The schedule seems to set up well for us, with most of the more difficult games in the back end. Hopefully this will give the offense time to gel, so that it'll be ready for the UW/USC/Oregon/OSU/furd/UCLA stretch at the end. We could end up starting 5-1. With the schedule flipped, we could easily start 1-5.
Every fall camp I get sucked into at least some hype about how good the upcoming Cal team is going to be. I guess the hype started in Spring ball about the talent of the wide receivers and what a solid and deep group of running backs the team has. This time, I am not accepting any of this until I see it on the field. I am gearing up for a bunch of slogfests that will be decided on the last possession. Think of the Washington and Oregon losses from last season and the USC and Washington wins from 2018. That's apparently the way that Wilcox wants things, and he got the green light from the administration via his contract extension to keep it that way.
Thanks Nick. Your assessment of the 2022 offense aligns to offense performance history since 2017.
Additional details on presumed QB1 history of turnovers and injuries should further temper enthusiasm.
In contrast, the recent hype on the offense, particularly select skill positions, conveys upside expectations.
Key to Cal out performance in 2022 is an OC who can deliver more explosive plays/TDs from young, unproven talent. I’ll manage down my expectations, for now.
If Rugbear is feeling optimistic, then I’m feeling pretty good. There may be new faces who are projected starters on the O-line, but they are experienced, proven players. That’s not the same as sticking a freshman in there and hoping he’s got enough talent to overcome his lack of development.
So far...defense: best of the era. Offense: talented but OL question mark.
This has naturally got me wondering about playing the field position game and how many points can come from our kicking game? Obvs, I'll be very interested to hear about what's cooking on special teams now. Thanks for the write up!
Always love your analyses, Nick, and this one does not disappoint!!!!
IIRC, we have two fullbacks on roster; how effective do you think they can be in "plugging holes" on the OL in pass protection? If a FB blocks, the LB covering them would, I think, have to stay honest and stay home...... Or maybe a TE in motion can be an extra blocker, etc. Just thinking of ways to get Plummer some extra time.....
Thanks Nick. Mason Starling has been making plays and should get mentioned as being in the mix. Your basic premise is sound, we don't have a history with these offensive coaches to say for certain that they can take new players and make them outstanding. So how much of our mediocrity was the players last year, or the coaches? What I've seen is that Tedford and Dykes came in and took talent that had been performing poorly and made them into dynamic offenses in one year. I tend to believe great offensive coaches can work wonders with players. If we aren't at least pretty good, in the top half, this year, then Musgrave will need to retire. That's my view. I'm hopeful though, and Go Bears!
Just like Tedford and Dykes did with offense, Wilcox took existing talent into a dynamic defense. In 5 years we haven't seen that at all on offense, so I think it is clear our offensive coaches can't do that this year as well.
Sometimes its coaching. Sometimes is recruiting. Sometimes its players just not panning out in games. What I will say is that the floor of athleticism, talent, technique is higher with this current group of offensive skill players added with the development of now upperclassmen.
I commend you on your analytic approach. You spend a lot more time and do a lot more work than me. I just listen to the latest video where Angus answers the question about starters. As of right now its Coleman at LT, Driscoll at LG, Cindric at C, Spencer Lovell at RG and Brayden Rhome at RT. Sessions will push him as he learns the playbook but Rhome is now much bigger than the 285# he is listed at on the roster. :-)
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if Rohme starts the season as starter, and I'd expect that both he and Sessions will get playing time, it might be a position battle that extends into the season. My guess is that Sessions ends the year as the starter, but I've been wrong plenty of times before.
Agree! And Everett Johnson will push Driscoll and Vatikane may push as well and then I am hearing we may have a good options at a backups at C in Swinney. Competition always pushes guys to be better.
Well, they were 8th in the conference in yards/play last year, hired a defensive head coach, and are 128th in the country in returning production on offense, even lower than Cal!
Fun stat. Bears averaged 4.1yds of push on run plays. That was good for 33rd in power 5. If they can maintain that with the new guys on the line, and arguably more talent, with the talented and speedy RBs, our run game will be in the upper half of the conference.
Depth will be the key the season, for better or worse. If there is a problem or loss on the o-line, there is a good chance there will also be a loss in the backfield, at which point the Cal offense is likely to crater, this from what could be a middle of the pack offense when at its best.
Quick release = short to medium... over reliance on this is what one Boilermaker fan highlighted as Plummer's fault and it would be anathema to Wilcox's claim to working to more explosive plays. Sustained quick release = continual slow death? One reason I think Garbers ran so much is because the team was stuck for options on third down. Controlled passing game won't use the supposedly available WR talent and will leave the offense with third downs and no mobile QB. That could work... and we have seen that Wilcox likes a control offense for various reasons but seems contrary to the current talk and has its own risks.
IMO the offense would be better being successful stretching the field (who doesn't like downfield success?). This would assume the O line is protecting the QB (risky assumption I know) but opens up the classic possibilities... no one stuffing the box opens up the run, deeper DB's means more room for YAC on short/medium routes, fewer blitzes due to more coverage requirements, etc.
