Story Poster
Photo by Twitter / Cal Football

Why the Bears Could Go Bowling in 2023

August 25, 2023
11,680

The last three seasons have been a parade of disappointment for Cal fans but despite recent history and a brutal schedule, the 2023 Bears may just have what it takes to get back to a bowl game this season.

Since the Bears went 8-5 (4-5) in a solid but unspectacular 2019 season that ended with a 3-game win streak that included their first Big Game win in a decade, a road win at UCLA and a Red Box Bowl win over Illinois, there has been a steady diet of disappointment for the Bears. From the covid disaster 1-3 shortened season of 2020, to bitterly disappointing 5-7 and 4-8 seasons in 2021 and 2022, Cal fans are hungry to return to a bowl game in 2023 and this just might be the team to get them there. 

Cal QB Sam Jackson

With lackluster high school recruiting the last several years and a 10-18 cumulative record since 2019 combined with stiff road tests at Washington, Utah, Oregon and UCLA and home games vs. Auburn, USC and a resurgent Oregon State program, skeptics can’t be faulted for seeing another losing record on the horizon for the Bears this season. While that may well happen, here are some reasons to give Bear fans hope that a bowl game may still be in store for them this season as the Pac-12 sings its swan song before the big breakup after this season.

Portal Power

While the staff has had to largely try and mine for underrecruited athletes they see a future in on the prep level until they start winning again on the field, the landscape of the transfer portal and grad transfers allows a program who has struggled of late to still pull in a high caliber of transfer student athlete with hard work, a strong NIL program, opportunity for immediate playing time and a chance to have a major impact on the fortunes of their new program.

Cal OLB David Reese

All of those factors played into Cal’s hands with a transfer class that could help dramatically change the fortunes of the team this season. Players like QB Sam Jackson‍, RB Isaiah Ifanse‍, WRs Brian Hightower‍, Marquis Montgomery‍ and Taj Davis‍, offensive linemen Barrett Miller‍ and Matthew Wykoff‍, LBs David Reese‍ and Sergio Allen‍, DBs Nohl Williams‍, Matt Littlejohn‍, Patrick McMorris‍ and Kaylin Moore‍ and big leg punter Lachlan Wilson‍, not to mention RB Justin Williams-Thomas‍ should he see the field this season as expected after recuperating from his injury‍ could all play major roles in a resurgent Cal program this season.

Depth

Lack of depth has always been an Achilles Heel for the Bears over the years, even on some of their best teams. The D-word is the answer to how Cal could have put so many high-impact players in the NFL over the years yet rarely have seen double-digit win totals in their history. 

Depth was a big issue in 2022. When key defensive lineman Brett Johnson went down, starting nose tackle Stanley McKenzie was lost for the year with a family tragedy and young backup DL Akili Calhoun and Derek Wilkins went down as well, the Bears were paper thin on the DL and

CB Nohl Williams

struggled to mount a pass rush. Coupled with injuries in the defensive backfield that left the Bears relying on young and untested cornerbacks, they were forced to play a style of bend but-not-break defense that struggled to produce strong results. And when offensive line leader Matthew Cindric was lost for the season early on, an OL that was already mightily struggling, keeping QB Jack Plummer upright was a challenge and scoring points even more a struggle.

Though there are still some unanswered questions about certain position groups this season, throughout all 17 sessions of fall camp, quality depth showed up at all positions. A QB position that seemed particularly thin after spring saw redshirt frosh QB Fernando Mendoza significantly step up his game and both he and presumed starter Sam Jackson were pushed by NC State transfer Ben Finley, who brought some late-season starting experience with him. All three QBs seem capable of generating big plays downfield. The question is if all three can limit turnovers if their numbers are called come gameday. 

The WR room is positively loaded. Returning starters Jeremiah Hunter, Monroe Young and Mavin Anderson were joined by long, athletic receivers Hightower, Montgomery and Davis and a healthy return from slot receiver Mason Mangum, who’s had a particularly strong spring, not to mention

WR Brian Hightower

the impressive growth of redshirt frosh PWO receiver Trond Grizzell, who’s torn it up all spring and played himself to the top of the depth chart.

On the offensive line, the vets seem to have adapted well to new OL coach Mike Bloesch’s system. Returning starters Brian Driscoll, Matthew Cindric, Sioape Vatikani and TJ Session have all performed solidly and fairly consistently and appear to be joined by Stanford portal transfer Barrett Miller as the fifth starter at left tackle. Former starter Brayden Rohme, Texas A&M transfer Matthew Wykoff and center Dashaun Harris all appear to be capable backups to form an 8-man rotation. A caveat however was the line looked at least serviceable last fall and was anything but as things played out so how the line performs will be one of the stories to watch this season.

The running back room is potentially thin if Williams-Thomas doesn’t return anytime soon and will rely heavily on talented starter Jaydn Ott who is backed up by Montana State career yardage record holder Ifanse and speedy backups Ashton Stredick and Jaivien Thomas.

