coach of almost 20 years experience is at Boise State, his career is trending down, not up, and he's only a co-offensive coordinator there. His 2013 Washington offense was pretty good, but that's about as much as I can recommend him.

oskirules said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Regardless, all of this is idle chatter since Wilcox has probably identified his guy and, if so, that person is probably coaching in a bowl game.....

---

Or temporarily retired from football due to health reasons.

---

Joker said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

Because....it is underwhelming? When a coach of almost 20 years experience is at Boise State, his career is trending down, not up, and he's only a co-offensive coordinator there. His 2013 Washington offense was pretty good, but that's about as much as I can recommend him.

---

Wasn't Chris Petersen at Boise St. and then trended up at Washington until recently? I'm pretty sure he had years of experience before Boise St., but I'll look it up. I suppose Troy Taylor is trending down because he went from Utah to Sac. State. Coaches have complicated motives for choosing locations. Boise, for example, is a nice town, I've heard. And cost of living is much lower than the bay area. He might want to come here though in order to reunite with Wilcox. We'll see.

Okay, I looked it up, Chris Petersen had been coaching for 26 years at the college level when he left Boise St. for Washington. What's the diff?

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

---

You guys are extrapolating his words not only to the breaking point but in direct contradiction to what he said.

All he said was that we have a program philosophy. He didn't say he runs the offense or interferes. He definitely didn't say that he wants to limit explosiveness. Putting an "if" in front of that statement doesn't make it better.

A program philosophy means he knows to a certain extent what offense he wants to run and he gets a guy who runs that offense. That is every head coach. There is zero in here that implies that he interfered with Baldwin.

In talking about wide receivers he specifically talked about needing to get guys that can get down the field. He said absolutely nothing about limiting explosiveness.

I'm sorry, but people often read these threads, don't watch the actual video, and assume what people talk about was actually said. Not only is none of this in anything he said, it is contradicted in the video.

---

The above video isn't the only video where Wilcox has referred to game strategy or philosophy. In the past he has mentioned the strategy of shortening the game by limiting possessions. That's how we won some of our games. It's also how we lost to Oregon St. So, if that is his philosophy, I don't agree with it. In fact, I don't agree with any philosophy that is stubbornly adhered to regardless of the dynamics of that particular game. That is also what happened against OSU. I was at that game, and it really sucked. It was also the game that gave first hand knowledge that Baldwin had to go. But, if he was trying to exercise Wilcox's philosophy of limiting possessions, then that is a concern. And yes the if matters. That is why it is part of the english language. And it is not my problem if folks don't watch the video or don't read each word carefully.

heartofthebear said:

---

Joker said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

Because....it is underwhelming? When a coach of almost 20 years experience is at Boise State, his career is trending down, not up, and he's only a co-offensive coordinator there. His 2013 Washington offense was pretty good, but that's about as much as I can recommend him.

---

Wasn't Chris Petersen at Boise St. and then trended up at Washington until recently? I'm pretty sure he had years of experience before Boise St., but I'll look it up. I suppose Troy Taylor is trending down because he went from Utah to Sac. State. Coaches have complicated motives for choosing locations. Boise, for example, is a nice town, I've heard. And cost of living is much lower than the bay area. He might want to come here though in order to reunite with Wilcox. We'll see.

Okay, I looked it up, Chris Petersen had been coaching for 26 years at the college level when he left Boise St. for Washington. What's the diff?

---

You're seriously asking me what the difference is between Chris Petersen and Eric Kiesau?

heartofthebear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

---

You guys are extrapolating his words not only to the breaking point but in direct contradiction to what he said.

All he said was that we have a program philosophy. He didn't say he runs the offense or interferes. He definitely didn't say that he wants to limit explosiveness. Putting an "if" in front of that statement doesn't make it better.

A program philosophy means he knows to a certain extent what offense he wants to run and he gets a guy who runs that offense. That is every head coach. There is zero in here that implies that he interfered with Baldwin.

In talking about wide receivers he specifically talked about needing to get guys that can get down the field. He said absolutely nothing about limiting explosiveness.

I'm sorry, but people often read these threads, don't watch the actual video, and assume what people talk about was actually said. Not only is none of this in anything he said, it is contradicted in the video.

---

The above video isn't the only video where Wilcox has referred to game strategy or philosophy. In the past he has mentioned the strategy of shortening the game by limiting possessions. That's how we won some of our games. It's also how we lost to Oregon St. So, if that is his philosophy, I don't agree with it. In fact, I don't agree with any philosophy that is stubbornly adhered to regardless of the dynamics of that particular game. That is also what happened against OSU. I was at that game, and it really sucked. It was also the game that gave first hand knowledge that Baldwin had to go. But, if he was trying to exercise Wilcox's philosophy of limiting possessions, then that is a concern. And yes the if matters. That is why it is part of the english language. And it is not my problem if folks don't watch the video or don't read each word carefully.

