New RB Coach: Aristotle Thompson

11,373 Views | 106 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by 79 Bear
Callisto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

Cal Strong see this as head scratcher. Not particularly strong hire.

To be fair, Cal Strong never heard of this guy. So maybe he surprise everyone and turn out to be strong.

But this also strongly fair to say -- Aristotle coach for 19 years and only became position coach at two small time programs. He went from one to a HS (Cal Strong assume he was fired). Then at his second job, no one tried to poach him for a decade. This not a strong sign.
Cal needs to toughen up their thinking, be more like Cal, less like Cal Poly
Callisto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ncsf said:

bonsallbear said:

Good grief! It's this the best Wilcox could do? After a great hire in Musgrave, this is a total let down. What input did Musgrave have? This indeed is a head scratcher. We needed a solid recruiter and I don't see this as being the answer.
Here's the good part- you have no clue on this. Neither do I. If we trust him on the hires we like, shouldn't we trust him on the ones we honestly have no idea on?
Or alternatively, we could be neutral on the hires until we see how the coaches recruit and their units perform.

From a technical standpoint, I've always had the opinion that there are tons of guys that can do a fine job of coaching RB's. The difference between coaches is how well they recruit. Since this guy doesn't have a track record of recruiting the kinds of guys we want to land, I have no idea how well he will recruit in a bigger pond. We'll find out down the road.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

I'm hoping there was a connection with the Fresno area. I'd love it if we could land more academically eligible talent out of Fresno/Clovis area.


He's from Portland, played at Boise State, and then coached at Boise State before his long stint as RB coach at Cal Poly. His bio says he is getting a Masters in Sports Administration from Idaho State, so clearly he is another coach with strong ties to the Pacific Northwest. His recruiting area was LA, so hopefully he has developed connections that will benefit us.

Like others I was hoping for a splashier hire to attract recruits, but I am not really disappointed and like others I am definitely willing to see what he brings to the table.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Callisto said:

Ncsf said:

bonsallbear said:

Good grief! It's this the best Wilcox could do? After a great hire in Musgrave, this is a total let down. What input did Musgrave have? This indeed is a head scratcher. We needed a solid recruiter and I don't see this as being the answer.
Here's the good part- you have no clue on this. Neither do I. If we trust him on the hires we like, shouldn't we trust him on the ones we honestly have no idea on?
Or alternatively, we could be neutral on the hires until we see how the coaches recruit and their units perform.

From a technical standpoint, I've always had the opinion that there are tons of guys that can do a fine job at the technical aspects of coaching RB's. The difference between coaches is how well they recruit. Since this guy doesn't have a track record of recruiting the kinds of guys we want to land, I have no idea how well he will recruit in a bigger pond. We'll find out down the road.

I agree. Top RBs come to college (or out of JC) with a lot of skills. The one area they sometimes need help with at this level is reading defenses and picking up blitzes, though screen passes to RBs can be even more effective against blitzes than blocking.

I was wondering and do think he at least offered local star Patrick Laird (the articles about Laird mention "recruiting interest" from Cal Poly and the Ivies).
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

touchdownbears43 said:

Hmmmm familiarity seems to be the factor here. Zero recruiting bump. Seems to have coached a fair number of 1K rushers but at the DI-AA level. Hmmm....

Disagree. With him being a recruiting coordinator for 9 years, he must have strong relationships with programs all over the west coast. Also, Cal Poly is a good school so he knows what the academics at Cal are like. Also, he'll have a lot more leverage at Cal. Another great hire.

I agree.
Aristotle looks like a wise choice.
Long history as RB coach.
Knows Southern California area well.
Strong on academics as student and as position coach at Cal Poly.
I don't know about his ability to recruit. But he must have some knowledge in this area since he keeps finding 1000K runners.

Maybe his experience at FBS level might not be as good as if he had worked at higher level but I will withhold judgement until I see his performance. But success at one level still is a good sign. Remember that Harbaugh started at FBS University of San Diego.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

NYCGOBEARS said:

touchdownbears43 said:

Hmmmm familiarity seems to be the factor here. Zero recruiting bump. Seems to have coached a fair number of 1K rushers but at the DI-AA level. Hmmm....