At tight end, the Bears were woefully lacking in the power game and unreliable in the passing

TE Jack Endries

game last season. They addressed the power element by adding OSU transfer JT Byrne and North Texas transfer Asher Alberding. The receiving threat option will come from RS frosh TE Jack Endries, who tore up spring ball and fall camp heading into the season and is poised to start.

On defense, with Johnson, McKenzie, Calhoun and Wilkins back and soph Nate Burrell taking a big jump this fall and Ethan Saunders also looking impressive, the line should be in far better position to pressure passing games and be stouter in the run. The linebacking corps added some pass rushing juice with the addition of Reese and Allen and go 2-3 deep at every position and the defensive backs corps features no less than 10 players in Williams, Moore, McMorris, Littlejohn, safeties Craig Woodson and Ray Woodie and corners Jeremiah Earby, Lu-Magia Hearns and Isaiah Young and nickel back Cam Sidney who are capable of being quality starters.

All-in-all, there is no comparison to this team’s quality depth compared to any Cal teams in the recent past.

Coaching Changes

Another Achilles Heel last season was coaching-related, with former OC Bill Musgrave’s outdated offense never finding a rhythm before he was relieved of his duties midseason as well as less-

OC Jake Spavital

than-steller OL coaching and development by departed OL coach Angus McClure, who met a similar fate to Musgrave during the season. Veteran TE coach Jeep Chryst was also replaced by former UC Davis and Boise State OC Tim Plough, who also played a role in Cal’s late-season play calling as an offensive consultant.

The replacement of Musgrave with veteran OC Jake Spavital, who is back at Cal after leading the Bears to the #10 rated offense, averaging 513 yards per game in total offense in 2016, has paid immediate dividends in breaking away from the stodgy west coast offense Musgrave ran at Cal. Spavital’s more wide-open, fast-paced offense should serve the Bears well with their plethora of big and athletic receivers, a lightning-quick dual threat QB in Jackson and a future NFL back like Jaydn Ott executing his scheme.

On the OL, new OL coach and run game coordinator Mike Bloesch has his charges playing much more as a unit and with a tougher mentality than we’ve seen in the trenches for years and with

OL coach Mike Bloesch

better depth than they’ve had on the line in years, as well. However as a caveat, spring ball and fall camp aren’t always the best proving grounds for how an OL will perform when the bullets are flying, particularly against strong pass rush teams so despite what looks like solid improvement on the line, they still have much to prove once the season kicks off.

Add it all up and what does it mean? It could mean another 4 or 5 win disappointment with more close losses to better opponents or it could be the year that the program turns the corner, despite the oddsmakers' predictions.

Don’t bet against the latter in 2023.

Discussion from...

Why the Bears Could Go Bowling in 2023

10,258 Views | 50 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by Cal Strong!
beartothebone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

BearHunter said:

Cal Strong! said:

Every other CFB program optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "Playoffs, BCS bowl, conference championship, or bust."

Bearinsider optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "maybe we can make the Independence Bowl if we get all the right breaks."

Cal just got a new offensive coordinator, someone who had previous success at Cal.

Let the NegaBears nega.
Every other CFB program defines "previous success" in a single season -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-11 wins

Bearinsider defines "previous success" in a single season -- 5-7, with losses to furd and SDSU.
It's dumba$$ comments like this and so many others in this thread that remind me why I'm not at this site a lot more often. Nowhere in the story did they call a 5-7 season a previous success. The most praise anywhere in the story for any recent team was, "Since the Bears went 8-5 (4-5) in a solid but unspectacular 2019 season." That's hardly high praise.

So many are outraged here about a story that dares to provide reasons why there could be hope for this season, despite a rough schedule and recent lack of success. If people can't live with that and think that's sunshine pumping, I suggest you take a hard look in the mirror and find something else to do with your time.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beartothebone said:

Cal Strong! said:

BearHunter said:

Cal Strong! said:

Every other CFB program optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "Playoffs, BCS bowl, conference championship, or bust."

Bearinsider optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "maybe we can make the Independence Bowl if we get all the right breaks."

Cal just got a new offensive coordinator, someone who had previous success at Cal.

Let the NegaBears nega.
Every other CFB program defines "previous success" in a single season -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-11 wins

Bearinsider defines "previous success" in a single season -- 5-7, with losses to furd and SDSU.
It's dumba$$ comments like this and so many others in this thread that remind me why I'm not at this site a lot more often. Nowhere in the story did they call a 5-7 season a previous success. The most praise anywhere in the story for any recent team was, "Since the Bears went 8-5 (4-5) in a solid but unspectacular 2019 season." That's hardly high praise.

So many are outraged here about a story that dares to provide reasons why there could be hope for this season, despite a rough schedule and recent lack of success. If people can't live with that and think that's sunshine pumping, I suggest you take a hard look in the mirror and find something else to do with your time.

