I especially enjoy the Coaching/Game Theory section of this column and I'm typically in agreement with your thoughts. But I'm surprised you didn't mention the decision to pass on 3rd and 2 with 40 seconds left in the first half. By that time TCU looked content to let the Bears run out the clock due to the favorable down and distance even though TCU still had one remaining timeout. As Wilcox is a coach who likes to limit the opponents' possessions, it seemed odd not to try to deny TCU another possession, particularly because they would start the 2nd half with the ball.
Ugh, I actually jotted that down in my game notes and then forgot to include it in the column. Yeah, that playcall didn't make sense, particularly since Cal threw a short pass on 2nd down and let the playclock wind all the way down. Either you're trying to score our you're trying to run the clock out, and Cal managed to pick neither.
I actually thought that play was fine, although I was surprised about it because I thought we were going to run the clock down. Our downfield pass game was working for us that day and it could have resulted in defensive PI as well. If it doesn't work, we'll just punt on the next play and TCU likely won't score in less than a minute (Which turned out to be false. Defense sucked). If it gets intercepted, it will be just like a punt as well.
"For what it’s worth, my bigger complaint was that Cal chose to place the ball on the right hash, then called a designed QB rollout to the short side of the field with only one receiver on that side. It might have been the single worst play-call of a day that was otherwise quite solid in that regard." Please do a breakdown this week. I DVR-ed the game and did watch that play 2x so far and can't understand Musgrave's rationale. What did he see to think it was a good play? It's the first half and should they line up for this play without a clear mismatch, he can readily take a timeout and change.
I agree with the Coaching/Game Theory of these post. I was also surprised we decided to pass on that down and distance but I assume that Wilcox thought his defense would be able to keep TCU from scoring with such little time left on the clock.
I think remember the last time or really ever seeing a team score a TD that quickly before halftime…….with a running play. Just baffling.
There's certainly a clear trend of our defense getting burned by draw plays in what seem like passing situations. Nevada converted 3rd and 6 last week on a draw I think and I remember Oregon State doing it several times in years past. Probably something the D should prepare for going forward!
Amen! That call baffled me. Too much risk if it doesn't work out. Worse case if you run and don't get the first down is that the clock keeps running (or TCU takes its last TO). I feel like Musgrave is trying to outsmart himself and that's always dangerous.
Sept 27, 1958: Cal fell to 0-2 after being beaten by Michigan State, a week after losing the opener to lowly UOP. That was of course our last Rose Bowl year.
It’s not going to happen this year with Oregon and UCLA looking as good as they do, but I think a winning record in the conference is very possible. I also like the increased aggressiveness on offense, even if it’s not yet paying off. Over the course of the year I think it will.
Also started 0-2 in 1975 and went on to tie for the conference title. Of course that was a result of Coach White making Joe Roth the starting quarterback.
I’m just not seeing a winning record in Pac 12 play. I like the way Nam broke down our opponents into tiers and after looking at it, I just don’t see 5 wins.
Wilcox and Garbers both said that they saw TCU played everyone within 9 years of the line of scrimmage. They felt they could exploit that for big plays.
Great that they did but not every team is going yo have that type of D.
I was really bummed with Coach Wilcox's decision making in this game. Sometimes you have to stop being aggressive and take the easy points. Sometimes, when you are up by 12 points with 40 seconds to go until the half, you should take the lead to the locker room instead of going for the killshot. Sometimes, with 40 seconds to go until the half it's better to play prevent than get beat on a running play while your 2nd level is blitzing or fitting the wrong gaps, which allows the opposing team to score on a long run. Opposing coordinators are realizing that Coach Wilcox goes for the aggressive play, and they factor that into their play calling....and we lost as a result. It all started with getting sideways about a bad snap and missing a PAT. We were chasing that damn point for the rest of the game, even when we were leading.
All the TCU loss means is that we're going 10-2 in the regular season. Am I right, people? Show of hands, who says we run the table the rest of the way? And while you're at it gimme a C!