Disagree. With him being a recruiting coordinator for 9 years, he must have strong relationships with programs all over the west coast. Also, Cal Poly is a good school so he knows what the academics at Cal are like. Also, he'll have a lot more leverage at Cal. Another great hire.

I agree.
Aristotle looks like a wise choice.
Long history as RB coach.
Knows Southern California area well.
Strong on academics as student and as position coach at Cal Poly.
I don't know about his ability to recruit. But he must have some knowledge in this area since he keeps finding 1000K runners.

Maybe his experience at FBS level might not be as good as if he had worked at higher level but I will withhold judgement until I see his performance. But success at one level still is a good sign. Remember that Harbaugh started at FBS University of San Diego.


All good points.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

ColoradoBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Cal Strong! said:

Cal Strong see this as head scratcher. Not particularly strong hire.

To be fair, Cal Strong never heard of this guy. So maybe he surprise everyone and turn out to be strong.

But this also strongly fair to say -- Aristotle coach for 19 years and only became position coach at two small time programs. He went from one to a HS (Cal Strong assume he was fired). Then at his second job, no one tried to poach him for a decade. This not a strong sign.
Position coach and recruiting coordinator (he also is run game coordinator, which is a title to pay someone more money). Like the hire.
Recruiting Coordinator at Poly, not Cal, right? Unless it's changed, Sirmon is the RC.

Thompson made $76k at SLO. Cal has started their entry assistant coaches at around $175k, so I'd guess not much higher than that given no FBS experience on his resume.

Doesn't mean he won't work out, but it also could be that there was no money left for a more flashy/experienced hire.

But I'm personally not going to worry about it without seeing on field performance next fall.

Pretty much my exact thoughts.



I mean, if this is what it takes to be able to afford GA and musgrave, then it is what it is I guess
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

heartofthebear said:

ColoradoBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Cal Strong! said:

Cal Strong see this as head scratcher. Not particularly strong hire.

To be fair, Cal Strong never heard of this guy. So maybe he surprise everyone and turn out to be strong.

But this also strongly fair to say -- Aristotle coach for 19 years and only became position coach at two small time programs. He went from one to a HS (Cal Strong assume he was fired). Then at his second job, no one tried to poach him for a decade. This not a strong sign.
Position coach and recruiting coordinator (he also is run game coordinator, which is a title to pay someone more money). Like the hire.
Recruiting Coordinator at Poly, not Cal, right? Unless it's changed, Sirmon is the RC.

Thompson made $76k at SLO. Cal has started their entry assistant coaches at around $175k, so I'd guess not much higher than that given no FBS experience on his resume.

Doesn't mean he won't work out, but it also could be that there was no money left for a more flashy/experienced hire.

But I'm personally not going to worry about it without seeing on field performance next fall.

Pretty much my exact thoughts.



I mean, if this is what it takes to be able to afford GA and musgrave, then it is what it is I guess


We just boosted Wilcox's salary by $millions, a guaranteed $15.9 million over 5 years not including all the incentives (many easily achieved). It would seem penny wise pound foolish to try to save $100k or so on a RB coach if we thought someone much better was available. Hopefully Wilcox really likes Thompson and the salary we are paying reflects the market, not our budget.

NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The budget speculation is completely unfounded.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

At least Wilcox had two stints working with him so he's in a good position to know what he's getting and what his upside is at Cal.
But obviously not in as good a position as random Growls posters...
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Sig test...
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.


YPC by RB In order of number carries
2013 Bigelow 4.0 Muhammad 6.0 Lasco 4.7
2014 Lasco 5.3 Muhammad 4.7 Enwere 5.7
2015 Enwere 4.8 Watson 5.7 Muhammad 6.7 Lasco 5.1
2016 Muhammad 5.4 Watson 5.0 Enwere 5.5 Laird 7.4
2017 Laird 5.9, Enwere 3.7, Watson 4.9, Clark 3.3
2018 Laird 4.3 Brown 4.0 Dancy 5.8
2019 Brown 4.4 Dancy 4.4 Collins 5.2

There has been a downward trend in our RB productivity even from 2016. I thought Baldwin's scheme and playcalling was mismatched with the talent and really hurt our running game. I also thought he was slow or failed to recognize and go with the "hot hand": Laird in 2017, Dancy in 2018 and Collins in 2019. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Musgrave (and Thompson) are able to do with the returning talent and the new additions.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
Right you are MB. Now that I look back, the past three years, 114th, 107th and 124th in sacks allowed. Damn.

calumnus, individually, guys did pretty well, as you noted. When looking at such individual numbers from an FBS perspective, it's not all that good though...