Who is outraged? The point was only ever that the standard on Bearinsider (just making a bowl) is ridiculously low.

The comment about success was about this weak comment by Bearhunter, not about the story:

Quote:

Quote:

Cal Strong said:

Every other CFB program optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "Playoffs, BCS bowl, conference championship, or bust."

Bearinsider optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "maybe we can make the Independence Bowl if we get all the right breaks."
Bearhunter said:

Cal just got a new offensive coordinator, someone who had previous success at Cal.

Let the NegaBears nega.
Try to be stronger at reading and processing information beartothebone.
beartothebone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:

Cal Strong! said:

BearHunter said:

Cal Strong! said:

Every other CFB program optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "Playoffs, BCS bowl, conference championship, or bust."

Bearinsider optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "maybe we can make the Independence Bowl if we get all the right breaks."

Cal just got a new offensive coordinator, someone who had previous success at Cal.

Let the NegaBears nega.
Every other CFB program defines "previous success" in a single season -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-11 wins

Bearinsider defines "previous success" in a single season -- 5-7, with losses to furd and SDSU.
It's dumba$$ comments like this and so many others in this thread that remind me why I'm not at this site a lot more often. Nowhere in the story did they call a 5-7 season a previous success. The most praise anywhere in the story for any recent team was, "Since the Bears went 8-5 (4-5) in a solid but unspectacular 2019 season." That's hardly high praise.

So many are outraged here about a story that dares to provide reasons why there could be hope for this season, despite a rough schedule and recent lack of success. If people can't live with that and think that's sunshine pumping, I suggest you take a hard look in the mirror and find something else to do with your time.

Who is outraged? The point was only ever that the standard on Bearinsider (just making a bowl) is ridiculously low.

The comment about success was about this weak comment by Bearhunter, not about the story:

Quote:

Quote:

Cal Strong said:

Every other CFB program optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "Playoffs, BCS bowl, conference championship, or bust."

Bearinsider optimism with a $4.75m coach in his 7th year -- "maybe we can make the Independence Bowl if we get all the right breaks."
Bearhunter said:

Cal just got a new offensive coordinator, someone who had previous success at Cal.

Let the NegaBears nega.
Try to be stronger at reading and processing information beartothebone.
Who is outraged? Read half the posts on this thread griping about the story, which dares to show some optimism while acknowledging that the schedule could derail things. You yourself said the standard on BearInsider is just making a bowl. Where are you getting that? Did this story say that? Did the mods say that? All I'm hearing from this site is that making a bowl would be progress, not the definition of success. Or are you actually trying to say that Bearhunter's definition of success is making a bowl rather than BearInsider? Even if that's what you meant to say, that's incorrect, too. An OC can be successful without the program winning 9 or 10 games. Spav had a top 10 offense the year he was here. That's successful.

Try to be stronger at communicating coherently and pretending you didn't say things you said.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beartothebone said:


Who is outraged? Read half the posts on this thread griping about the story, which dares to show some optimism while acknowledging that the schedule could derail things. You yourself said the standard on BearInsider is just making a bowl. Where are you getting that? Did this story say that? Did the mods say that? All I'm hearing from this site is that making a bowl would be progress, not the definition of success. Or are you actually trying to say that Bearhunter's definition of success is making a bowl rather than BearInsider? Even if that's what you meant to say, that's incorrect, too. An OC can be successful without the program winning 9 or 10 games. Spav had a top 10 offense the year he was here. That's successful.

Try to be stronger at communicating coherently and pretending you didn't say things you said.
Cal Strong not outraged. Cal Strong never said the article claimed we had a success when OC was here last. Cal Strong no say he doesn't read Bearinsider because people have different opinions (which as it turns out, no one on this side of the argument actually had).

As Cal Strong already stated, we could have made a bowl if Spav's offense didn't sputter at crucial moments against SDSU and Oregon State. Go back and look at the tape. He couldn't score in the red zone at the end vs SDSU. And he had to settle for a field goal vs Oregon State in OT. That not success. The Air Raid often puts up big numbers, which leads to high rankings. But the knock on it is that it often fails when it is needed the most.

The article is not the problem here. BearInsider has to write something positive. It is in BI's DNA. But the author wrote several sentences along the lines of: "Cal fans are hungry to return to a bowl game in 2023 and this just might be the team to get them there."

Cal Strong not hungry to return to a bad bowl game. Cal Strong want to win the Pac and go to the Rose Bowl in our $4.75m coach's 7th year. There is a big difference between expectations there.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:


Who is outraged? Read half the posts on this thread griping about the story, which dares to show some optimism while acknowledging that the schedule could derail things. You yourself said the standard on BearInsider is just making a bowl. Where are you getting that? Did this story say that? Did the mods say that? All I'm hearing from this site is that making a bowl would be progress, not the definition of success. Or are you actually trying to say that Bearhunter's definition of success is making a bowl rather than BearInsider? Even if that's what you meant to say, that's incorrect, too. An OC can be successful without the program winning 9 or 10 games. Spav had a top 10 offense the year he was here. That's successful.