This is not to say the quick release won't open up other options... play action, runs to the holes where LB's have released to follow inside receivers, shallow DB's allowing for big plays deep... If quick plays are needed to keep the QB upright then so be it. Let's be practical and do whichever works. Given the hype (like in this article) about the WR talent and Plummer's experience, and given the coaches' comments, it feels like that would be a sell out or ultimate desperation. Let's at least go deep in the opener, try to be exciting against ND and try to get it right for the games that won't be so one sided...
When I suggest a quick release option for the offense, it is only to take the pressure off an inexperienced offensive line, and to enhance the prospect of running on second down. If we are able to throw downfield, something that Garbers did with generally little success, even when receivers were open, then all the better stretching the defenses to make medium passes and the running game more effective.
Very reasonable and classic approach to relieving pressure on the line... also note Bob R's comment about coaches calling the shots... anything that works, works. RIght? If the team can consistently march down the field and score then I'm all in. We have yet to actually see that... and the coaches are hyping the athletic abilities of the receivers and calling for more explosive plays. I figured out what I want. Excitement would be nice, but it's time to simply put up points or shut up. If scoring average is not up significantly this year then let's get a new OC no matter how high up the chain we have to cut to make it happen. Since we haven't seen plunka dunk score enough then let's push the offense to try something new. Why keep doing the same thing expecting different results? If the OC is going out, he should at least go out in a blaze of glory.
Continuity in coaching positions is usually the formula for successful programs. Wilcox has lost quality coaches to promotions in other programs which speaks well for him, but also results in changes of philosophy and play. Our OC was a highly successful offensive player, and came from significant coaching experience. Hopefully the talent he has matches his scheme. He has, it appears, a quarterback who can throw deep and is experienced in the pocket. He has both quickness and speed in the receiving corps. The first two games should give us an indication of how effective our offense has the potential to be.
I want to mention that Wilcox, like Ray Willsey, is a defensive coach, and his familiarity with offense is still a work in progress.
Thanks for the in depth write-up. I hope the offense comes out strong against the Aggies and makes a statement - and the right kind of statement at that...
The schedule seems to set up well for us, with most of the more difficult games in the back end. Hopefully this will give the offense time to gel, so that it'll be ready for the UW/USC/Oregon/OSU/furd/UCLA stretch at the end. We could end up starting 5-1. With the schedule flipped, we could easily start 1-5.
UC Davis
UNLV
Notre Dame
Arizona
Washington State
Colorado
-----------
Washington
Oregon
USC
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
Every fall camp I get sucked into at least some hype about how good the upcoming Cal team is going to be. I guess the hype started in Spring ball about the talent of the wide receivers and what a solid and deep group of running backs the team has. This time, I am not accepting any of this until I see it on the field. I am gearing up for a bunch of slogfests that will be decided on the last possession. Think of the Washington and Oregon losses from last season and the USC and Washington wins from 2018. That's apparently the way that Wilcox wants things, and he got the green light from the administration via his contract extension to keep it that way.
Thanks Nick. Your assessment of the 2022 offense aligns to offense performance history since 2017.
Additional details on presumed QB1 history of turnovers and injuries should further temper enthusiasm.
In contrast, the recent hype on the offense, particularly select skill positions, conveys upside expectations.
Key to Cal out performance in 2022 is an OC who can deliver more explosive plays/TDs from young, unproven talent. I’ll manage down my expectations, for now.
Im just here to funnel you toward the practice notebooks that Nick referenced. 👀👀
If Rugbear is feeling optimistic, then I’m feeling pretty good. There may be new faces who are projected starters on the O-line, but they are experienced, proven players. That’s not the same as sticking a freshman in there and hoping he’s got enough talent to overcome his lack of development.
So far...defense: best of the era. Offense: talented but OL question mark.
This has naturally got me wondering about playing the field position game and how many points can come from our kicking game? Obvs, I'll be very interested to hear about what's cooking on special teams now. Thanks for the write up!
Always love your analyses, Nick, and this one does not disappoint!!!!
IIRC, we have two fullbacks on roster; how effective do you think they can be in "plugging holes" on the OL in pass protection? If a FB blocks, the LB covering them would, I think, have to stay honest and stay home...... Or maybe a TE in motion can be an extra blocker, etc. Just thinking of ways to get Plummer some extra time.....
Thanks Nick. Mason Starling has been making plays and should get mentioned as being in the mix. Your basic premise is sound, we don't have a history with these offensive coaches to say for certain that they can take new players and make them outstanding. So how much of our mediocrity was the players last year, or the coaches? What I've seen is that Tedford and Dykes came in and took talent that had been performing poorly and made them into dynamic offenses in one year. I tend to believe great offensive coaches can work wonders with players. If we aren't at least pretty good, in the top half, this year, then Musgrave will need to retire. That's my view. I'm hopeful though, and Go Bears!
Just like Tedford and Dykes did with offense, Wilcox took existing talent into a dynamic defense. In 5 years we haven't seen that at all on offense, so I think it is clear our offensive coaches can't do that this year as well.