Cal rushers in the top 100 in FBS (yds/carry with at least 4 rushes a game average):

2013 - Cal had one guy in the top 100 (57th)
2014 - None
2015 - Two guys (22nd and 100th)
2016 - None
2017 - One (67th)
2018 - None
2019 - None

More importantly, as noted earlier, the team's ground production as a whole has been subpar (under SD) to quite poor lately (JW).

There upside potential is there for sure...
Sig test...
91Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89 said:

MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
Right you are MB. Now that I look back, the past three years, 114th, 107th and 124th in sacks allowed. Damn.

calumnus, individually, guys did pretty well, as you noted. When looking at such individual numbers from an FBS perspective, it's not all that good though...

Cal rushers in the top 100 in FBS (yds/carry with at least 4 rushes a game average):

2013 - Cal had one guy in the top 100 (57th)
2014 - None
2015 - Two guys (22nd and 100th)
2016 - None
2017 - One (67th)
2018 - None
2019 - None

More importantly, as noted earlier, the team's ground production as a whole has been subpar (under SD) to quite poor lately (JW).

There upside potential is there for sure...
Despite Greatwood's accomplishments, it's been hard to overcome an offensive scheme that didn't adjust to personnel or injuries...or was the OL a contributor? I am not knowledgable enough about OL to gauge this in any way
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
When you're down at one point to a senior walk-on at LT who had never played, a redshirt frosh not ready to play at OG, a rs frosh at center who had never played there in his life, an undersized (270) true frosh right guard and only one starter for awhile, it absolutely impacted things.

They'll have far more depth that will be in much better position to contribute in a meaningful way in 2020 and the run game should be much better off for it.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
91Cal said:

Cal89 said:

MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
Right you are MB. Now that I look back, the past three years, 114th, 107th and 124th in sacks allowed. Damn.

calumnus, individually, guys did pretty well, as you noted. When looking at such individual numbers from an FBS perspective, it's not all that good though...

Cal rushers in the top 100 in FBS (yds/carry with at least 4 rushes a game average):

2013 - Cal had one guy in the top 100 (57th)
2014 - None
2015 - Two guys (22nd and 100th)
2016 - None
2017 - One (67th)
2018 - None
2019 - None

More importantly, as noted earlier, the team's ground production as a whole has been subpar (under SD) to quite poor lately (JW).

There upside potential is there for sure...
Despite Greatwood's accomplishments, it's been hard to overcome an offensive scheme that didn't adjust to personnel or injuries...or was the OL a contributor? I am not knowledgable enough about OL to gauge this in any way
For starters, in 2017, our biggest concern was the O line. As I recall, it was the least experienced one we've had to start a season. The QB spot was green too, likely the least experienced since 2013...

Given the many sacks allowed, as MB called-out earlier and I provided the supporting numbers, the equally poor ground game, the O line's production is certainly contributory. They will be a veteran group next year though!

Sig test...
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Callisto said:

Cal Strong! said:

Cal Strong see this as head scratcher. Not particularly strong hire.

To be fair, Cal Strong never heard of this guy. So maybe he surprise everyone and turn out to be strong.

But this also strongly fair to say -- Aristotle coach for 19 years and only became position coach at two small time programs. He went from one to a HS (Cal Strong assume he was fired). Then at his second job, no one tried to poach him for a decade. This not a strong sign.
Cal needs to toughen up their thinking, be more like Cal, less like Cal Poly
Callisto posting STRONG today . . . like Cal Strong . . . and Cal!