Try to be stronger at communicating coherently and pretending you didn't say things you said.
Cal Strong not outraged. Cal Strong never said the article claimed we had a success when OC was here last. Cal Strong no say he doesn't read Bearinsider because people have different opinions (which as it turns out, no one on this side of the argument actually had).

As Cal Strong already stated, we could have made a bowl if Spav's offense didn't sputter at crucial moments against SDSU and Oregon State. Go back and look at the tape. He couldn't score in the red zone at the end vs SDSU. And he had to settle for a field goal vs Oregon State in OT. That not success. The Air Raid often puts up big numbers, which leads to high rankings. But the knock on it is that it often fails when it is needed the most.

The article is not the problem here. BearInsider has to write something positive. It is in BI's DNA. But the author wrote several sentences along the lines of: "Cal fans are hungry to return to a bowl game in 2023 and this just might be the team to get them there."

Cal Strong not hungry to return to a bad bowl game. Cal Strong want to win the Pac and go to the Rose Bowl in our $4.75m coach's 7th year. There is a big difference between expectations there.


Relative to Davis Webb, having a mobile QB should help Spav in the red zone, when it becomes easier to contain the WRs and stuff the run.

However, I always thought an Air Raid offense should have a jumbo offensive set to use in short yardage, red zone and as a change up. Think if we suddenly went from Air Raid to 6 OL and 3 TEs and go smash mouth running Ott or faking Ott one way and Jackson going the other way with an option to throw? Especially if the defense doesn't have time to match up?

Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:


Who is outraged? Read half the posts on this thread griping about the story, which dares to show some optimism while acknowledging that the schedule could derail things. You yourself said the standard on BearInsider is just making a bowl. Where are you getting that? Did this story say that? Did the mods say that? All I'm hearing from this site is that making a bowl would be progress, not the definition of success. Or are you actually trying to say that Bearhunter's definition of success is making a bowl rather than BearInsider? Even if that's what you meant to say, that's incorrect, too. An OC can be successful without the program winning 9 or 10 games. Spav had a top 10 offense the year he was here. That's successful.

Try to be stronger at communicating coherently and pretending you didn't say things you said.
Cal Strong not outraged. Cal Strong never said the article claimed we had a success when OC was here last. Cal Strong no say he doesn't read Bearinsider because people have different opinions (which as it turns out, no one on this side of the argument actually had).

As Cal Strong already stated, we could have made a bowl if Spav's offense didn't sputter at crucial moments against SDSU and Oregon State. Go back and look at the tape. He couldn't score in the red zone at the end vs SDSU. And he had to settle for a field goal vs Oregon State in OT. That not success. The Air Raid often puts up big numbers, which leads to high rankings. But the knock on it is that it often fails when it is needed the most.

The article is not the problem here. BearInsider has to write something positive. It is in BI's DNA. But the author wrote several sentences along the lines of: "Cal fans are hungry to return to a bowl game in 2023 and this just might be the team to get them there."

Cal Strong not hungry to return to a bad bowl game. Cal Strong want to win the Pac and go to the Rose Bowl in our $4.75m coach's 7th year. There is a big difference between expectations there.


Relative to Davis Webb, having a mobile QB should help Spav in the red zone, when it becomes easier to contain the WRs and stuff the run.

However, I always thought an Air Raid offense should have a jumbo offensive set to use in short yardage, red zone and as a change up. Think if we suddenly went from Air Raid to 6 OL and 3 TEs and go smash mouth running Ott or faking Ott one way and Jackson going the other way with an option to throw? Especially if the defense doesn't have time to match up?


Cal Strong felt we had that a bit with Malik McMorris.

Cal Strong watched the Sam Jackson highlights at TCU. He didn't get a lot of action there, so it hard to put too much weight on what his tape shows. But from the few snaps he got, he was very, very quick. But he had absolutely no jukes. Not a single juke. He never got an extra three yards, ran around anyone, through them, over them, anything. Whenever a defender came anywhere near him, he went down one way or the other. In terms of passing, he was pretty inconsistent. Overall he was fairly inaccurate, but he did have some strong throws as well.
beartothebone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:


Who is outraged? Read half the posts on this thread griping about the story, which dares to show some optimism while acknowledging that the schedule could derail things. You yourself said the standard on BearInsider is just making a bowl. Where are you getting that? Did this story say that? Did the mods say that? All I'm hearing from this site is that making a bowl would be progress, not the definition of success. Or are you actually trying to say that Bearhunter's definition of success is making a bowl rather than BearInsider? Even if that's what you meant to say, that's incorrect, too. An OC can be successful without the program winning 9 or 10 games. Spav had a top 10 offense the year he was here. That's successful.