Tighten up the D, continue with the O demonstrated in this game, and we may win some games. I'm thinking 6-6 is probably the ceiling for the team this year.
Wilcox has gone 2-7, 4-5, 4-5 and 1-3 in the conference. I think the Pac 12 is better this year. Washington will be vastly improved from their first two games from what I saw in the second half of the Michigan game. Stanford just showed they will be improved. Can you imagine a Wilcox team doing that to USC on the road? And Oregon State looks like they have found an offense with a new quarterback and their usual stable of very good running backs. I don't see the five conference wins on their schedule that it would take to get to 6-6.
I mean, could this be Holmoe redux, where Wilcox reached his ceiling after the 2019 season and we didn't know it? You may recall that Holmoe beat Oklahoma and USC in 1998 and just needed a Big Game win for a bowl game. Instead, they scored 3 points in that game that started a downhill slide and Holmoe's firing two years later. Like Wilcox, Holmoe was a defensive guy who could never find consistent offense.
Simply, no. Holmoe was not a 'defensive guy'. He was a budding AD who got paid to learn head coaching on-the-job by Cal for 5 miserable seasons. Any surprise wins (Oklahoma was 5-6 that year btw) early in his tenure I attribute to the talent and assistants left behind by Mariucci. He was as qualified for that job as Wyking was for his (at least Holmoe was a stand-up guy). There is no equivalency in any way to Wilcox, who does know how to coach, and comparing conference records, 9-31, 16% win percentage, no big game wins vs. 10-17, 35%, 1-2 in big game (throwing out 2020, less than meaningless), there is still hope in 2021. There was none in 2000 nor 2001.
At the very least, you need to get your facts straight. Holmoe WAS the defensive coordinator for Mariucci and played defense for several seasons in the NFL. He also was a defensive backs coach with both Stanford and the 49ers before joining the staff at Cal. So he was a defensive guy. And Wilcox's conference record is 11-20, not 10-17. Sorry, but you don't get to throw out the "meaningless" 2020 season. Cal played poorly in the 2020 season, and it has carried over into this year. Holmoe's overall awful record was heavily influenced by his final year when he went 1-10. The curtain is still playing out on Wilcox' tenure. I only asked if 2019 was his ceiling in the same way that 1998 was the high mark for Holmoe
Sorry, I mis-interpeted your phrasing. By saying Holmoe was a 'defensive guy' (instead of a 'defensive coordinator'), I took your meaning to say he was a head coach with defensive proclivities. That would describe Wilcox perfectly. Holmoe was a 'defensive coordinator', and not much more, football-wise, other than a high-quality individual. Wilcox did the hard work required to prepare himself for the head coaching position (ala Bruce Snyder), whereas Holmoe had it thrust upon him by an over-enthusiastic Mariucci. I don't think he had any ambition to be a head coach, but you're not going to turn it down. I distinctly remember at the time thinking the suits at Cal were enthralled by Mariucci and bought his endorsement, without the proper due diligence. And no, 2020 really doesn't count as far as evaluating a Wilcox's performance. Yes, it absolutely will count in the record books, but Wilcox shouldn't be judged by playing their first game of the season (UCLA had already played), an away game at UCLA on two(!) days notice, with a defensive line in quarantine, just has he shouldn't be given much credit by beating Oregon's reserves. Also, and uniquely Cal's issue, the city of Berkeley's super-tight covid restrictions (which in the historical view were probably the right calls) hobbled the Bears ability to hold practices and host games. In contrast to Wilcox, Holmoe's overall awful record was, I would say, only partially influenced by his 1-10 last season, but also factoring in would be his previous 3-8 season, and the 4-7 season prior to that. He never had a winning season. Wilcox may eventually fail, but any comparison to Holmoe are not apt.