Cal STRONG!!!!
IssyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

When you're down at one point to a senior walk-on at LT who had never played, a redshirt frosh not ready to play at OG, a rs frosh at center who had never played there in his life, an undersized (270) true frosh right guard and only one starter for awhile, it absolutely impacted things.

They'll have far more depth that will be in much better position to contribute in a meaningful way in 2020 and the run game should be much better off for it.
And it turns out that the one starter had nagging injuries most of the year, but he kept playing. It astounds me that so many folks dismiss the impacts of our OL injuries this past year. The OL was never at full strength the entire season yet we won eight games.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IssyBear said:

MoragaBear said:

When you're down at one point to a senior walk-on at LT who had never played, a redshirt frosh not ready to play at OG, a rs frosh at center who had never played there in his life, an undersized (270) true frosh right guard and only one starter for awhile, it absolutely impacted things.

They'll have far more depth that will be in much better position to contribute in a meaningful way in 2020 and the run game should be much better off for it.
And it turns out that the one starter had nagging injuries most of the year, but he kept playing. It astounds me that so many folks dismiss the impacts of our OL injuries this past year. The OL was never at full strength the entire season yet we won eight games.
Coupled with Garbers having only 6 complete regular season games, missing receivers, it was clear why the offense really struggled at times.
Sig test...
PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Cal Strong! said:

Cal Strong see this as head scratcher. Not particularly strong hire.

To be fair, Cal Strong never heard of this guy. So maybe he surprise everyone and turn out to be strong.

But this also strongly fair to say -- Aristotle coach for 19 years and only became position coach at two small time programs. He went from one to a HS (Cal Strong assume he was fired). Then at his second job, no one tried to poach him for a decade. This not a strong sign.
Position coach and recruiting coordinator (he also is run game coordinator, which is a title to pay someone more money). Like the hire.
Recruiting Coordinator at Poly, not Cal, right? Unless it's changed, Sirmon is the RC.

Thompson made $76k at SLO. Cal has started their entry assistant coaches at around $175k, so I'd guess not much higher than that given no FBS experience on his resume.

It could be that there was no money left for a more flashy/experienced hire, but that doesn't mean it won't work out.

I'm personally not going to worry about it without seeing on field performance next fall. Wilcox has past experience with Thompson, so it's not just pulling a name out of a hat or anything like that.


$76k for a college position coach with 9 years of collegiate experience? That can't be right. I have office admins making more than that. The divide between D1 and D2 is crazy.
510 Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Next season's home game against Cal Poly is shaping up to be even more interesting. It'll be like a reunion.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89 said:

We are given Aristotle, and invariably some will whine that we didn't get Socrates!



But you know what happened to Socrates in the end. Not good.
BrunoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Cal89 said:

We are given Aristotle, and invariably some will whine that we didn't get Socrates!



But you know what happened to Socrates in the end. Not good.
He loved San Dimas
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

When you're down at one point to a senior walk-on at LT who had never played, a redshirt frosh not ready to play at OG, a rs frosh at center who had never played there in his life, an undersized (270) true frosh right guard and only one starter for awhile, it absolutely impacted things.

They'll have far more depth that will be in much better position to contribute in a meaningful way in 2020 and the run game should be much better off for it.

16 OL on the roster was the fewest I can remember. How many were on scholarship? I think the goal should be 4-5 per year, 20 on the roster.

We graduated 5 senior OL from last year's roster? Brought in 2 scholarship freshmen, one undersized as you point out. Plus 3 freshman walkons?

Next year we again only bring in 2 scholarship OL (one not listed at the position).

Hopefully our new offensive staff addresses this gaping weakness in our desire to play smash mouth football.

MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
calumnus said:

MoragaBear said:

When you're down at one point to a senior walk-on at LT who had never played, a redshirt frosh not ready to play at OG, a rs frosh at center who had never played there in his life, an undersized (270) true frosh right guard and only one starter for awhile, it absolutely impacted things.

They'll have far more depth that will be in much better position to contribute in a meaningful way in 2020 and the run game should be much better off for it.

16 OL on the roster was the fewest I can remember. How many were on scholarship? I think the goal should be 4-5 per year, 20 on the roster.