Try to be stronger at communicating coherently and pretending you didn't say things you said.
Cal Strong not outraged. Cal Strong never said the article claimed we had a success when OC was here last. Cal Strong no say he doesn't read Bearinsider because people have different opinions (which as it turns out, no one on this side of the argument actually had).

As Cal Strong already stated, we could have made a bowl if Spav's offense didn't sputter at crucial moments against SDSU and Oregon State. Go back and look at the tape. He couldn't score in the red zone at the end vs SDSU. And he had to settle for a field goal vs Oregon State in OT. That not success. The Air Raid often puts up big numbers, which leads to high rankings. But the knock on it is that it often fails when it is needed the most.

The article is not the problem here. BearInsider has to write something positive. It is in BI's DNA. But the author wrote several sentences along the lines of: "Cal fans are hungry to return to a bowl game in 2023 and this just might be the team to get them there."

Cal Strong not hungry to return to a bad bowl game. Cal Strong want to win the Pac and go to the Rose Bowl in our $4.75m coach's 7th year. There is a big difference between expectations there.


Relative to Davis Webb, having a mobile QB should help Spav in the red zone, when it becomes easier to contain the WRs and stuff the run.

However, I always thought an Air Raid offense should have a jumbo offensive set to use in short yardage, red zone and as a change up. Think if we suddenly went from Air Raid to 6 OL and 3 TEs and go smash mouth running Ott or faking Ott one way and Jackson going the other way with an option to throw? Especially if the defense doesn't have time to match up?


Cal Strong felt we had that a bit with Malik McMorris.

Cal Strong watched the Sam Jackson highlights at TCU. He didn't get a lot of action there, so it hard to put too much weight on what his tape shows. But from the few snaps he got, he was very, very quick. But he had absolutely no jukes. Not a single juke. He never got an extra three yards, ran around anyone, through them, over them, anything. Whenever a defender came anywhere near him, he went down one way or the other. In terms of passing, he was pretty inconsistent. Overall he was fairly inaccurate, but he did have some strong throws as well.
Dude what are you even talking about? His highlights are literally non-stop jukes and literally the opposite of "every time a defender came near him, he went down." This is one of the nuttiest takes I've ever seen, even on this nutty board. And in terms of his passing, he was pretty inconsistent and fairly inaccurate? Dude, he was 6 for 6. That's the very definition of accurate.

Commentary not strong. Commentary utter nonsense.

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

Cal Strong! said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:


Who is outraged? Read half the posts on this thread griping about the story, which dares to show some optimism while acknowledging that the schedule could derail things. You yourself said the standard on BearInsider is just making a bowl. Where are you getting that? Did this story say that? Did the mods say that? All I'm hearing from this site is that making a bowl would be progress, not the definition of success. Or are you actually trying to say that Bearhunter's definition of success is making a bowl rather than BearInsider? Even if that's what you meant to say, that's incorrect, too. An OC can be successful without the program winning 9 or 10 games. Spav had a top 10 offense the year he was here. That's successful.

Try to be stronger at communicating coherently and pretending you didn't say things you said.
Cal Strong not outraged. Cal Strong never said the article claimed we had a success when OC was here last. Cal Strong no say he doesn't read Bearinsider because people have different opinions (which as it turns out, no one on this side of the argument actually had).

As Cal Strong already stated, we could have made a bowl if Spav's offense didn't sputter at crucial moments against SDSU and Oregon State. Go back and look at the tape. He couldn't score in the red zone at the end vs SDSU. And he had to settle for a field goal vs Oregon State in OT. That not success. The Air Raid often puts up big numbers, which leads to high rankings. But the knock on it is that it often fails when it is needed the most.

The article is not the problem here. BearInsider has to write something positive. It is in BI's DNA. But the author wrote several sentences along the lines of: "Cal fans are hungry to return to a bowl game in 2023 and this just might be the team to get them there."

Cal Strong not hungry to return to a bad bowl game. Cal Strong want to win the Pac and go to the Rose Bowl in our $4.75m coach's 7th year. There is a big difference between expectations there.


Relative to Davis Webb, having a mobile QB should help Spav in the red zone, when it becomes easier to contain the WRs and stuff the run.

However, I always thought an Air Raid offense should have a jumbo offensive set to use in short yardage, red zone and as a change up. Think if we suddenly went from Air Raid to 6 OL and 3 TEs and go smash mouth running Ott or faking Ott one way and Jackson going the other way with an option to throw? Especially if the defense doesn't have time to match up?


Cal Strong felt we had that a bit with Malik McMorris.