Goldenone: "Tighten up the D". Truer words have never been spoken but we are going to find out if Sirmon has the necessary DC chops to make this happen. I didn't think that there would be this much of a drop-off for the defense after The 'Root moved to Oregon but seeing is believing. Look at how our defense has played for the last two games vs. Oregon. Football gods, pray for us.
1 - The offense gets credit for 4 tds, and the defense gets negated for giving up 5 tds, but what about the td the defense scored? Should that not show up on the defensive stats?
2 - "Chasing that point ultimately didn’t make a difference" is a hindsight is 20/20 statement. If they kick the PATs throughout, they have 2 more points, which was the difference of the game. Granted tcU went for 2 at one point and failed. That was an attempt to go up by 3, so if the TD tied the game, they probably kick the XP. There are an expected points per attempt for both kicking for 1 and going for 2. The stats favor kicking. Chasing points, particularly from early on, rarely seems to work. I think we should at least attempt to understand that college football games result in statistical data, and game theory is built upon that, but the game isn't played by mechanistic robots; it is played by emotional young men. They need repetition to build confidence. Being consistently successful may be more important than the coach nailing the game theory. And at the end of the day, I suppose I might rather lose by 1 than by 2.
Interesting, Peyton Manning on MNF just now said that on 3rd & 2 he liked to throw a 20yd or a 40yd pattern, NOT 2 - 5 yard patterns that the defense is expecting.
I see a theme here on WFC that our defense is not as good due to the departure of TDR. I think it is more likely that ~ currently ~ we don't have two future League playas at ILB or 3 future League playas at DB. These playas that are now in the League were playin for TDR and yes coached up by him. But currently Sirmon does not have 5 League players at ILB / DB. He may have them at some point ~ perhaps this year or subsequent years ~ but for now we need to allow time for young players to get experience and develop. Our ILB are young ~ give them a chance. I do feel that Iosefa appears to be a bit lost, he has all the physical tools but seems to miss assignments and isn't tackling all that well. A young Oladejo played some snaps and did reasonably well ~ heck, he's a true freshman playing against TCU. So talent is being developed. Hey even Gamble improved his play.
In short, I don't feel Sirmon is all that bad and is working with a young defense at all 3 levels. He may not be as an aggressive play caller as TDR, but that may be a function of youth and not opening up the play book too early.
Granted TDR was good and he had considerable talent to work with and mold.
I do feel that the defense will be solid this year despite several key season ending injuries at DL, OLB & S. And that doesn't include Deng, what's his status?
I like your perspective, but TDR came into Cal with much less talent than Sirmon has right now, no? I liked TDRs aggressiveness and unbalanced attacks. We’ve had 5 years to recruit and prepare under Wilcox and I’m disappointed with where we are in depth and talent by now.
"much less talent", apparently not ~ 5 guys went to the League, they just needed to be coached up ~ and Sirmon was a big part of that coaching for Weaver and K. We currently have talent but these guys are young at all levels of the defense & unfortunately injuries are mounting on the defensive side of the ball. I still feel we will have a good D this year.
Err, Taylor's the coach at Sac State, not UC Davis. (And to the Aggie and Hornet fanatics 'round these parts, that's sorta like saying Shaw is the coach of Cal...)
I especially enjoy the Coaching/Game Theory section of this column and I'm typically in agreement with your thoughts. But I'm surprised you didn't mention the decision to pass on 3rd and 2 with 40 seconds left in the first half. By that time TCU looked content to let the Bears run out the clock due to the favorable down and distance even though TCU still had one remaining timeout. As Wilcox is a coach who likes to limit the opponents' possessions, it seemed odd not to try to deny TCU another possession, particularly because they would start the 2nd half with the ball.
Ugh, I actually jotted that down in my game notes and then forgot to include it in the column. Yeah, that playcall didn't make sense, particularly since Cal threw a short pass on 2nd down and let the playclock wind all the way down. Either you're trying to score our you're trying to run the clock out, and Cal managed to pick neither.