We graduated 5 senior OL from last year's roster? Brought in 2 scholarship freshmen, one undersized as you point out. Plus 3 freshman walkons?

Next year we again only bring in 2 scholarship OL (one not listed at the position).

Hopefully our new offensive staff addresses this gaping weakness in our desire to play smash mouth football.


Almost no program has more then 15 scholarship OL on the roster.

They lost Bennett, Uluave, Ooms and Gibson from last class. They brought in Mettauer, Driscoll, Rohme and a swing guy (Coleman), who ended up on the OL midseason and going forward so it was a wash.

There are 3 slated to play OL in the next class: Johnson, Aguilar and Roberts. They're not losing any scholarship OL this year, either, though they lost Friis during the season.
Ncsf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Callisto said:

Ncsf said:

bonsallbear said:

PGood grief! It's this the best Wilcox could do? After a great hire in Musgrave, this is a total let down. What input did Musgrave have? This indeed is a head scratcher. We needed a solid recruiter and I don't see this as being the answer.
Here's the good part- you have no clue on this. Neither do I. If we trust him on the hires we like, shouldn't we trust him on the ones we honestly have no idea on?
Or alternatively, we could be neutral on the hires until we see how the coaches recruit and their units perform.

From a technical standpoint, I've always had the opinion that there are tons of guys that can do a fine job of coaching RB's. The difference between coaches is how well they recruit. Since this guy doesn't have a track record of recruiting the kinds of guys we want to land, I have no idea how well he will recruit in a bigger pond. We'll find out down the road.
You are correct, you have no idea. That said, Wilcox does. I bet he did homework with his recruiting contacts. That's why I'm siding with the guy that hired him
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

calumnus said:

MoragaBear said:

When you're down at one point to a senior walk-on at LT who had never played, a redshirt frosh not ready to play at OG, a rs frosh at center who had never played there in his life, an undersized (270) true frosh right guard and only one starter for awhile, it absolutely impacted things.

They'll have far more depth that will be in much better position to contribute in a meaningful way in 2020 and the run game should be much better off for it.

16 OL on the roster was the fewest I can remember. How many were on scholarship? I think the goal should be 4-5 per year, 20 on the roster.

We graduated 5 senior OL from last year's roster? Brought in 2 scholarship freshmen, one undersized as you point out. Plus 3 freshman walkons?

Next year we again only bring in 2 scholarship OL (one not listed at the position).

Hopefully our new offensive staff addresses this gaping weakness in our desire to play smash mouth football.


Almost no program has more then 15 scholarship OL on the roster.

They lost Bennett, Uluave, Ooms and Gibson from last class. They brought in Mettauer, Driscoll, Rohme and a swing guy (Coleman), who ended up on the OL midseason and going forward so it was a wash.

There are 3 slated to play OL in the next class: Johnson, Aguilar and Roberts. They're not losing any scholarship OL this year, either, though they lost Friis during the season.


Thanks. I missed Johnson. Weird that a service would list a 6'3 280 lb kid as an ATH. Aguilar at 6'5 245, yes. In fact, Id like to see him start out as a blocking TE (his listed position).

Even if you think our current depth is more than adequate, I do think it will improve under Angus who is known for being a good recruiter.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ncsf said:

Callisto said:

Ncsf said:

bonsallbear said:

PGood grief! It's this the best Wilcox could do? After a great hire in Musgrave, this is a total let down. What input did Musgrave have? This indeed is a head scratcher. We needed a solid recruiter and I don't see this as being the answer.
Here's the good part- you have no clue on this. Neither do I. If we trust him on the hires we like, shouldn't we trust him on the ones we honestly have no idea on?
Or alternatively, we could be neutral on the hires until we see how the coaches recruit and their units perform.