Cal Strong watched the Sam Jackson highlights at TCU. He didn't get a lot of action there, so it hard to put too much weight on what his tape shows. But from the few snaps he got, he was very, very quick. But he had absolutely no jukes. Not a single juke. He never got an extra three yards, ran around anyone, through them, over them, anything. Whenever a defender came anywhere near him, he went down one way or the other. In terms of passing, he was pretty inconsistent. Overall he was fairly inaccurate, but he did have some strong throws as well.
Dude what are you even talking about? His highlights are literally non-stop jukes and literally the opposite of "every time a defender came near him, he went down." This is one of the nuttiest takes I've ever seen, even on this nutty board. And in terms of his passing, he was pretty inconsistent and fairly inaccurate? Dude, he was 6 for 6. That's the very definition of accurate.

Commentary not strong. Commentary utter nonsense.




Thank you! And thank you for posting Jackson's TCU video again, I have no idea what Strong was talking about. At one point Sam Jackson has a juke that looks like Desean on that Tennessee punt return. He is 6 for 6 and hitting receivers in stride. I hope to God this is what our offense looks like with him at the helm.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Try looking at his longer highlight real, weakling. Cal Strong already broke it down play by play in another thread.
beartothebone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

Try looking at his longer highlight real, weakling. Cal Strong already broke it down play by play in another thread.
It literally doesn't matter what it shows on a longer highlight reel. You said he's inaccurate, has no jukes and goes down easily. No other highlight reel can erase what you see on this one. 6 for 6 is accurate. Period. And several runs juking half the defense in several plays does not equal goes down easily with no jukes. Fact.

Listen to Kenny Rodgers, Cal Weak. Know when to fold 'em.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beartothebone said:

Cal Strong! said:

Try looking at his longer highlight real, weakling. Cal Strong already broke it down play by play in another thread.
It literally doesn't matter what it shows on a longer highlight reel. You said he's inaccurate, has no jukes and goes down easily. No other highlight reel can erase what you see on this one. 6 for 6 is accurate. Period. And several runs juking half the defense in several plays does not equal goes down easily with no jukes. Fact.

Listen to Kenny Rodgers, Cal Weak. Know when to fold 'em.
Like most people -- Cal Strong like that particular Kenny Rodgers song, but not his other music.

But Jackson's longer highlight real shows an inconsistent (i.e. often inaccurate) QB, who never gets that extra three yards by running through, around, or over defenders.

What Cal Strong should have clarified is that by jukes, he was referring to N-S running when a defender was coming at him. Jackson clearly has tape in which he can elude the pass rush by breaking the pocket. But once he starts heading up field, very often (but not always, Cal Strong was wrong about that), he gets tackled with little effort by the defender (going down easy), or runs out of bounds or slides a few yards shy of the first down.

Cal Strong has already and repeatedly said this is a short sample, so it important to see him in a full game.

Again, beartothebone no read the thread correctly, and came here whining about people not sharing his disposition. Now he hanging on a single sentence Cal Strong wrote after all that. From what Cal Strong has seen (albeit in limited tape), beartothebone weak at literacy, weak at slams, weak at chivalry, and weak at being strong.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:

Cal Strong! said:

Try looking at his longer highlight real, weakling. Cal Strong already broke it down play by play in another thread.
It literally doesn't matter what it shows on a longer highlight reel. You said he's inaccurate, has no jukes and goes down easily. No other highlight reel can erase what you see on this one. 6 for 6 is accurate. Period. And several runs juking half the defense in several plays does not equal goes down easily with no jukes. Fact.

Listen to Kenny Rodgers, Cal Weak. Know when to fold 'em.
Like most people -- Cal Strong like that particular Kenny Rodgers song, but not his other music.

But Jackson's longer highlight real shows an inconsistent (i.e. often inaccurate) QB, who never gets that extra three yards by running through, around, or over defenders.

What Cal Strong should have clarified is that by jukes, he was referring to N-S running when a defender was coming at him. Jackson clearly has tape in which he can elude the pass rush by breaking the pocket. But once he starts heading up field, very often (but not always, Cal Strong was wrong about that), he gets tackled with little effort by the defender (going down easy), or runs out of bounds or slides a few yards shy of the first down.

Cal Strong has already and repeatedly said this is a short sample, so it important to see him in a full game.

Again, beartothebone no read the thread correctly, and came here whining about people not sharing his disposition. Now he hanging on a single sentence Cal Strong wrote after all that. From what Cal Strong has seen (albeit in limited tape), beartothebone weak at literacy, weak at slams, weak at chivalry, and weak at being strong.


He was 6 of 6, all 6 of which were on his TCU highlights above.

There were no possible other throws to be added to a longer highlight to show "inaccuracy."

The video shows him with plenty of jukes. If there are some other plays where he did not juke anybody and ran straight ahead, that does not mean he "has no jukes." So many running backs at Cal get criticized on this board for "dancing too much." Just because you don't juke someone on every play doesn't mean you "have no jukes."

6 of 6 for 140 yards passing and 79 yards and 2 TDs on 15 attempts. Those are his TCU stats. 21 plays, 219 yards and 2 TDs. That is over 10 yards per play.