I actually thought that play was fine, although I was surprised about it because I thought we were going to run the clock down. Our downfield pass game was working for us that day and it could have resulted in defensive PI as well. If it doesn't work, we'll just punt on the next play and TCU likely won't score in less than a minute (Which turned out to be false. Defense sucked). If it gets intercepted, it will be just like a punt as well.
"For what it’s worth, my bigger complaint was that Cal chose to place the ball on the right hash, then called a designed QB rollout to the short side of the field with only one receiver on that side. It might have been the single worst play-call of a day that was otherwise quite solid in that regard." Please do a breakdown this week. I DVR-ed the game and did watch that play 2x so far and can't understand Musgrave's rationale. What did he see to think it was a good play? It's the first half and should they line up for this play without a clear mismatch, he can readily take a timeout and change.
I agree with the Coaching/Game Theory of these post. I was also surprised we decided to pass on that down and distance but I assume that Wilcox thought his defense would be able to keep TCU from scoring with such little time left on the clock.
I think remember the last time or really ever seeing a team score a TD that quickly before halftime…….with a running play. Just baffling.
There's certainly a clear trend of our defense getting burned by draw plays in what seem like passing situations. Nevada converted 3rd and 6 last week on a draw I think and I remember Oregon State doing it several times in years past. Probably something the D should prepare for going forward!
Which begs the question: Is Musgrave calling the plays & does Wilcox occasionally override the calls in cases like this?
Amen! That call baffled me. Too much risk if it doesn't work out. Worse case if you run and don't get the first down is that the clock keeps running (or TCU takes its last TO). I feel like Musgrave is trying to outsmart himself and that's always dangerous.
Consolation prize: Cal (71) ranks as the best 0-2 team in The Athletic's comprehensive CFB rankings, ahead of Florida State (80) and UW (87).
It's a disappointing start to the season to be sure but two close losses to borderline Top 25 teams isn't the end of the world.
Sept 27, 1958: Cal fell to 0-2 after being beaten by Michigan State, a week after losing the opener to lowly UOP. That was of course our last Rose Bowl year.
It’s not going to happen this year with Oregon and UCLA looking as good as they do, but I think a winning record in the conference is very possible. I also like the increased aggressiveness on offense, even if it’s not yet paying off. Over the course of the year I think it will.
Also started 0-2 in 1975 and went on to tie for the conference title. Of course that was a result of Coach White making Joe Roth the starting quarterback.
hmmm and the only shared title we had since then was in 2006, which started with an awful loss to Tennessee.
Special teams were really good in 1975. Played with a lot of pride and heart.
I’m just not seeing a winning record in Pac 12 play. I like the way Nam broke down our opponents into tiers and after looking at it, I just don’t see 5 wins.
I agree
Wilcox and Garbers both said that they saw TCU played everyone within 9 years of the line of scrimmage. They felt they could exploit that for big plays.
Great that they did but not every team is going yo have that type of D.
I would expect a TD on every play if TCU gave us 9 years to work with.
We're 71st! We're 71st!
I was really bummed with Coach Wilcox's decision making in this game. Sometimes you have to stop being aggressive and take the easy points. Sometimes, when you are up by 12 points with 40 seconds to go until the half, you should take the lead to the locker room instead of going for the killshot. Sometimes, with 40 seconds to go until the half it's better to play prevent than get beat on a running play while your 2nd level is blitzing or fitting the wrong gaps, which allows the opposing team to score on a long run. Opposing coordinators are realizing that Coach Wilcox goes for the aggressive play, and they factor that into their play calling....and we lost as a result. It all started with getting sideways about a bad snap and missing a PAT. We were chasing that damn point for the rest of the game, even when we were leading.
Weekly Pac-12 QB ratings for last Saturday
1
Tanner McKeeSTAN
2
Chase GarbersCAL
3
Chance NolanORST
4
Anthony BrownORE
5
Dylan MorrisWASH
6
Jayden de LauraWSU
7
Jayden DanielsASU
8
Brendon LewisCOLO
9
Charlie BrewerUTAH
10
Kedon SlovisUSC
11
Gunner CruzARIZ
12
Will PlummerARIZ
I thought Cal played significantly better in week 2. I liked that Wilcox took more risks even if it meant losing points that could have won the game.