From a technical standpoint, I've always had the opinion that there are tons of guys that can do a fine job of coaching RB's. The difference between coaches is how well they recruit. Since this guy doesn't have a track record of recruiting the kinds of guys we want to land, I have no idea how well he will recruit in a bigger pond. We'll find out down the road.
You are correct, you have no idea. That said, Wilcox does. I bet he did homework with his recruiting contacts. That's why I'm siding with the guy that hired him


Looking at Cal Poly's recruiting and their roster:
https://www.gopoly.com/sports/fball/2019-20/roster

LA (Thompson's specific responsibility) is largely missing from their roster. They recruit more from the Bay Area, Fresno, Sacramento, San Diego, Ventura. It is even more pronounced at his position: FB and SB (they use a slot back instead of a RB). Here are where their FBs and SBs are from: San Jose, Sacramento, Claremont, Concord, Santa Maria, Palo Alto, Clovis, Folsom, Antioch, Tracy, Ventura, Woodland, Elk Grove, Oakdale...

If he has connections to those places, that will be good, as they are major recruiting areas for Cal.
mdbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

At least Wilcox had two stints working with him so he's in a good position to know what he's getting and what his upside is at Cal.
Moraga Bear is on target as usual. This is all about trusting Wilcox to recognize coaching talent. In my view, Wilcox is the most promising HC at Cal since the early years of Tedford, so he has earned the benefit of the doubt.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89 said:

91Cal said:

Cal89 said:

MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
Right you are MB. Now that I look back, the past three years, 114th, 107th and 124th in sacks allowed. Damn.

calumnus, individually, guys did pretty well, as you noted. When looking at such individual numbers from an FBS perspective, it's not all that good though...

Cal rushers in the top 100 in FBS (yds/carry with at least 4 rushes a game average):

2013 - Cal had one guy in the top 100 (57th)
2014 - None
2015 - Two guys (22nd and 100th)
2016 - None
2017 - One (67th)
2018 - None
2019 - None

More importantly, as noted earlier, the team's ground production as a whole has been subpar (under SD) to quite poor lately (JW).

There upside potential is there for sure...
Despite Greatwood's accomplishments, it's been hard to overcome an offensive scheme that didn't adjust to personnel or injuries...or was the OL a contributor? I am not knowledgable enough about OL to gauge this in any way
For starters, in 2017, our biggest concern was the O line. As I recall, it was the least experienced one we've had to start a season. The QB spot was green too, likely the least experienced since 2013...

Given the many sacks allowed, as MB called-out earlier and I provided the supporting numbers, the equally poor ground game, the O line's production is certainly contributory. They will be a veteran group next year though!




At the end of 2016, many thought our returning OL was our biggest strength: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.californiagoldenblogs.com/platform/amp/2017/1/18/14148490/2016-cal-football-year-in-review-offensive-line

The question mark was QB and defense, but the consensus was the returning OL and offensive skill position players (WR, RB, TE) were the strength of the team.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Cal89 said:

91Cal said:

Cal89 said:

MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
Right you are MB. Now that I look back, the past three years, 114th, 107th and 124th in sacks allowed. Damn.

calumnus, individually, guys did pretty well, as you noted. When looking at such individual numbers from an FBS perspective, it's not all that good though...

Cal rushers in the top 100 in FBS (yds/carry with at least 4 rushes a game average):

2013 - Cal had one guy in the top 100 (57th)
2014 - None
2015 - Two guys (22nd and 100th)
2016 - None
2017 - One (67th)
2018 - None
2019 - None

More importantly, as noted earlier, the team's ground production as a whole has been subpar (under SD) to quite poor lately (JW).

There upside potential is there for sure...
Despite Greatwood's accomplishments, it's been hard to overcome an offensive scheme that didn't adjust to personnel or injuries...or was the OL a contributor? I am not knowledgable enough about OL to gauge this in any way
For starters, in 2017, our biggest concern was the O line. As I recall, it was the least experienced one we've had to start a season. The QB spot was green too, likely the least experienced since 2013...

Given the many sacks allowed, as MB called-out earlier and I provided the supporting numbers, the equally poor ground game, the O line's production is certainly contributory. They will be a veteran group next year though!




At the end of 2016, many thought our returning OL was our biggest strength: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.californiagoldenblogs.com/platform/amp/2017/1/18/14148490/2016-cal-football-year-in-review-offensive-line

The question mark was QB and defense, but the consensus was the returning OL and offensive skill position players (WR, RB, TE) were the strength of the team.

