Story Poster
Photo by © Kelley L Cox USA Today
Cal Football

Wilcox Press Conference: Injury update and some thoughts

October 5, 2021
9,966

Head coach Justin Wilcox had a Zoom press conference on Tuesday, he offered an update on injuries and discussed some areas where they Bears desperately need to improve.

The most distressing news is that nose guard Stanley McKenzie, who was injured ten days ago against Washington and did not play in the loss to Washington State on Saturday, would not be back this season. 

He also said that linebacker Kuony Deng, who has missed three games, will be out, “for the foreseeable future.” Deng, the senior who is one of Bears' key defenders, was hurt against TCU on Sept, 11.

The other injury updates were more encouraging. 

Running back DeCarlos Brooks will be week to week. Wide receiver Nikko Regmigio, who had to leave the WSU game, “is feeling better. He’s day to day.”

Offensive tackle Will Craig, “got nicked up earlier in the game. Tried to continue to go and couldn’t quite do that. It will ge a day-by-day assessment for Will. He was out there getting some exercise yesterday.”

Linebacker Evan Tattersall was injured last week, but was given clearance to play. However he never saw the field.

The pass rush against Washington State was virtually non-existant. WSU had 42 pass attempts, but the Bears managed but one sack.

Wilcox said the Bears are doing pretty much all they can. He said better effort is needed from both players and coaches.

“We’ll put the guys that we think can best help us win on the field we’re not hiding anybody, or holding anybody back from the personnel,” Wilcox said. “The pass rush, there are times when we are going to bring three rushers, four rushers, five rushers, even six rushers. And we did that during the game at different moments. We need to be better at pass rush. The other teams have schemes, too. They have protections and there is only so many times when you are going to get free runners with pressure. Most times when you affect the quarterback you are winning the one-on-one in some way, shape or form. We need to do a better job in some of those one-on-one situations in affecting the quarterback. Getting him off this spot, sacking him, getting him on the ground. We didn’t do a good enough job of that.

“I don’t know that we’ve done a great job.. There have been spurts during the year when we’ve done better than others. But as a whole that’s an area we should certainly improve upon. Again, it’s the coaches providing instruction and the players being accountable to doing that on Saturday.”

And the reverse is true. Cal has had trouble protecting Chase Garbers, and that was especially true against Washington State.

“I felt like we took a step backwards,” Wilcox said of the offensive line. “We didn’t protect real well. We didn’t block the run game real well. Across the board we didn’t block real well.”

For the third time this year, there was an issue with the snap on a placement try. This was a low snap on a PAT that holder Jamieson Sheahan could not handle. 

When asked if there might be personnel changes, Wilcox took a long time to give a non-answer.

“Specialists have a unique job in football. It is a repetitive skill different than some of the position players because it is one thing they are asked to do over and over again,” he said. “ We’ve had some guys who have been really good at it, and there are times in people’s careers when they are just a little bit off. And we’ve got to help them in every way possible. Whether it’s our meetings, or the drill work, or putting them at ease so they can trust their technique, their training and their ability to get that job done again.

“We are going to work with all the specialists, based on what they need as individuals. It is a different skill than some of the position players because it is over and over again. Sometimes you get a little bit off. You can try too hard.”

 

 

Discussion from...

Wilcox Press Conference: Injury update and some thoughts

9,512 Views | 50 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by mbBear
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Haha keep OT stuff where it belongs.

Don't be messy
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

These "student athletes" are not professionals thus don't treat them as such …
The athletes are not infants, either. Or pieces on a chessboard. We shouldn't act like the coaches are chess players and the players have no more agency or responsibility than a chess piece.

Criticize the coaches more, because they make seven figures or high six figures? Yes.

Act like the players have no part in the game whatsoever other than as chess pieces, and thus deserve neither credit nor blame? No.
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

going4roses said:

These "student athletes" are not professionals thus don't treat them as such …
The athletes are not infants, either. Or pieces on a chessboard. We shouldn't act like the coaches are chess players and the players have no more agency or responsibility than a chess piece.

