Photo by Bear Insider
Cal Football

Baldwin Likes Bears Effort in Tuesday's Practice

September 3, 2019
4,033

 

The Bears went through a lengthy practice on Tuesday, and the effort was better than that of a week ago, according to offensive coordinator Beau Baldwin, who liked what he saw on the floor of Memorial Stadium.

“The key will be sustaining it during the week, though,” he said “I’ve seen bad Tuesdays that won ball games (last week for example) and I’ve seen great Tuesdays that don’t. So I don’t get too high or too low. But I was very happy with how we started today.”

He is preparing his offense to face Washington, traditionally one of the better defenses in the country. The Huskies lost quite a few top-line players from 2018, but Baldwin says they are simply reloading.

“They’ll be good again,” he said. “They have talent that comes in and replaces talent that left. It’ll be a challenge, no question. There are some guys who do some special things. Number 95 (Levi Owunzurike) stands out to me. He does a lot of great things. I know it’s a relatively new group, but they play their tails off.”

He went to praise “5 (Myles Bryant), 3 (Elijah Molden) and 27 (Keith Taylor). “I’m a numbers guy,” he said. “That’s how I look at it. We played against 27 in the past, he’s long and rangy so we’re going to have our hands full.”

He was asked about the three offensive turnovers in the season-opening win against UC Davis, and if they were offset by the 471 total net yards. “I am not even worried about the yardage,” he said. “Total yards sometimes is irrelevant. The stat you brought up (turnovers) that’s what wins and loses you ball games. In a lot of situations, you won’t come out with a win if you lose the turnover battle. 

“But we did a study, and turnovers and chunk plays are the biggest difference, and that’s where we offset it with our eight chunk plays as opposed to their two or three chunk plays.”

Baldwin said he was happy that quarterback Chase Garbers was able to overcome some early mistakes (interception, missed receivers) and rally the offense. “I think they asked me that last week, ‘How important is a fast start?” You always want it, but it’s not like if you don’t have a fast start the world is going to end. You’ve gotta keep grinding, and find ways to make adjustments and that’s what he was able to do.

“He was able to see some things they were doing that were different from what we saw on film. We were able to get rolling and scoring four of five drives in the second and third quarters. He just stayed calm through it all. He’ll be the first to tell you though, in terms of his grades and the standard he played at, he’s going to take it to a whole other standard. He’s not where we believe it should be or will be.”

The tight ends did not show up much on the stat sheet, Jake Tonges and Gavin Reinwald had one catch apiece, and McCallan Castles dropped a throw from Garbers. Still, Baldwin felt as a position the group acquitted itself fairly well. 

“They did a good job and they’re young,” Baldwin said. “Those guys haven’t played a lot of ball. A couple of them it is their first action. Calley (Castles) played a little last year it was a spot here or there. So it was the first extensive action any of them had. Even if you go back to Gavin’s freshman year, he was used as more of a receiver. Now he’s playing true tight end. That group’s a good group they are working their tails off, and they are going to continue to ascend as the season goes.

“I think that is the type of group you are going to see as much group as any other position, because of their youth and their want-to.”

The Bears don’t discuss injuries unless they are season-ending, but in running down the wide receivers Baldwin said, “You’ve got Monroe (Young) possibly coming back from injury…” The redshirt freshman was listed among the players who dressed for the Davis game, but apparently he is ailing.

Discussion from...

Baldwin Likes Bears Effort in Tuesday's Practice

2,447 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by PtownBear1
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Cal's offense steps up, I've got money on all the credit going to players and little to BB.
WavyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I cant wait till Baldwin is gone.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WavyBear said:

I cant wait till Baldwin is gone.
lol
fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"I've seen bad Tuesdays that won ball games (last week for example) and I've seen great Tuesdays that don't."

Wow - insightful. This guy talks like his offense ... Multiple pieces of BS.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat_slice said:

"I've seen bad Tuesdays that won ball games (last week for example) and I've seen great Tuesdays that don't."

Wow - insightful. This guy talks like his offense ... Multiple pieces of BS.