Garbers finally remembered how to throw a football and did a decent job. The pass protection was much improved, too.
So, I’m less frustrated after this game.
Still want to see a different QB (what do we have to lose?), more deep passing plays, and more aggressive defense.
That said, better job Bears.
All the TCU loss means is that we're going 10-2 in the regular season. Am I right, people? Show of hands, who says we run the table the rest of the way? And while you're at it gimme a C!
Tighten up the D, continue with the O demonstrated in this game, and we may win some games. I'm thinking 6-6 is probably the ceiling for the team this year.
Wilcox has gone 2-7, 4-5, 4-5 and 1-3 in the conference. I think the Pac 12 is better this year. Washington will be vastly improved from their first two games from what I saw in the second half of the Michigan game. Stanford just showed they will be improved. Can you imagine a Wilcox team doing that to USC on the road? And Oregon State looks like they have found an offense with a new quarterback and their usual stable of very good running backs. I don't see the five conference wins on their schedule that it would take to get to 6-6.
I mean, could this be Holmoe redux, where Wilcox reached his ceiling after the 2019 season and we didn't know it? You may recall that Holmoe beat Oklahoma and USC in 1998 and just needed a Big Game win for a bowl game. Instead, they scored 3 points in that game that started a downhill slide and Holmoe's firing two years later. Like Wilcox, Holmoe was a defensive guy who could never find consistent offense.
Simply, no. Holmoe was not a 'defensive guy'. He was a budding AD who got paid to learn head coaching on-the-job by Cal for 5 miserable seasons. Any surprise wins (Oklahoma was 5-6 that year btw) early in his tenure I attribute to the talent and assistants left behind by Mariucci. He was as qualified for that job as Wyking was for his (at least Holmoe was a stand-up guy). There is no equivalency in any way to Wilcox, who does know how to coach, and comparing conference records, 9-31, 16% win percentage, no big game wins vs. 10-17, 35%, 1-2 in big game (throwing out 2020, less than meaningless), there is still hope in 2021. There was none in 2000 nor 2001.
At the very least, you need to get your facts straight. Holmoe WAS the defensive coordinator for Mariucci and played defense for several seasons in the NFL. He also was a defensive backs coach with both Stanford and the 49ers before joining the staff at Cal. So he was a defensive guy. And Wilcox's conference record is 11-20, not 10-17. Sorry, but you don't get to throw out the "meaningless" 2020 season. Cal played poorly in the 2020 season, and it has carried over into this year. Holmoe's overall awful record was heavily influenced by his final year when he went 1-10. The curtain is still playing out on Wilcox' tenure. I only asked if 2019 was his ceiling in the same way that 1998 was the high mark for Holmoe
Sorry, I mis-interpeted your phrasing. By saying Holmoe was a 'defensive guy' (instead of a 'defensive coordinator'), I took your meaning to say he was a head coach with defensive proclivities. That would describe Wilcox perfectly. Holmoe was a 'defensive coordinator', and not much more, football-wise, other than a high-quality individual. Wilcox did the hard work required to prepare himself for the head coaching position (ala Bruce Snyder), whereas Holmoe had it thrust upon him by an over-enthusiastic Mariucci. I don't think he had any ambition to be a head coach, but you're not going to turn it down. I distinctly remember at the time thinking the suits at Cal were enthralled by Mariucci and bought his endorsement, without the proper due diligence. And no, 2020 really doesn't count as far as evaluating a Wilcox's performance. Yes, it absolutely will count in the record books, but Wilcox shouldn't be judged by playing their first game of the season (UCLA had already played), an away game at UCLA on two(!) days notice, with a defensive line in quarantine, just has he shouldn't be given much credit by beating Oregon's reserves. Also, and uniquely Cal's issue, the city of Berkeley's super-tight covid restrictions (which in the historical view were probably the right calls) hobbled the Bears ability to hold practices and host games. In contrast to Wilcox, Holmoe's overall awful record was, I would say, only partially influenced by his 1-10 last season, but also factoring in would be his previous 3-8 season, and the 4-7 season prior to that. He never had a winning season. Wilcox may eventually fail, but any comparison to Holmoe are not apt.
