If you haven't, I encourage you to watch the latest interview today with Coach Wilcox. I watch every one of these, and I don't think I've ever seen him on a Tuesday interview be so heavy, serious, defensive and edgy. Usually these Tuesday interviews are mainly about an upcoming opponent. In this case, NC State isn't brought up until the very end. All the questions were basically polite versions of "Why is your team so godawful bad?" And his answers were pretty blunt for Wilcox. He says things like "Not everything needs to change, but there must be changes". He more or less calls the entire team out for not performing well, coaches included. It's easy to read into his comments about offense to think that he gets that the offensive coaching is not good enough.
I can't help but take away from his conference that he is unusually mad and resigned. "Desperate" may be the word I'm looking for. Desperate is not a good thing for a coach to be. I don't believe Wilcox has answers, as we all know, because it's the same story for 8 years. But he knows enough to know more or less what is wrong, but not what to do about it. Rather sad. Vintage Tedford or Dykes could take this same offense and put up 30-40 a game. If that was easy, everyone would do it. What we get from Wilcox is a defense that holds people to 17. But alas, he can't lead a team that has the ability to score 18.
You are right…it’s the look of a guy that has no answers. I feel sorry for him. He’s a good dude…nowhere near the surly jerk that Mark Fox was…he’s a football lifer that in his heart thinks he has the team that can kick a 40-yard FG and then get critical stops late in the game to seal a win. Unfortunately, through 85 games he has not shown the ability to do so.
To have been employed long enough at Cal to have a career record of 39-46 and be 19 games below .500 v. conference opponents is pretty strong evidence that whatever he is doing is simply not working, and rarely has.
Nick: Great article and you point to something obvious; These third and long packages where they bring in Rogers haven't fooled anyone! Keep Mendoza in a rhythm and create plays where he can hit receivers who get open.
Removing your starting QB on the most important play of the game to set up a long FG try for a beleaguered kicker with nearly 2 minutes left on the road against an undefeated, top-25 team that has a guy that can nail ‘em from 60…
“Every year, without fail, the toughest loss to take is the one that ends hopes of a special season." Herein lies one of the biggest issues with Wilcox. Every year, without fail, that loss comes by the 1st/2nd weekend of October. Sometimes much earlier. You don’t even get to enjoy half a season of hope before you get repeatedly gut punched.
"Every year, without fail, the toughest loss to take is the one that ends hopes of a special season." I've been saying this for decades. There's always a point in the season when I jokingly say, wait'll next year, while inside I'm hurting.
I really hope the coaching staff takes a long hard look at their gameplan and game calling on this game. We have to play to our strengths and shy away from our weaknesses. Our O-Line is clearly our weakest link and trying to pound it down the middle was clearly not working. yet we stubbornly stuck to it gaining at max 1 yard each time. Whenever we ran sideways it was always a bit better. Also if O-line isn't giving enough time we needed to do more short slants and ins so we can move the stick quickly but it felt like most play call was either screen passes (which weren't working) and an occasional long attempt. After a while you can't blame the o-line for where they are at if that is where they are at. It's the coaches not adapting to their team's makeup that is killing us. That's my two cents.
He actually had targets at Cal. With the Rams, the roster was stacked but the weakness was in the OL and the WR. The only reliable receiver he really had was Cooper Kupp. Enter Bill Belichick for the Super Bowl and his innate ability to remove the best player from the opposing offense from the game plan.
People point to Stafford winning as a sign that Goff was the problem, but ignore how much the makeup of that roster changed between QBs. Not saying that Goff *was* a better QB than Stafford for the Rams, but I feel like he was basically set up to fail.
With the Lions, they started building with the OL and drafted him a few WR and now look at him. He's actually been excelling against the pass rush this season.
This isn’t exactly true regarding Goff and his time with the Rams and the Super Bowl loss. Goff had Kupp, Brandon Cooks and Robert Woods as his top 3 WRs the season that the Rams went to the Super Bowl. Belichick didn’t take away Kupp in that Super Bowl because Kupp tore his ACL during the regular season and missed the majority of the season and the Super Bowl.
That season, Cooks was WR1, Woods was WR2 and Cupp was War3. Cooks was the speedster and was very good. Woods was a solid WR and possession guy. Cupp was starting to come into his own before the injury.
The real issue was the Todd Gurley getting injured and never really recovering.
Harebrained staff thought they could do better than Mateen and passed him over by not giving him a scholarship and giving Luckhurst's scholarship to Coe instead.