Sometimes its coaching. Sometimes is recruiting. Sometimes its players just not panning out in games. What I will say is that the floor of athleticism, talent, technique is higher with this current group of offensive skill players added with the development of now upperclassmen.
Curious how you came up with the depth chart. And, I think, despite the youth, CAL's offense is going to surprise some people this year.
My depth charts are based on a combination of last year's snap counts, spring camp info, fall camp reports, and recruiting rankings.
I commend you on your analytic approach. You spend a lot more time and do a lot more work than me. I just listen to the latest video where Angus answers the question about starters. As of right now its Coleman at LT, Driscoll at LG, Cindric at C, Spencer Lovell at RG and Brayden Rhome at RT. Sessions will push him as he learns the playbook but Rhome is now much bigger than the 285# he is listed at on the roster. :-)
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if Rohme starts the season as starter, and I'd expect that both he and Sessions will get playing time, it might be a position battle that extends into the season. My guess is that Sessions ends the year as the starter, but I've been wrong plenty of times before.
Agree! And Everett Johnson will push Driscoll and Vatikane may push as well and then I am hearing we may have a good options at a backups at C in Swinney. Competition always pushes guys to be better.
Curious how Nick came up with the idea that the WSU offense will be near the bottom of the conference. That doesn't seem likely.
Well, they were 8th in the conference in yards/play last year, hired a defensive head coach, and are 128th in the country in returning production on offense, even lower than Cal!
Fun stat. Bears averaged 4.1yds of push on run plays. That was good for 33rd in power 5. If they can maintain that with the new guys on the line, and arguably more talent, with the talented and speedy RBs, our run game will be in the upper half of the conference.
The offensive line's development, and an opportunistic defense will be key to an improved season record.
Depth will be the key the season, for better or worse. If there is a problem or loss on the o-line, there is a good chance there will also be a loss in the backfield, at which point the Cal offense is likely to crater, this from what could be a middle of the pack offense when at its best.
If the Bears can sustain a quick release passing game, perhaps we will be better than predicted, helping the running game.
Quick release = short to medium... over reliance on this is what one Boilermaker fan highlighted as Plummer's fault and it would be anathema to Wilcox's claim to working to more explosive plays. Sustained quick release = continual slow death? One reason I think Garbers ran so much is because the team was stuck for options on third down. Controlled passing game won't use the supposedly available WR talent and will leave the offense with third downs and no mobile QB. That could work... and we have seen that Wilcox likes a control offense for various reasons but seems contrary to the current talk and has its own risks.
IMO the offense would be better being successful stretching the field (who doesn't like downfield success?). This would assume the O line is protecting the QB (risky assumption I know) but opens up the classic possibilities... no one stuffing the box opens up the run, deeper DB's means more room for YAC on short/medium routes, fewer blitzes due to more coverage requirements, etc.
This is not to say the quick release won't open up other options... play action, runs to the holes where LB's have released to follow inside receivers, shallow DB's allowing for big plays deep... If quick plays are needed to keep the QB upright then so be it. Let's be practical and do whichever works. Given the hype (like in this article) about the WR talent and Plummer's experience, and given the coaches' comments, it feels like that would be a sell out or ultimate desperation. Let's at least go deep in the opener, try to be exciting against ND and try to get it right for the games that won't be so one sided...
When I suggest a quick release option for the offense, it is only to take the pressure off an inexperienced offensive line, and to enhance the prospect of running on second down. If we are able to throw downfield, something that Garbers did with generally little success, even when receivers were open, then all the better stretching the defenses to make medium passes and the running game more effective.
Very reasonable and classic approach to relieving pressure on the line... also note Bob R's comment about coaches calling the shots... anything that works, works. RIght? If the team can consistently march down the field and score then I'm all in. We have yet to actually see that... and the coaches are hyping the athletic abilities of the receivers and calling for more explosive plays. I figured out what I want. Excitement would be nice, but it's time to simply put up points or shut up. If scoring average is not up significantly this year then let's get a new OC no matter how high up the chain we have to cut to make it happen. Since we haven't seen plunka dunk score enough then let's push the offense to try something new. Why keep doing the same thing expecting different results? If the OC is going out, he should at least go out in a blaze of glory.
Continuity in coaching positions is usually the formula for successful programs. Wilcox has lost quality coaches to promotions in other programs which speaks well for him, but also results in changes of philosophy and play. Our OC was a highly successful offensive player, and came from significant coaching experience. Hopefully the talent he has matches his scheme. He has, it appears, a quarterback who can throw deep and is experienced in the pocket. He has both quickness and speed in the receiving corps. The first two games should give us an indication of how effective our offense has the potential to be.
I want to mention that Wilcox, like Ray Willsey, is a defensive coach, and his familiarity with offense is still a work in progress.
Thanks for the in depth write-up. I hope the offense comes out strong against the Aggies and makes a statement - and the right kind of statement at that...
Blow out por favor!!!!!
Unsure if to feel better or worse...but nice job Nick...now let's just get to playing some ball!