---

Okay, IF you are proposing an offense that maximizes interceptions and fumbles and has our running backs run backwards, I drastically disagree with you. Since you are not, and since Wilcox isn't doing anything like what you are saying you would disagree with, I won't worry about it.

That isn't why we lost the OSU game. Going into the OSU game, in the 6+ quarters since Garbers went down we were 22 for 48 passing for 203 yards, 3 interceptions and had scored 17 points. Our QB play had been terrible. Against OSU we were 14-33 passing for 175 yards and an interception. If you think opening up the offense in that situation is the right way to go, you must have loved Baldwin's performance in the CheezIt bowl. When your pass offense, and specifically quarterback play is inept, and you have a good defense going up against a mediocre offense, you shorten the game. That is flat out obvious situational strategy. You uglify the game. I don't know who looks at the pass offense we had at the time and says yeah, I wants me some more of that. Turn that baby loose.

In context, his statements have been clear that he is running a ball control offense that picks its shots down the field vs. an uptempo score as fast as you can offense. It doesn't mean he doesn't want to score. Most ball control offenses like to pressure down field to keep men out of the box and he has specifically stated in this video he needs receivers who can get down the field.

Feel free to link video where Wilcox says he doesn't want to stretch the field or have any chunk plays. Otherwise, IF you choose to worry about him interfering in the offense based on comments that don't say that and IF you choose to worry about him running an offense he doesn't run, I will choose to correct your characterization in both points.

heartofthebear said:

---

Joker said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

Because....it is underwhelming? When a coach of almost 20 years experience is at Boise State, his career is trending down, not up, and he's only a co-offensive coordinator there. His 2013 Washington offense was pretty good, but that's about as much as I can recommend him.

---

Wasn't Chris Petersen at Boise St. and then trended up at Washington until recently? I'm pretty sure he had years of experience before Boise St., but I'll look it up. I suppose Troy Taylor is trending down because he went from Utah to Sac. State. Coaches have complicated motives for choosing locations. Boise, for example, is a nice town, I've heard. And cost of living is much lower than the bay area. He might want to come here though in order to reunite with Wilcox. We'll see.

Okay, I looked it up, Chris Petersen had been coaching for 26 years at the college level when he left Boise St. for Washington. What's the diff?

---

I'm not arguing for Kiesau or disagreeing with Joker here specifically, but I'm finding the board, including myself, funny here. We don't want an OC at a lower level. We don't want to promote a position coach from P-5. We don't want a position coach from the NFL. We don't want a current OC who is mediocre to above average. We don't want someone on the shelf.

So, Justin, go out and get a current OC at a P-5 school or from the NFL who is killing it and whom we can afford and who wants to come to Cal. No pressure.

And they have to hate Berkeley to fit in with the majority of the fan base.

heartofthebear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

---

You guys are extrapolating his words not only to the breaking point but in direct contradiction to what he said.

All he said was that we have a program philosophy. He didn't say he runs the offense or interferes. He definitely didn't say that he wants to limit explosiveness. Putting an "if" in front of that statement doesn't make it better.

A program philosophy means he knows to a certain extent what offense he wants to run and he gets a guy who runs that offense. That is every head coach. There is zero in here that implies that he interfered with Baldwin.

In talking about wide receivers he specifically talked about needing to get guys that can get down the field. He said absolutely nothing about limiting explosiveness.

I'm sorry, but people often read these threads, don't watch the actual video, and assume what people talk about was actually said. Not only is none of this in anything he said, it is contradicted in the video.

---

The above video isn't the only video where Wilcox has referred to game strategy or philosophy. In the past he has mentioned the strategy of shortening the game by limiting possessions. That's how we won some of our games. It's also how we lost to Oregon St. So, if that is his philosophy, I don't agree with it. In fact, I don't agree with any philosophy that is stubbornly adhered to regardless of the dynamics of that particular game. That is also what happened against OSU. I was at that game, and it really sucked. It was also the game that gave first hand knowledge that Baldwin had to go. But, if he was trying to exercise Wilcox's philosophy of limiting possessions, then that is a concern. And yes the if matters. That is why it is part of the english language. And it is not my problem if folks don't watch the video or don't read each word carefully.

---

he wants to shorten the game because he knows 99% of the time Cal is overmatched from a talent and skill perspective. You lengthen the game when you have the advantage in those respects.

It was always so hilarious when people would be so dumbfounded at the playcalling when it's obvious to anybody that if Wilcox DIDN'T want to continue running those plays, he'd direct BB to do something differently.