Luckhurst never transferred. His plan to quit the football team to focus on soccer was well-known to the coaching staff. Bhaghani was essentially given the talk that they still saw him as a walk-on and that they would be bringing in another kicker, prompting him to enter the portal. Coe came in the summer on Luckhurst's scholarship.
Is there an easy-ish way to analyze QB drop backs in categories based on number of blockers? I wonder how many sacks, incompletions occur when there are 5, 6, and 7 blockers?
Fair. I felt like many times they rushed 6 and we had 6 or 7 and lost. You made a great point about #63’s technique and it felt like he would immediately slide to help the tackle leaving a lane (B gap?) for the ILB to come at #15.
It depends not just on the number of blockers, but how many are coming as well. Is it 3 or 4 down linemen? Are they adding 1 or more linebackers to the rush? Is there a safety getting involved. Typically a good o-line should be able to provide decent protection for 3 seconds if its 5 on 4 or even 5 on 5. If you bring in a TE or keep in a RB, it gives you more protection, if they do their jobs.
Agreed. Nick, your thoughts, so eloquently laid out, are helpful to me in debriefing from this agonizing loss. Interesting breakdown of Coe’s performance over his career. Thanks for everything you do to keep Cal’s indefatigable fans informed, from a consummately relatable perspective.
We might have a new kicker this week
https://www.si.com/college/cal/football/will-ryan-coe-or-freshman-derek-morris-be-cal-s-kicker-on-saturday-01ja8yxhwf90
If you haven't, I encourage you to watch the latest interview today with Coach Wilcox. I watch every one of these, and I don't think I've ever seen him on a Tuesday interview be so heavy, serious, defensive and edgy. Usually these Tuesday interviews are mainly about an upcoming opponent. In this case, NC State isn't brought up until the very end. All the questions were basically polite versions of "Why is your team so godawful bad?" And his answers were pretty blunt for Wilcox. He says things like "Not everything needs to change, but there must be changes". He more or less calls the entire team out for not performing well, coaches included. It's easy to read into his comments about offense to think that he gets that the offensive coaching is not good enough.
I can't help but take away from his conference that he is unusually mad and resigned. "Desperate" may be the word I'm looking for. Desperate is not a good thing for a coach to be. I don't believe Wilcox has answers, as we all know, because it's the same story for 8 years. But he knows enough to know more or less what is wrong, but not what to do about it. Rather sad. Vintage Tedford or Dykes could take this same offense and put up 30-40 a game. If that was easy, everyone would do it. What we get from Wilcox is a defense that holds people to 17. But alas, he can't lead a team that has the ability to score 18.
You are right…it’s the look of a guy that has no answers. I feel sorry for him. He’s a good dude…nowhere near the surly jerk that Mark Fox was…he’s a football lifer that in his heart thinks he has the team that can kick a 40-yard FG and then get critical stops late in the game to seal a win. Unfortunately, through 85 games he has not shown the ability to do so.
To have been employed long enough at Cal to have a career record of 39-46 and be 19 games below .500 v. conference opponents is pretty strong evidence that whatever he is doing is simply not working, and rarely has.
So where do we go from here?
Maybe Coe is overdue for a few sessions with the sports psychologist.
Nick: Great article and you point to something obvious; These third and long packages where they bring in Rogers haven't fooled anyone! Keep Mendoza in a rhythm and create plays where he can hit receivers who get open.
Removing your starting QB on the most important play of the game to set up a long FG try for a beleaguered kicker with nearly 2 minutes left on the road against an undefeated, top-25 team that has a guy that can nail ‘em from 60…
What are we even doing here? Wilcox is so lost.
Jimmy: It was a bizaare play call, that is for sure.
Playing not to lose.
You have to take it.
“Every year, without fail, the toughest loss to take is the one that ends hopes of a special season." Herein lies one of the biggest issues with Wilcox. Every year, without fail, that loss comes by the 1st/2nd weekend of October. Sometimes much earlier. You don’t even get to enjoy half a season of hope before you get repeatedly gut punched.
Thanks Nick.
"Every year, without fail, the toughest loss to take is the one that ends hopes of a special season." I've been saying this for decades. There's always a point in the season when I jokingly say, wait'll next year, while inside I'm hurting.
Instead of a bold expedition in a new conference, it now becomes a salvage operation.