So one MIGHT come to the conclusion that it is something other than effort and execution at Tuesday practices that win ballgames.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Baldwin's pressers are getting more Art Kaufman-esq by the day. "Good day out there. The kids got a lot of work out there.". And then we got the Saturday 50 drop.
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

If Cal's offense steps up, I've got money on all the credit going to players and little to BB.
As it should be. An aberration from the norm doesn't change the pattern. Something outside the pattern shifted to explain the aberration - either the players played with emotional intensity or (more likely) UW was careless on their side of the ball. Attributing a one-off to the coach doesn't make sense.

It's like looking at Aaron Rodgers in the Oregon State game in 2003 and saying "he's not a good QB," ignoring his previous record and the fact he was coming off an injury against SC, where he played very well.
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

Baldwin's pressers are getting more Art Kaufman-esq by the day. "Good day out there. The kids got a lot of work out there.". And then we got the Saturday 50 drop.
They're really flying around out there.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quite a convenient spin: dude sounds just like a recent coordinator who we think sucked!
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I remember when we were worried that he would get poached by Oregon St. for an HC job.
LOL, what might have been.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

GBear4Life said:

If Cal's offense steps up, I've got money on all the credit going to players and little to BB.
As it should be. An aberration from the norm doesn't change the pattern. Something outside the pattern shifted to explain the aberration - either the players played with emotional intensity or (more likely) UW was careless on their side of the ball. Attributing a one-off to the coach doesn't make sense.

It's like looking at Aaron Rodgers in the Oregon State game in 2003 and saying "he's not a good QB," ignoring his previous record and the fact he was coming off an injury against SC, where he played very well.


I agree with your premise but it is interesting to note that in that half against USC Rodgers did some great things but also committed 3 turnovers (2 interception and a fumble) which was comparable to McIlwain doing great things but committing 4 turnovers in a full game against Arizona. The difference is we remember Rodgers' play that day as "playing well" and McIllwain was pilloried, his position changed and now is no longer even on the team. Why? Well importantly we beat USC (despite the score being tied 21-21 and SC getting the ball when he left) and we ended up losing to Arizona. But just as importantly, as you say, People saw Rodgers mistakes and bad play as an aberration, even to the point they don't register the mistakes, whereas people came to expect turnovers from McIllwain and the Arizona game confirmed their judgement of McIlwain from previous games (ie confirmation bias). We were right about Rodgers but it is sad to think we might have been wrong about McIllwain. He had a good arm and was our leading rusher up until he was no longer playing. His downside, making mistakesmostly forcing balls into coverage, can be coached. Strong arms and speed cannot. I supported starting Garbers without subbing because it seemed like McIilwain was in a slump and Garbers was more judicious in his passing and could also run well enough. However, whether it is due to injury or something else, he is not throwing a good ball right now. McIllwain might have overcome the interceptions and proved to be the player his accolades suggested. Now we will never know. Hopefully Garbers or Modster are revelations soon.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It was concerning that he ran through traffic with the ball away from his body. Those fumbles did not seem like aberrations, unfortunately.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've gone back and read the articles on Baldwin from another site his first year. It really sounds great, "he's great at tailoring the offense to the strengths of his team and the strengths of the players on the field." "Great teacher" "really smart" etc. I wonder why we aren't seeing that? Almost the opposite. Though the articles also confirmed that for his record breaking offense his last year at EWU he let Troy Taylor completely run the offense including all playcalling.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Uthaithani said:

GBear4Life said:

If Cal's offense steps up, I've got money on all the credit going to players and little to BB.
As it should be. An aberration from the norm doesn't change the pattern. Something outside the pattern shifted to explain the aberration - either the players played with emotional intensity or (more likely) UW was careless on their side of the ball. Attributing a one-off to the coach doesn't make sense.

It's like looking at Aaron Rodgers in the Oregon State game in 2003 and saying "he's not a good QB," ignoring his previous record and the fact he was coming off an injury against SC, where he played very well.