Criticize the coaches more, because they make seven figures or high six figures? Yes.

Act like the players have no part in the game whatsoever other than as chess pieces, and thus deserve neither credit nor blame? No.
Obviously D1 football players know they open themselves up to scrutiny by the nature of being D1 football players. Why do you (generic you, not you specifically) have to be the one tearing down unpaid, undercompensated students, most of whom can't legally drink or gamble, and who risk long-term health effects for your entertainment.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bobodeluxe said:

"The[y] are athletes who represent a particular school."

I don't think this is true any longer, if it ever was. This is business now, more than ever. These kids pick a program to play in for many different reasons, and I believe "representing" is lower on the list than it ever has.

Semantics? Maybe so.
Yeah, semantics. I meant it in a literal sense not in the colloquial.

College athletics is more than a business. It an industry…..

going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly

Really pompous and troll like behavior

On top of being totally unproductive
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concernedparent said:

BearSD said:

going4roses said:

These "student athletes" are not professionals thus don't treat them as such …
The athletes are not infants, either. Or pieces on a chessboard. We shouldn't act like the coaches are chess players and the players have no more agency or responsibility than a chess piece.

Criticize the coaches more, because they make seven figures or high six figures? Yes.

Act like the players have no part in the game whatsoever other than as chess pieces, and thus deserve neither credit nor blame? No.
Obviously D1 football players know they open themselves up to scrutiny by the nature of being D1 football players. Why do you (generic you, not you specifically) have to be the one tearing down unpaid, undercompensated students, most of whom can't legally drink or gamble, and who risk long-term health effects for your entertainment.
Tearing them down shouldn't happen, but neither should there be a fantasy world in which everything that happens is credited to or blamed on coaches. We should be realistic.

One example: If a punt returner muffs the ball and the other team recovers, then the punt returner caused the turnover. Not the special teams coach. The special teams coach may have other issues, but not that one.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

concernedparent said:

BearSD said:

going4roses said:

These "student athletes" are not professionals thus don't treat them as such …
The athletes are not infants, either. Or pieces on a chessboard. We shouldn't act like the coaches are chess players and the players have no more agency or responsibility than a chess piece.

Criticize the coaches more, because they make seven figures or high six figures? Yes.

Act like the players have no part in the game whatsoever other than as chess pieces, and thus deserve neither credit nor blame? No.
Obviously D1 football players know they open themselves up to scrutiny by the nature of being D1 football players. Why do you (generic you, not you specifically) have to be the one tearing down unpaid, undercompensated students, most of whom can't legally drink or gamble, and who risk long-term health effects for your entertainment.
Tearing them down shouldn't happen, but neither should there be a fantasy world in which everything that happens is credited to or blamed on coaches. We should be realistic.

One example: If a punt returner muffs the ball and the other team recovers, then the punt returner caused the turnover. Not the special teams coach. The special teams coach may have other issues, but not that one.
Except if it happens frequently the player should be replaced.
Go Bears!
SpiritOf88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
POLL: Should Cal simply eliminate the football program? If the purpose of the program is to have a competitive team that is at least fun to watch most of the time, it's been a miserable failure for decades (last Rose Bowl appearance:1959; last conference championship: 2006 -- when it was called the Pac-10). Cal hasn't been consistently competitive in my lifetime, and I'm old. If the purpose is to serve as a training program for the NFL, the NFL should subsidize the $40 million program, the tab shouldn't go to California taxpayers. Cal rarely gets on national TV, because they suck and aren't fun to watch--not much broadcast revenue. Then there's that $321 million stadium which is rarely half full and sits right on a major earthquake fault. If this was a business, it would have failed a long time ago. The AD and Wilcox are being rewarded for failure. Ax both of them, or settle for perpetual football mediocrity. $40 million a year could put a lot of low-income California kids through school.
.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If I've said it once, …

.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm all for the elimination of this:

.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}
southseasbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SpiritOf88 said:

