55 Comments
Nov 30, 2021Liked by Nick Kranz

I keep hearing from just about everyone that Wilcox and co. are a .500 brand, whether it be 6-6, 7-5 or 5-7. I prefer to look at it a different way. He is 14-25 in conference, or just above a 35% winning percentage where it counts. His overall record is padded by some fairly easy non conference match-ups in his first few years. We thought Cal had a tough non-conference schedule this year, and sure enough Cal lost to Nevada and TCU. But we found out that Nevada, predicted in pre-season to win their division, failed to do so. And TCU was bad enough to fire their head coach of 20 or more seasons.

A head coach is expected to establish an identity in years 4 and 5 when he is fielding his own players, and yet Cal has gone backwards with a overall 4-9 record against FBS opponents. So I don't see at 500 coach that can be acceptable to a lot of folks at Cal. I see a guy on a bad downward arc who is going to get shown the door. It's just a matter of when.

Expand full comment

What are the stages of grief again? I think we are at acceptance.

Expand full comment
Nov 30, 2021Liked by Nick Kranz

Thank you, Nick...great article. Totally agree, esp. w/ the Big Picture.

Expand full comment

My goal is to go bowling regularly. We don’t necessarily need to go to the rose bowl, but we should be in the discussion for it every once in a while.

6-6 every year should be attainable with the talent we have.

Expand full comment

I understand the ultimate goal is Rose Bowl, but what do we really expect from Cal? 9-10 win seasons every year? I don't know if that is possible anymore. There are multiple universities within even just the Pac-12 that can bankroll way harder than we can, and CFB is increasingly becoming more and more of a money-focused sport.

Even if we were to move on from Wilcox, which is what this post feels like, I don't imagine we'll do much better. Even if we find someone great, they'll just get poached within a year or two by a university that cares more. If we actually want to grow as a program, we're going to have to commit so someone -- whether or not it's Wilcox -- growing with us.

That said, Wilcox/Sirmon/Musgrave have shown flashes even if it's against weaker talent. And most of our losses this year were by one score. Blowing it all up now feels like a bad move even though losing to UCLA is shitty. Just need to remember that they have way more talent in their depth than we do, and it showed.

Really hoping Milner is able to step up next year and our fresh crew of offensive targets are worth the hype.

Expand full comment

I watched the game a few times again on the 23 minute Youtube highlight reel. Unfortunately a lot of the plays that came up for CAL started with down and distance situations like 3rd and 7, so I did not get to see much of the 1st and 2nd downs. Our first half was pretty good. We were in the game. In the second half it came down to a number of plays where we just did not execute. We ran the ball successfully between the tackles in the first half, but we went away from that strategy in the 2nd half and our passing game let us down. I could not see many of the routes developing but it seemed that Chase did not do a good job of checking down quickly. He had open receivers but just could not get the ball to them. Part of this is because he was under pressure. Part of this is some of our receivers dropped critical catches. Our schemes were not very good in this game. UCLA's defense always seemed to control the edges, and in the second half on critical downs we would load our players to the boundary side of the field where both our runners and receivers were crowded. I think we could have effectively run traps on the edges. In the end, we just didn't execute well enough to stay with a well coached UCLA team that had great schemes on both sides of the ball. That's on our coaches. (Again).

Expand full comment

Great discussions guys! My half a cent, Average coaches = Average team. My vote for head coach is Hardy Nickerson, I would coach for this guy!

Expand full comment

Nice write-up. It's unfortunate the way things turned out - Cal definitely could have adjusted the offense to account for the incessant blitzing, maybe relying more on the run game. Also, Garbers rarely had even two seconds to survey the field and find a receiver. UCLA seemed to always be in the backfield.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 30, 2021
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 30, 2021
Comment removed
Expand full comment