I agree with your premise but it is interesting to note that in that half against USC Rodgers did some great things but also committed 3 turnovers (2 interception and a fumble) which was comparable to McIlwain doing great things but committing 4 turnovers in a full game against Arizona. The difference is we remember Rodgers' play that day as "playing well" and McIllwain was pilloried, his position changed and now is no longer even on the team. Why? Well importantly we beat USC (despite the score being tied 21-21 and SC getting the ball when he left) and we ended up losing to Arizona. But just as importantly, as you say, People saw Rodgers mistakes and bad play as an aberration, even to the point they don't register the mistakes, whereas people came to expect turnovers from McIllwain and the Arizona game confirmed their judgement of McIlwain from previous games (ie confirmation bias). We were right about Rodgers but it is sad to think we might have been wrong about McIllwain. He had a good arm and was our leading rusher up until he was no longer playing. His downside, making mistakesmostly forcing balls into coverage, can be coached. Strong arms and speed cannot. I supported starting Garbers without subbing because it seemed like McIilwain was in a slump and Garbers was more judicious in his passing and could also run well enough. However, whether it is due to injury or something else, he is not throwing a good ball right now. McIllwain might have overcome the interceptions and proved to be the player his accolades suggested. Now we will never know. Hopefully Garbers or Modster are revelations soon.
You and I might be the only ones who think McIlwain deserved another chance. Then again, I didn't see UA or the whole stretch where he played.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I might be the only one here who thinks BB is the right guy for the job. I think we're going to make great strides this season.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

calumnus said:

Uthaithani said:

GBear4Life said:

If Cal's offense steps up, I've got money on all the credit going to players and little to BB.
As it should be. An aberration from the norm doesn't change the pattern. Something outside the pattern shifted to explain the aberration - either the players played with emotional intensity or (more likely) UW was careless on their side of the ball. Attributing a one-off to the coach doesn't make sense.

It's like looking at Aaron Rodgers in the Oregon State game in 2003 and saying "he's not a good QB," ignoring his previous record and the fact he was coming off an injury against SC, where he played very well.


I agree with your premise but it is interesting to note that in that half against USC Rodgers did some great things but also committed 3 turnovers (2 interception and a fumble) which was comparable to McIlwain doing great things but committing 4 turnovers in a full game against Arizona. The difference is we remember Rodgers' play that day as "playing well" and McIllwain was pilloried, his position changed and now is no longer even on the team. Why? Well importantly we beat USC (despite the score being tied 21-21 and SC getting the ball when he left) and we ended up losing to Arizona. But just as importantly, as you say, People saw Rodgers mistakes and bad play as an aberration, even to the point they don't register the mistakes, whereas people came to expect turnovers from McIllwain and the Arizona game confirmed their judgement of McIlwain from previous games (ie confirmation bias). We were right about Rodgers but it is sad to think we might have been wrong about McIllwain. He had a good arm and was our leading rusher up until he was no longer playing. His downside, making mistakesmostly forcing balls into coverage, can be coached. Strong arms and speed cannot. I supported starting Garbers without subbing because it seemed like McIilwain was in a slump and Garbers was more judicious in his passing and could also run well enough. However, whether it is due to injury or something else, he is not throwing a good ball right now. McIllwain might have overcome the interceptions and proved to be the player his accolades suggested. Now we will never know. Hopefully Garbers or Modster are revelations soon.
You and I might be the only ones who think McIlwain deserved another chance. Then again, I didn't see UA or the whole stretch where he played.


Even the best pitchers in baseball have stretches where they cannot throw a strike or are getting rocked and need to give way to a reliever.

Sometimes college QBs go through bad spells, need to sit and be coached up. Rogers has a horrible game against Oregon State, during it I thought "Just bring in Robertson again." Goff had a horrible outing at Oregon in 2013, during it I thought "Just bring in Kline." McIllwain was throwing picks but that is something that coaching can eventually fix. His potential upside over Garbers seemed obvious, but Garbers was as the obvious choice to play since he was making better decisions at the time. We needed playmakers so I thought it made sense to move McIlwain to the slot, at least temporarily. When Garbers later got into his own funk, McIllwain might have been ready to give it another go. In the Cheezit at least he should have gotten a shot to redeem himself and put himself back into contention this year.
PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

I might be the only one here who thinks BB is the right guy for the job. I think we're going to make great strides this season.


There are a lot of funny posts in this thread but this one had me laughing the hardest.

Obviously I hope you're right and we all look like idiots for bagging on Baldwin, but it seems less likely than Buh turning Rutgers into a defensive power house. How the hell does this guy keeping getting DC jobs btw??? If he ever runs out of colleges, he could write a best seller on interview techniques.
Page 1 of 1
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.