I really hope the coaching staff takes a long hard look at their gameplan and game calling on this game. We have to play to our strengths and shy away from our weaknesses. Our O-Line is clearly our weakest link and trying to pound it down the middle was clearly not working. yet we stubbornly stuck to it gaining at max 1 yard each time. Whenever we ran sideways it was always a bit better. Also if O-line isn't giving enough time we needed to do more short slants and ins so we can move the stick quickly but it felt like most play call was either screen passes (which weren't working) and an occasional long attempt. After a while you can't blame the o-line for where they are at if that is where they are at. It's the coaches not adapting to their team's makeup that is killing us. That's my two cents.
Intelligence is the ability to adapt.Enuf said. Reminds me of Zoolander guys hitting the computer to make it work
Goff delivered strikes while under pressure all the time too, which is strange because he struggles so much with it in the NFL.
He actually had targets at Cal. With the Rams, the roster was stacked but the weakness was in the OL and the WR. The only reliable receiver he really had was Cooper Kupp. Enter Bill Belichick for the Super Bowl and his innate ability to remove the best player from the opposing offense from the game plan.
People point to Stafford winning as a sign that Goff was the problem, but ignore how much the makeup of that roster changed between QBs. Not saying that Goff *was* a better QB than Stafford for the Rams, but I feel like he was basically set up to fail.
With the Lions, they started building with the OL and drafted him a few WR and now look at him. He's actually been excelling against the pass rush this season.
This isn’t exactly true regarding Goff and his time with the Rams and the Super Bowl loss. Goff had Kupp, Brandon Cooks and Robert Woods as his top 3 WRs the season that the Rams went to the Super Bowl. Belichick didn’t take away Kupp in that Super Bowl because Kupp tore his ACL during the regular season and missed the majority of the season and the Super Bowl.
I don't remember Brandon Cooks and Robert Woods honestly being all that great. They also went and also grabbed Sammy Watkins.
And yeah, Cupp was out for the playoffs so it was easier for Bill to just shut down the Rams offense.
That season, Cooks was WR1, Woods was WR2 and Cupp was War3. Cooks was the speedster and was very good. Woods was a solid WR and possession guy. Cupp was starting to come into his own before the injury.
The real issue was the Todd Gurley getting injured and never really recovering.
The Rams couldn’t run the ball nearly as well during the Goff years, either. Another big difference.
Really? Those were the prime years of Gurley. In fact most people think Gurley took them to the Superbowl, not Goff.
Thought of Gurley, but he had such a short window of elite play. Goff definitely had him for some.
But Gurley was pretty much always banged up.
Mateen Bhaghani continues to be outstanding. He’s missed only one FG attempt this year. Remind me: why did he leave?
Given how bad fucla is, has any of his kicks had the pressure or importance that coe’s attempts have had?
Harebrained staff thought they could do better than Mateen and passed him over by not giving him a scholarship and giving Luckhurst's scholarship to Coe instead.
Is this true? Because I thought Bhaghani left when Luckhurt was still here and then the staff found Coe after Luckhurt transferred.
Luckhurst never transferred. His plan to quit the football team to focus on soccer was well-known to the coaching staff. Bhaghani was essentially given the talk that they still saw him as a walk-on and that they would be bringing in another kicker, prompting him to enter the portal. Coe came in the summer on Luckhurst's scholarship.
Got it, thank you
Another JW massive coaching mistake...fire him
Wilcox continues to fumble crucial aspects of running a program.
Is there an easy-ish way to analyze QB drop backs in categories based on number of blockers? I wonder how many sacks, incompletions occur when there are 5, 6, and 7 blockers?
Fair. I felt like many times they rushed 6 and we had 6 or 7 and lost. You made a great point about #63’s technique and it felt like he would immediately slide to help the tackle leaving a lane (B gap?) for the ILB to come at #15.
It depends not just on the number of blockers, but how many are coming as well. Is it 3 or 4 down linemen? Are they adding 1 or more linebackers to the rush? Is there a safety getting involved. Typically a good o-line should be able to provide decent protection for 3 seconds if its 5 on 4 or even 5 on 5. If you bring in a TE or keep in a RB, it gives you more protection, if they do their jobs.
Good thoughts.
Thanks again Nick
Agreed. Nick, your thoughts, so eloquently laid out, are helpful to me in debriefing from this agonizing loss. Interesting breakdown of Coe’s performance over his career. Thanks for everything you do to keep Cal’s indefatigable fans informed, from a consummately relatable perspective.
I’m still grieving.