OaktownBear said:
calumnus said:
OaktownBear said:
PtownBear1 said:
OaktownBear said:
calumnus said:
PtownBear1 said:
OaktownBear said:
PtownBear1 said:
calumnus said:
sluggo said:
HoopDreams said:
it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that
we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents
Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.
Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310
As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.
The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.
At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.
He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.
This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.
Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...
Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.
We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.
Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the Dykes hire but the biggest critics of that hire are huge fans of the Wilcox hire. They are similar, both up and coming coaches that we hoped could be successful HCs at the P5 level. At least Dykes had been a successful HC at a lower level.. It didn't help much with his selection of DC, but then he did do something about it: fired Buh and focused more recruiting effort on defense, which paid off In Wilcox x's first two years. Under Wilcox we are going into year 5 still hoping to not have one of the worst offenses in college football yet again. I do think this is the year.
Dykes had not been a successful HC at a lower level. That is the problem that due diligence would have uncovered. He had one good year with a ton of fourth and fifth year players in the offensive two deep, had never had a high level of success at any level and didn't beat teams with winning records. I would argue that on close inspection he in some ways had the least accomplished resume of any head coach hired in the Pac-12 over a 20 year period.
When hired, Wilcox had been a coach on 6 teams that won 10 or more games. Dykes had been a coach on zero.
Derailing the thread here, but there's not much to discuss with respect to Cal BB right now anyway.
Dykes actually had two good years at LA Tech - 8 wins and first place in the WAC his second year followed by 9 wins in his third year. IIRC they lost to Mac and SJSU for the title in his 3rd year. Obviously, this is all subjective, but I see that as more valuable experience for a HC position than being a defensive assistant on several winning teams.
yeah, I just don't see 8-5 at a non-power school as impressive. Further, those 2 years LaTech had a roster with the highest rated recruits in its conference - recruits for the most part he didn't bring in. He had the most talent and experience on his roster in the conference - something that was never going to happen at Cal.
As for the last point, we just disagree. Of course I would rather have a HC with top ten finishes and 10-12 win seasons. But when I can't have that, a coach who has coached on 6 power conference teams that finished in the top 10 with 10 or more wins (5 as a DC) is a better bet than a coach that once won 9 games as a HC of a non power conference team. All day. Every day. 9 wins is just not special. No reason to think that is going to improve. A coordinator who has been a part of success at the highest level, especially 5 times, may not make the jump, but there is at least a reasonable chance he has learned something from the top coaches he has worked for that he can bring to the table.
Tom Holmoe was an assistant on a Walsh team that won the PAC-10 and Seifert's 49er Super Bowl Champion teams. It did not mean he was a good candidate to be a head coach. Football is different, if you have only coached one side of the ball it is a big step to be in charge of the whole thing. Especially if you come from the defensive side because so many of the HC's in game decisions relate to the offense. Having experience as a HC, even at a lower level, is critical, especially if you come from the defensive side.
Dykes's success as HC at Louisiana Tech and as OC at Arizona was easily good enough to be considered. However, there were guys I liked better. Guys that could better push and represent the Cal brand. I am still pissed that ASU hired Herm Edwards after so many Cal fans dismissed him as a candidate twice.
Tom Holmoe did not contribute to the 49ers and he was an inexperienced DB coach on a Walsh team that took the prior coach's guys and won 10 and then sucked for two years. Then he stepped up to DC and coached the worst defense in America. Every job he had he was handed because gosh darn Tom was a swell guy. Everything he did as a coach screamed Don't hire this guy. That is not the same as Wilcox's record as a DC. Yeah, I would absolutely hire Dykes over Holmoe given their resume when Cal hired them.
And besides, I'm not saying that winning 10 makes you instantly qualified. I would not have hired Wilcox to replace Tedford if he had left in when Wilcox was there just, because Wilcox was LB coach. But yeah, 5 top 10 finishes as DC beats what was on Dykes resume any day.
If you are going to limit Cal to guys with HC experience, expect subpar candidates.
I just think it is tougher for a DC to jump into the HC job in college.
Wilcox was a good DC, but let's look at that:
Before Cal he was the DC for one year at Wisconsin. The year before he took over they had the #1 scoring defense, #4 in yards per play. He delivered the #4 scoring defense and #18 ypp defense. They were better defensively the year before he came and the year after he left. Still, yes they won a lot of games the year he was there. The year after he left they went 13-1.
Before that he was the DC two years at USC overseeing the #45 and #50 scoring defenses and the #44 and #81 defenses in yards per play.
Before that he was the DC two years at UW with Tosh as his DL coach and Shaq Thompson at LB flipped from Cal. He oversaw the #39 and #28 scoring defenses and the #54 and #21 defenses in yards per play.
Before that he was the DC two years at Tennessee where he oversaw the #56 and #36 scoring defense and #55 and #59 defenses in ypp. Teams that went 3-5 and 1-7 in conference before.
Before Wisconsin, his best defenses were under Peterson at Boise State, paired with the best offense in the country against subpar completion. He had moderate success when combined with Tosh as a recruiter or taking over the best defense in the country.
So he has been the DC on some winning teams, and some bad teams. He is clearly well-liked and respected in the coaching fraternity and was fortunate to work under very successful head coaches. Wyking had that.
Dykes was HC and his team had the #1 offense in the country at 51.5 ppg and a 9-3 record. That gets attention. It was also having the #119 defense that should have been a red flag.
As I said, I am wary of DCs as HCs at the college level unless there is budget for a proven great OC too. I'd rather a DC first get his HC chops at a lower level. I think we have seen that with Wilcox. The top 3 highest paid coaches have been on the defense. We were stocked bodies at LB. We converted our fastest player from WR to Safety even after most of our WRs left the team. Our offense was among the worst in college football four years in a row.
However, our recruiting has picked up, especially on offense. I think we are poised for a breakthrough.