POLL: Should Cal simply eliminate the football program? If the purpose of the program is to have a competitive team that is at least fun to watch most of the time, it's been a miserable failure for decades (last Rose Bowl appearance:1959; last conference championship: 2006 -- when it was called the Pac-10). Cal hasn't been consistently competitive in my lifetime, and I'm old. If the purpose is to serve as a training program for the NFL, the NFL should subsidize the $40 million program, the tab shouldn't go to California taxpayers. Cal rarely gets on national TV, because they suck and aren't fun to watch--not much broadcast revenue. Then there's that $321 million stadium which is rarely half full and sits right on a major earthquake fault. If this was a business, it would have failed a long time ago. The AD and Wilcox are being rewarded for failure. Ax both of them, or settle for perpetual football mediocrity. $40 million a year could put a lot of low-income California kids through school.
.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}
I could be mistaken, but I believe the football program earns a profit that subsidizes many other sports (including women's teams). This does not include revenue from related sources such as sales of t-shirts, other memorabilia, and donations. Cut the football program and many other sports will follow.
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
southseasbear said:

SpiritOf88 said:

POLL: Should Cal simply eliminate the football program? If the purpose of the program is to have a competitive team that is at least fun to watch most of the time, it's been a miserable failure for decades (last Rose Bowl appearance:1959; last conference championship: 2006 -- when it was called the Pac-10). Cal hasn't been consistently competitive in my lifetime, and I'm old. If the purpose is to serve as a training program for the NFL, the NFL should subsidize the $40 million program, the tab shouldn't go to California taxpayers. Cal rarely gets on national TV, because they suck and aren't fun to watch--not much broadcast revenue. Then there's that $321 million stadium which is rarely half full and sits right on a major earthquake fault. If this was a business, it would have failed a long time ago. The AD and Wilcox are being rewarded for failure. Ax both of them, or settle for perpetual football mediocrity. $40 million a year could put a lot of low-income California kids through school.
.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}
I could be mistaken, but I believe the football program earns a profit that subsidizes many other sports (including women's teams). This does not include revenue from related sources such as sales of t-shirts, other memorabilia, and donations. Cut the football program and many other sports will follow.
you aren't mistaken.
And the poster, though claiming to be old, seems to not recall the Joe Roth year, the Snyder years, and the Tedford years....success happened before, it can happen again.
remb8888
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

going4roses said:

I know y'all are justifiably pissed.

But remember others can can read your comments go vent to you buddy or the bartender at the local pub or a therapist.

I'm hot too but I am not going throw the players under the bus because I want to selfishly vent.

Go Bears
Totally disagree. Once you have accepted a scholarship to a major program, you have put yourself into the public eye and are subject to being critiqued for your performance.

I believe the old saying is…

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Yah thumbs down on the original comment.

This is a message board. What do you think other fan message boards on every other sport and every other sporting team do?

You think censorship of a fan message board is the way to go? And if we complain about our crap program we're selfish? No one is actively throwing players under the bus. Give me a break.

This is like sunshine pumper 2.0. Another sunshine pumper theory we hear over and over again that has zero merit.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agree to disagree
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
remb8888 said:

71Bear said:

going4roses said:

I know y'all are justifiably pissed.

But remember others can can read your comments go vent to you buddy or the bartender at the local pub or a therapist.

I'm hot too but I am not going throw the players under the bus because I want to selfishly vent.

Go Bears
Totally disagree. Once you have accepted a scholarship to a major program, you have put yourself into the public eye and are subject to being critiqued for your performance.

I believe the old saying is…

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Yah thumbs down on the original comment.

This is a message board. What do you think other fan message boards on every other sport and every other sporting team do?

You think censorship of a fan message board is the way to go? And if we complain about our crap program we're selfish? No one is actively throwing players under the bus. Give me a break.

This is like sunshine pumper 2.0. Another sunshine pumper theory we hear over and over again that has zero merit.
"Sunshine pumper theory?" You mean, even when things are going pretty well, there isn't criticism?
You can be pretty positive and optimistic and still have critical thought..."Sunshine Pumper" has zero meaning here...
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.