Goldenone: "Tighten up the D". Truer words have never been spoken but we are going to find out if Sirmon has the necessary DC chops to make this happen. I didn't think that there would be this much of a drop-off for the defense after The 'Root moved to Oregon but seeing is believing. Look at how our defense has played for the last two games vs. Oregon. Football gods, pray for us.
Heck, a skillful quick punt on 3rd down may have been a good option.
Which would still mean a winning Conference record
Two comments:
1 - The offense gets credit for 4 tds, and the defense gets negated for giving up 5 tds, but what about the td the defense scored? Should that not show up on the defensive stats?
2 - "Chasing that point ultimately didn’t make a difference" is a hindsight is 20/20 statement. If they kick the PATs throughout, they have 2 more points, which was the difference of the game. Granted tcU went for 2 at one point and failed. That was an attempt to go up by 3, so if the TD tied the game, they probably kick the XP. There are an expected points per attempt for both kicking for 1 and going for 2. The stats favor kicking. Chasing points, particularly from early on, rarely seems to work. I think we should at least attempt to understand that college football games result in statistical data, and game theory is built upon that, but the game isn't played by mechanistic robots; it is played by emotional young men. They need repetition to build confidence. Being consistently successful may be more important than the coach nailing the game theory. And at the end of the day, I suppose I might rather lose by 1 than by 2.
The game was in Fort Worth, not Dallas
Technically correct is the best kind of correct
Interesting, Peyton Manning on MNF just now said that on 3rd & 2 he liked to throw a 20yd or a 40yd pattern, NOT 2 - 5 yard patterns that the defense is expecting.
I see a theme here on WFC that our defense is not as good due to the departure of TDR. I think it is more likely that ~ currently ~ we don't have two future League playas at ILB or 3 future League playas at DB. These playas that are now in the League were playin for TDR and yes coached up by him. But currently Sirmon does not have 5 League players at ILB / DB. He may have them at some point ~ perhaps this year or subsequent years ~ but for now we need to allow time for young players to get experience and develop. Our ILB are young ~ give them a chance. I do feel that Iosefa appears to be a bit lost, he has all the physical tools but seems to miss assignments and isn't tackling all that well. A young Oladejo played some snaps and did reasonably well ~ heck, he's a true freshman playing against TCU. So talent is being developed. Hey even Gamble improved his play.
In short, I don't feel Sirmon is all that bad and is working with a young defense at all 3 levels. He may not be as an aggressive play caller as TDR, but that may be a function of youth and not opening up the play book too early.
Granted TDR was good and he had considerable talent to work with and mold.
I do feel that the defense will be solid this year despite several key season ending injuries at DL, OLB & S. And that doesn't include Deng, what's his status?
I like your perspective, but TDR came into Cal with much less talent than Sirmon has right now, no? I liked TDRs aggressiveness and unbalanced attacks. We’ve had 5 years to recruit and prepare under Wilcox and I’m disappointed with where we are in depth and talent by now.
"much less talent", apparently not ~ 5 guys went to the League, they just needed to be coached up ~ and Sirmon was a big part of that coaching for Weaver and K. We currently have talent but these guys are young at all levels of the defense & unfortunately injuries are mounting on the defensive side of the ball. I still feel we will have a good D this year.
Err, Taylor's the coach at Sac State, not UC Davis. (And to the Aggie and Hornet fanatics 'round these parts, that's sorta like saying Shaw is the coach of Cal...)