Joker said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Joker said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

YamhillBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

So we're not going triple option or empty. Glad we narrowed it down.

---

Well, that comment was part of the larger comment about selecting a coordinator who fits our existing system/team. To me, that tells me that it probably isn't a Brennan Marion, for example.

---

Am I missing something? Why would we not want the new oc to be the qb coach as well? Given that it doesn't look like new blood will be brought into the o coaching staff?

---

I don't think I understand your comment, Rushinbear. I didn't hear anything regarding whether the new OC would be QB coach as well, nor anything that implied that the hire was from within the current staff...

---

The guy who's leaving was the qb coach, taking over from someone else (apparently for a reason). So, the new guy needs to be a qb coach. Besides, most oc's are qb coaches, too, since that's the key position that pulls the trigger on the whole offense.

Otherwise, we'd have to hire a separate qb coach which I don't think we need to spend the $$ on.

---

Eric Keisau would make sense for all of those reasons and more. However, I think many here would see that hire as underwhelming.

---

Because....it is underwhelming? When a coach of almost 20 years experience is at Boise State, his career is trending down, not up, and he's only a co-offensive coordinator there. His 2013 Washington offense was pretty good, but that's about as much as I can recommend him.

---

Wasn't Chris Petersen at Boise St. and then trended up at Washington until recently? I'm pretty sure he had years of experience before Boise St., but I'll look it up. I suppose Troy Taylor is trending down because he went from Utah to Sac. State. Coaches have complicated motives for choosing locations. Boise, for example, is a nice town, I've heard. And cost of living is much lower than the bay area. He might want to come here though in order to reunite with Wilcox. We'll see.

Okay, I looked it up, Chris Petersen had been coaching for 26 years at the college level when he left Boise St. for Washington. What's the diff?

---

You're seriously asking me what the difference is between Chris Petersen and Eric Kiesau?

---

That's just it you are saying that Chris Petersen could not possibly be any good because nobody whose been coaching at the college level for 20+ years and is at Boise St. could be any good. It is not the people I was addressing, it is your logic, or lack thereof.

GBear4Life said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

---

You guys are extrapolating his words not only to the breaking point but in direct contradiction to what he said.

All he said was that we have a program philosophy. He didn't say he runs the offense or interferes. He definitely didn't say that he wants to limit explosiveness. Putting an "if" in front of that statement doesn't make it better.

A program philosophy means he knows to a certain extent what offense he wants to run and he gets a guy who runs that offense. That is every head coach. There is zero in here that implies that he interfered with Baldwin.

In talking about wide receivers he specifically talked about needing to get guys that can get down the field. He said absolutely nothing about limiting explosiveness.

I'm sorry, but people often read these threads, don't watch the actual video, and assume what people talk about was actually said. Not only is none of this in anything he said, it is contradicted in the video.

---

The above video isn't the only video where Wilcox has referred to game strategy or philosophy. In the past he has mentioned the strategy of shortening the game by limiting possessions. That's how we won some of our games. It's also how we lost to Oregon St. So, if that is his philosophy, I don't agree with it. In fact, I don't agree with any philosophy that is stubbornly adhered to regardless of the dynamics of that particular game. That is also what happened against OSU. I was at that game, and it really sucked. It was also the game that gave first hand knowledge that Baldwin had to go. But, if he was trying to exercise Wilcox's philosophy of limiting possessions, then that is a concern. And yes the if matters. That is why it is part of the english language. And it is not my problem if folks don't watch the video or don't read each word carefully.

---

he wants to shorten the game because he knows 99% of the time Cal is overmatched from a talent and skill perspective. You lengthen the game when you have the advantage in those respects.

It was always so hilarious when people would be so dumbfounded at the playcalling when it's obvious to anybody that if Wilcox DIDN'T want to continue running those plays, he'd direct BB to do something differently.

---

That is my point, you use that strategy when overmatched but you don't stubbornly stick to it against teams like Oregon St. or when your offense is better than your defense so that you can make your defense look a bit better. Next season our offense will be at least on par with the defense, making it a bad time to try to stick to the older philosophy. If Wilcox has a philosophy from when our offense wasn't very good, and he wants to find an OC that will stick to the past, then that is concerning because it is not relevant to the 2020 team make-up. In other words, you don't pigeon hole yourself into any philosophy beforehand. You adapt your philosophy to your personnel. Again, I am not saying that Wilcox is doing that, but, if he is, then that would concern me.

What about someone like Rich Rodriguez?