We don't know how he will do at Cal, some people are negative about him due to reports or observations from Cal practices, but there is absolutely nothing in his play from TCU to warrant your statements or this kind of negativity about a Cal player heading into his first start. His TCU stats and video, even the "extended" version, with all 21 plays are amazing. We can only hope he plays exactly like that at Cal.

Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:

Cal Strong! said:

Try looking at his longer highlight real, weakling. Cal Strong already broke it down play by play in another thread.
It literally doesn't matter what it shows on a longer highlight reel. You said he's inaccurate, has no jukes and goes down easily. No other highlight reel can erase what you see on this one. 6 for 6 is accurate. Period. And several runs juking half the defense in several plays does not equal goes down easily with no jukes. Fact.

Listen to Kenny Rodgers, Cal Weak. Know when to fold 'em.
Like most people -- Cal Strong like that particular Kenny Rodgers song, but not his other music.

But Jackson's longer highlight real shows an inconsistent (i.e. often inaccurate) QB, who never gets that extra three yards by running through, around, or over defenders.

What Cal Strong should have clarified is that by jukes, he was referring to N-S running when a defender was coming at him. Jackson clearly has tape in which he can elude the pass rush by breaking the pocket. But once he starts heading up field, very often (but not always, Cal Strong was wrong about that), he gets tackled with little effort by the defender (going down easy), or runs out of bounds or slides a few yards shy of the first down.

Cal Strong has already and repeatedly said this is a short sample, so it important to see him in a full game.

Again, beartothebone no read the thread correctly, and came here whining about people not sharing his disposition. Now he hanging on a single sentence Cal Strong wrote after all that. From what Cal Strong has seen (albeit in limited tape), beartothebone weak at literacy, weak at slams, weak at chivalry, and weak at being strong.


He was 6 of 6, all 6 of which were on his TCU highlights above.

There were no possible other throws to be added to a longer highlight to show "inaccuracy."

The video shows him with plenty of jukes. If there are some other plays where he did not juke anybody and ran straight ahead, that does not mean he "has no jukes." So many running backs at Cal get criticized on this board for "dancing too much." Just because you don't juke someone on every play doesn't mean you "have no jukes."

6 of 6 for 140 yards passing and 79 yards and 2 TDs on 15 attempts. Those are his TCU stats. 21 plays, 219 yards and 2 TDs. That is over 10 yards per play.

We don't know how he will do at Cal, some people are negative about him due to reports or observations from Cal practices, but there is absolutely nothing in his play from TCU to warrant your statements or this kind of negativity about a Cal player heading into his first start. His TCU stats and video, even the "extended" version, with all 21 plays are amazing. We can only hope he plays exactly like that at Cal.


See my breakdown in the other thread. I break down every singly one of his throws, from underthrown balls that should have been a TD to darts that couldn't have been thrown too much better than they were.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:

Cal Strong! said:

Try looking at his longer highlight real, weakling. Cal Strong already broke it down play by play in another thread.
It literally doesn't matter what it shows on a longer highlight reel. You said he's inaccurate, has no jukes and goes down easily. No other highlight reel can erase what you see on this one. 6 for 6 is accurate. Period. And several runs juking half the defense in several plays does not equal goes down easily with no jukes. Fact.

Listen to Kenny Rodgers, Cal Weak. Know when to fold 'em.
Like most people -- Cal Strong like that particular Kenny Rodgers song, but not his other music.

But Jackson's longer highlight real shows an inconsistent (i.e. often inaccurate) QB, who never gets that extra three yards by running through, around, or over defenders.

What Cal Strong should have clarified is that by jukes, he was referring to N-S running when a defender was coming at him. Jackson clearly has tape in which he can elude the pass rush by breaking the pocket. But once he starts heading up field, very often (but not always, Cal Strong was wrong about that), he gets tackled with little effort by the defender (going down easy), or runs out of bounds or slides a few yards shy of the first down.

Cal Strong has already and repeatedly said this is a short sample, so it important to see him in a full game.

Again, beartothebone no read the thread correctly, and came here whining about people not sharing his disposition. Now he hanging on a single sentence Cal Strong wrote after all that. From what Cal Strong has seen (albeit in limited tape), beartothebone weak at literacy, weak at slams, weak at chivalry, and weak at being strong.


He was 6 of 6, all 6 of which were on his TCU highlights above.

There were no possible other throws to be added to a longer highlight to show "inaccuracy."

The video shows him with plenty of jukes. If there are some other plays where he did not juke anybody and ran straight ahead, that does not mean he "has no jukes." So many running backs at Cal get criticized on this board for "dancing too much." Just because you don't juke someone on every play doesn't mean you "have no jukes."

6 of 6 for 140 yards passing and 79 yards and 2 TDs on 15 attempts. Those are his TCU stats. 21 plays, 219 yards and 2 TDs. That is over 10 yards per play.