I'll accept the fact that I might be remembering incorrectly, but I seem to recall quite vividly that going into the 2017 season the OL was a huge area of concern. I even remember many of us concerned about such. If I remember correctly... I believe in 2018 we returned all of our O line starters though.

Cal's preseason "record book" often touts our returners by position, and I don't see the OL called-out.

https://calbears.com/documents/2017/7/26/17FB_Cal_Record_Book.pdf

EDIT/ADD: I think I do remember correctly. From Athlon:

Cal faces a major rebuild along its offensive line after the departure of three players who combined to start 103 career games. Center Addison Ooms, a one-time walk-on, is the only returning starter after Dwayne Wallace decided to leave the team in June.

EDIT/ADD 2: Ok, I feel even better, Phil Steele (Cal = 126th in OL career starts going into 2017)...

http://plus.philsteele.com/Blogs/2017/JUNE17/DBJune13.html

Also according to Phil Steele the 2017 Cal team was 110th overall in his Experience Chart. The 2017 team, the first year for JW, had its share of challenges from the get-go, particularly on offense (QB and OL)...
Sig test...
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89 said:

calumnus said:

Cal89 said:

91Cal said:

Cal89 said:

MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
Right you are MB. Now that I look back, the past three years, 114th, 107th and 124th in sacks allowed. Damn.

calumnus, individually, guys did pretty well, as you noted. When looking at such individual numbers from an FBS perspective, it's not all that good though...

Cal rushers in the top 100 in FBS (yds/carry with at least 4 rushes a game average):

2013 - Cal had one guy in the top 100 (57th)
2014 - None
2015 - Two guys (22nd and 100th)
2016 - None
2017 - One (67th)
2018 - None
2019 - None

More importantly, as noted earlier, the team's ground production as a whole has been subpar (under SD) to quite poor lately (JW).

There upside potential is there for sure...
Despite Greatwood's accomplishments, it's been hard to overcome an offensive scheme that didn't adjust to personnel or injuries...or was the OL a contributor? I am not knowledgable enough about OL to gauge this in any way
For starters, in 2017, our biggest concern was the O line. As I recall, it was the least experienced one we've had to start a season. The QB spot was green too, likely the least experienced since 2013...

Given the many sacks allowed, as MB called-out earlier and I provided the supporting numbers, the equally poor ground game, the O line's production is certainly contributory. They will be a veteran group next year though!




At the end of 2016, many thought our returning OL was our biggest strength: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.californiagoldenblogs.com/platform/amp/2017/1/18/14148490/2016-cal-football-year-in-review-offensive-line

The question mark was QB and defense, but the consensus was the returning OL and offensive skill position players (WR, RB, TE) were the strength of the team.

I'll accept the fact that I might be remembering incorrectly, but I seem to recall quite vividly that going into the 2017 season the OL was a huge area of concern. I even remember many of us concerned about such. If I remember correctly... I believe in 2018 we returned all of our O line starters though.

Cal's preseason "record book" often touts our returners by position, and I don't see the OL called-out.

https://calbears.com/documents/2017/7/26/17FB_Cal_Record_Book.pdf

EDIT/ADD: I think I do remember correctly. From Athlon:

Cal faces a major rebuild along its offensive line after the departure of three players who combined to start 103 career games. Center Addison Ooms, a one-time walk-on, is the only returning starter after Dwayne Wallace decided to leave the team in June.

EDIT/ADD 2: Ok, I feel even better, Phil Steele (Cal = 126th in OL career starts going into 2017)...

http://plus.philsteele.com/Blogs/2017/JUNE17/DBJune13.html

Also according to Phil Steele the 2017 Cal team was 110th overall in his Experience Chart. The 2017 team, the first year for JW, had its share of challenges from the get-go, particularly on offense (QB and OL)...