On D our OC is a former HC. That's the side of the ball where Wilcox excels and he's got a very seasoned guy. It makes sense that he'd want at least the same amount of experience in his OC. Rodriguez' offense is in the same general family as what we run, that offense is very good and he has west coast recruiting ties thanks to his time at Zona.

tequila4kapp said:

---

What about someone like Rich Rodriguez?

On D our OC is a former HC. That's the side of the ball where Wilcox excels and he's got a very seasoned guy. It makes sense that he'd want at least the same amount of experience in his OC. Rodriguez' offense is in the same general family as what we run, that offense if very good and he has west coast recruiting ties thanks to his time at Zona.

---

No thank you. I would prefer to avoid guys with serious character flaws........

heartofthebear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yea, based on those comments, it seems as though Wilcox had more influence on the offense than I originally thought.

---

Yes.
And that could explain why Baldwin left and it also is a bit concerning.
If Wilcox wants to limit explosiveness because of the possibility of scoring too fast for his defense, then I think we are going to end up with the same problems of folks loading the box against us.

I really think the 49ers are good example of how success is achieved. They don't pigeonhole themselves by micromanaging their options. They win a whole bunch of ways. Cal needs to be willing to win defensively and offensively. And they need to coach that ability into their players.

We need an OC that can do ball control for 70% of the play but then knows when to break it open downfield. The old Seattle Seahawks were a good example. When Wilson first emerged, he did not have that impressive passing numbers, except one, yards per pass. The Seahawk offense would underwhelm you until suddenly they had a 50 yard touchdown to Baldwin or a 60 yard pass downfield to Golden Tate.

With Polk, Remigio and now Hunter, we will have the personnel to engage in this type of offense. There is no reason why Cal can't score 30 points/gm, this way, especially with a healthy Garbers arm and shoulder. But if Wilcox doesn't like that, then it won't happen and we will be back to winning on 24 point games and losing on 20 point games.

Keep in mind, our defense next season is not going to be holding teams under 20 points as often as in the past. We will be young in the back 7. Even if several players emerge, they won't be maximizing their abilities until well into the season.

---

You guys are extrapolating his words not only to the breaking point but in direct contradiction to what he said.

All he said was that we have a program philosophy. He didn't say he runs the offense or interferes. He definitely didn't say that he wants to limit explosiveness. Putting an "if" in front of that statement doesn't make it better.

A program philosophy means he knows to a certain extent what offense he wants to run and he gets a guy who runs that offense. That is every head coach. There is zero in here that implies that he interfered with Baldwin.

In talking about wide receivers he specifically talked about needing to get guys that can get down the field. He said absolutely nothing about limiting explosiveness.

I'm sorry, but people often read these threads, don't watch the actual video, and assume what people talk about was actually said. Not only is none of this in anything he said, it is contradicted in the video.

---

The above video isn't the only video where Wilcox has referred to game strategy or philosophy. In the past he has mentioned the strategy of shortening the game by limiting possessions. That's how we won some of our games. It's also how we lost to Oregon St. So, if that is his philosophy, I don't agree with it. In fact, I don't agree with any philosophy that is stubbornly adhered to regardless of the dynamics of that particular game. That is also what happened against OSU. I was at that game, and it really sucked. It was also the game that gave first hand knowledge that Baldwin had to go. But, if he was trying to exercise Wilcox's philosophy of limiting possessions, then that is a concern. And yes the if matters. That is why it is part of the english language. And it is not my problem if folks don't watch the video or don't read each word carefully.

---

he wants to shorten the game because he knows 99% of the time Cal is overmatched from a talent and skill perspective. You lengthen the game when you have the advantage in those respects.

It was always so hilarious when people would be so dumbfounded at the playcalling when it's obvious to anybody that if Wilcox DIDN'T want to continue running those plays, he'd direct BB to do something differently.

---

That is my point, you use that strategy when overmatched but you don't stubbornly stick to it against teams like Oregon St. or when your offense is better than your defense so that you can make your defense look a bit better. Next season our offense will be at least on par with the defense, making it a bad time to try to stick to the older philosophy. If Wilcox has a philosophy from when our offense wasn't very good, and he wants to find an OC that will stick to the past, then that is concerning because it is not relevant to the 2020 team make-up. In other words, you don't pigeon hole yourself into any philosophy beforehand. You adapt your philosophy to your personnel. Again, I am not saying that Wilcox is doing that, but, if he is, then that would concern me.

---

The thing I think you don't get is that the week we played OSU, with the personnel we had available, they were the better team. Our offense sucked because our QB's and OL sucked because of injuries and inexperience. It wasn't our full squad playing OSU from 2 years ago. It was a depleted offense playing a not great but decent Oregon State team.

+1 for Rich Rod

Bleah, forget Rich Rod.