We don't know how he will do at Cal, some people are negative about him due to reports or observations from Cal practices, but there is absolutely nothing in his play from TCU to warrant your statements or this kind of negativity about a Cal player heading into his first start. His TCU stats and video, even the "extended" version, with all 21 plays are amazing. We can only hope he plays exactly like that at Cal.


See my breakdown in the other thread. I break down every singly one of his throws, from underthrown balls that should have been a TD to darts that couldn't have been thrown too much better than they were.


This is what you wrote in this thread:

"…But from the few snaps he got, he was very, very quick. But he had absolutely no jukes. Not a single juke. He never got an extra three yards, ran around anyone, through them, over them, anything. Whenever a defender came anywhere near him, he went down one way or the other. In terms of passing, he was pretty inconsistent. Overall he was fairly inaccurate, but he did have some strong throws as well."

"He had absolutely no jukes. Not a single juke"????

"Whenever a defender came anywhere near him he went down one way or another."?

Those are absolute statements. A single counter example would prove them to be untrue but the entire video above proves them to be untrue. One TD he does a flip over a defender into the endzone which is the very definition of "going over them." Another he breaks a tackle at the goal line. An "extended" video is a red herring. Why double down? Moreover why smear a Cal player before he has even taken the field for us?

Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

beartothebone said:

Cal Strong! said:

Try looking at his longer highlight real, weakling. Cal Strong already broke it down play by play in another thread.
It literally doesn't matter what it shows on a longer highlight reel. You said he's inaccurate, has no jukes and goes down easily. No other highlight reel can erase what you see on this one. 6 for 6 is accurate. Period. And several runs juking half the defense in several plays does not equal goes down easily with no jukes. Fact.

Listen to Kenny Rodgers, Cal Weak. Know when to fold 'em.
Like most people -- Cal Strong like that particular Kenny Rodgers song, but not his other music.

But Jackson's longer highlight real shows an inconsistent (i.e. often inaccurate) QB, who never gets that extra three yards by running through, around, or over defenders.

What Cal Strong should have clarified is that by jukes, he was referring to N-S running when a defender was coming at him. Jackson clearly has tape in which he can elude the pass rush by breaking the pocket. But once he starts heading up field, very often (but not always, Cal Strong was wrong about that), he gets tackled with little effort by the defender (going down easy), or runs out of bounds or slides a few yards shy of the first down.

Cal Strong has already and repeatedly said this is a short sample, so it important to see him in a full game.

Again, beartothebone no read the thread correctly, and came here whining about people not sharing his disposition. Now he hanging on a single sentence Cal Strong wrote after all that. From what Cal Strong has seen (albeit in limited tape), beartothebone weak at literacy, weak at slams, weak at chivalry, and weak at being strong.


He was 6 of 6, all 6 of which were on his TCU highlights above.

There were no possible other throws to be added to a longer highlight to show "inaccuracy."

The video shows him with plenty of jukes. If there are some other plays where he did not juke anybody and ran straight ahead, that does not mean he "has no jukes." So many running backs at Cal get criticized on this board for "dancing too much." Just because you don't juke someone on every play doesn't mean you "have no jukes."

6 of 6 for 140 yards passing and 79 yards and 2 TDs on 15 attempts. Those are his TCU stats. 21 plays, 219 yards and 2 TDs. That is over 10 yards per play.

We don't know how he will do at Cal, some people are negative about him due to reports or observations from Cal practices, but there is absolutely nothing in his play from TCU to warrant your statements or this kind of negativity about a Cal player heading into his first start. His TCU stats and video, even the "extended" version, with all 21 plays are amazing. We can only hope he plays exactly like that at Cal.


See my breakdown in the other thread. I break down every singly one of his throws, from underthrown balls that should have been a TD to darts that couldn't have been thrown too much better than they were.


This is what you wrote in this thread:

"…But from the few snaps he got, he was very, very quick. But he had absolutely no jukes. Not a single juke. He never got an extra three yards, ran around anyone, through them, over them, anything. Whenever a defender came anywhere near him, he went down one way or the other. In terms of passing, he was pretty inconsistent. Overall he was fairly inaccurate, but he did have some strong throws as well."

"He had absolutely no jukes. Not a single juke"????

"Whenever a defender came anywhere near him he went down one way or another."?

Those are absolute statements. A single counter example would prove them to be untrue but the entire video above proves them to be untrue. One TD he does a flip over a defender into the endzone which is the very definition of "going over them." Another he breaks a tackle at the goal line. An "extended" video is a red herring. Why double down? Moreover why smear a Cal player before he has even taken the field for us?


"What Cal Strong should have clarified is that by jukes, he was referring to N-S running when a defender was coming at him. Jackson clearly has tape in which he can elude the pass rush by breaking the pocket. But once he starts heading up field, very often (but not always, Cal Strong was wrong about that), he gets tackled with little effort by the defender (going down easy), or runs out of bounds or slides a few yards shy of the first down."
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.