Interesting. One discrepancy is "starter" versus "significant game experience." In 2016 we had a great line with two(?) seniors in the two-deep? However, I forgot that probably our best OL, Aaron Cochran, was one of the many offensive players that transferred in 2017, before or early in the season.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Cal89 said:

calumnus said:

Cal89 said:

91Cal said:

Cal89 said:

MoragaBear said:

Cal89 said:

Our running game has been poor in the JW era. Even late JT it was top half of FBS, often top 25-30% in yards per carry...

It fell-off in 2013 and became rather average the last three SD years (54th - 86th in FBS).

The years so far under JW, yards/carry:

2017 = 3.62 (108th)
2018 = 4.2 (78th - running QBs likely the reason)
2019 = 3.59 (113th)

With Musgrave's multiple TE sets, if we do indeed see that here, it would be nice to see us back above 4 yards a carry again...
Cal gave up some of the most sacks in the country, especially when they had so many OL out. That dramatically impacted the ypc numbers, as did the patchwork OL on the RB numbers during those games.
Right you are MB. Now that I look back, the past three years, 114th, 107th and 124th in sacks allowed. Damn.

calumnus, individually, guys did pretty well, as you noted. When looking at such individual numbers from an FBS perspective, it's not all that good though...

Cal rushers in the top 100 in FBS (yds/carry with at least 4 rushes a game average):

2013 - Cal had one guy in the top 100 (57th)
2014 - None
2015 - Two guys (22nd and 100th)
2016 - None
2017 - One (67th)
2018 - None
2019 - None

More importantly, as noted earlier, the team's ground production as a whole has been subpar (under SD) to quite poor lately (JW).

There upside potential is there for sure...
Despite Greatwood's accomplishments, it's been hard to overcome an offensive scheme that didn't adjust to personnel or injuries...or was the OL a contributor? I am not knowledgable enough about OL to gauge this in any way
For starters, in 2017, our biggest concern was the O line. As I recall, it was the least experienced one we've had to start a season. The QB spot was green too, likely the least experienced since 2013...

Given the many sacks allowed, as MB called-out earlier and I provided the supporting numbers, the equally poor ground game, the O line's production is certainly contributory. They will be a veteran group next year though!




At the end of 2016, many thought our returning OL was our biggest strength: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.californiagoldenblogs.com/platform/amp/2017/1/18/14148490/2016-cal-football-year-in-review-offensive-line

The question mark was QB and defense, but the consensus was the returning OL and offensive skill position players (WR, RB, TE) were the strength of the team.

I'll accept the fact that I might be remembering incorrectly, but I seem to recall quite vividly that going into the 2017 season the OL was a huge area of concern. I even remember many of us concerned about such. If I remember correctly... I believe in 2018 we returned all of our O line starters though.

Cal's preseason "record book" often touts our returners by position, and I don't see the OL called-out.

https://calbears.com/documents/2017/7/26/17FB_Cal_Record_Book.pdf

EDIT/ADD: I think I do remember correctly. From Athlon:

Cal faces a major rebuild along its offensive line after the departure of three players who combined to start 103 career games. Center Addison Ooms, a one-time walk-on, is the only returning starter after Dwayne Wallace decided to leave the team in June.

EDIT/ADD 2: Ok, I feel even better, Phil Steele (Cal = 126th in OL career starts going into 2017)...

http://plus.philsteele.com/Blogs/2017/JUNE17/DBJune13.html

Also according to Phil Steele the 2017 Cal team was 110th overall in his Experience Chart. The 2017 team, the first year for JW, had its share of challenges from the get-go, particularly on offense (QB and OL)...


Interesting. One discrepancy is "starter" versus "significant game experience." In 2016 we had a great line with two(?) seniors in the two-deep? However, I forgot that probably our best OL, Aaron Cochran, was one of the many offensive players that transferred in 2017, before or early in the season.

Replacing a veteran QB with one who has very little to no collegiate experience most often produces undesirable results. Losing a lot of experience on the OL can be more impactful. We had a healthy does of both to start the JW era in 2017...

That all said, the Ducks look to face the same in 2020; and we have them at home!
Sig test...
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

I'm hoping there was a connection with the Fresno area. I'd love it if we could land more academically eligible talent out of Fresno/Clovis area.
Since when has there been academically eligible talent out of Fresno/Clovis area?
Page 2 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.