[Phogge]

"Perverse? Twisted?" Hey BC is that an ad honimum attack? Hey Redrum, relax. I like close games and my wife is a Bear. If you want to know what crappy winners are you should have been in our dugout in 1967 when the #1 ranked Indians played like it but acted as if they were three year olds.

[Phogge]

"Perverse? Twisted?" Hey BC is that an ad honimum attack? Hey Redrum, relax. I like close games and my wife is a Bear. If you want to know what crappy winners are you should have been in our dugout in 1967 when the #1 ranked Indians played like it but acted as if they were three year olds.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think my identification of Wilcox as a "high growth stock" is confirmation bias. 

I'm a pretty harsh critic when it comes to leaders of organizations. Wilcox did have a good pedigree, and though that gave me reason to believe he would be a good head coach, it took observing the moves he made as a coach for me to start seeing "meat put on that bone" that he would be good, so to speak.

Cal didn't have enough healthy players to have a real Spring Game, but what I saw from the scrimmage demonstrated a competent offensive scheme and a very good WR group.  I was way less impressed with the defense, but thought Wilcox being a defensive-minded coach and a competent DC, would make that side of the ball better.

My pre-season Cal record prediction was 5-7.  I just didn't see how they could beat UNC and Ole Miss.  They beat both.  IOW, I thought Wilcox was going to improve the Cal team, but he's already exceeded my expectations that were already higher than most. And he's also shown some things that are pleasant surprises I didn't necessarily expect and couldn't possibly know would be the case.  The fact they support the notion Wilcox is a coaching star in the making isn't bias, as much as an understanding of the little things that have led to a 3-0 start. 

Those little things don't tend to go away with leaders who understand their importance, and if I believe they enable winning - as I do - I'm fully prepared to put my chips on someone who does such little things, because I believe such people to be on a high achievement trajectory.  There will be some bumps in the road I'm sure, and we'll have to see how well Wilcox overcomes them, but given what he has overcome already, odds are in his favor that he will.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think my identification of Wilcox as a "high growth stock" is confirmation bias. 

I'm a pretty harsh critic when it comes to leaders of organizations. Wilcox did have a good pedigree, and though that gave me reason to believe he would be a good head coach, it took observing the moves he made as a coach for me to start seeing "meat put on that bone" that he would be good, so to speak.

Cal didn't have enough healthy players to have a real Spring Game, but what I saw from the scrimmage demonstrated a competent offensive scheme and a very good WR group.  I was way less impressed with the defense, but thought Wilcox being a defensive-minded coach and a competent DC, would make that side of the ball better.

My pre-season Cal record prediction was 5-7.  I just didn't see how they could beat UNC and Ole Miss.  They beat both.  IOW, I thought Wilcox was going to improve the Cal team, but he's already exceeded my expectations that were already higher than most. And he's also shown some things that are pleasant surprises I didn't necessarily expect and couldn't possibly know would be the case.  The fact they support the notion Wilcox is a coaching star in the making isn't bias, as much as an understanding of the little things that have led to a 3-0 start. 

Those little things don't tend to go away with leaders who understand their importance, and if I believe they enable winning - as I do - I'm fully prepared to put my chips on someone who does such little things, because I believe such people to be on a high achievement trajectory.  There will be some bumps in the road I'm sure, and we'll have to see how well Wilcox overcomes them, but given what he has overcome already, odds are in his favor that he will.

[martyup]

Yes, but, no matter how well they do . . . Cal still sucks!

[martyup]

Yes, but, no matter how well they do . . . Cal still sucks!

[BostonCard]

So far, cal looks pretty good.  Hard to believe that’s the same Sam darn old who picked out defense apart.

BC

[BostonCard]

So far, cal looks pretty good.  Hard to believe that’s the same Sam darn old who picked out defense apart.

BC

[martyup]

So far, ןɐɔ looks pretty good.  Hard to believe that’s the same Sam darn old who picked out defense apart.

BC

Cal's uniforms suck.  Very weenie-ish.

[martyup]

So far, ןɐɔ looks pretty good.  Hard to believe that’s the same Sam darn old who picked out defense apart.

BC

Cal's uniforms suck.  Very weenie-ish.

[martyup]

The weenies are putting a lot of pressure on Darnold.  Perhaps we should have blitzed him.  ???

[martyup]

The weenies are putting a lot of pressure on Darnold.  Perhaps we should have blitzed him.  ???

[BostonCard]

The weenies are putting a lot of pressure on Darnold.  Perhaps we should have blitzed him.  ???

Given that he was able to gain 28.5 yards per attempt against our blitz, the question wasn’t whether we should have blitzed him more, but rather how could we have blitzed him more effectively.

BC

[BostonCard]

The weenies are putting a lot of pressure on Darnold.  Perhaps we should have blitzed him.  ???

Given that he was able to gain 28.5 yards per attempt against our blitz, the question wasn’t whether we should have blitzed him more, but rather how could we have blitzed him more effectively.

BC

[JJJ]

I don't think my identification of Wilcox as a "high growth stock" is confirmation bias. 

I think this is an apt choice of words. OutsiderFan made a call based on what he saw and what he thinks. Similar to someone watching the stock market for the first few days of the year and saying "the Dow is going to hit 30,000 before it hits 15,000." I respect that, and if he is right, he has bragging rights or "I told you so's" or whatever he likes. As others point out, it'll take time to actually confirm if he was right (until he wins a few conference championships, Rose Bowls, etc).  Maybe we can revisit this later in the season, but it may still be too early to tell.

[JJJ]

I don't think my identification of Wilcox as a "high growth stock" is confirmation bias. 

I think this is an apt choice of words. OutsiderFan made a call based on what he saw and what he thinks. Similar to someone watching the stock market for the first few days of the year and saying "the Dow is going to hit 30,000 before it hits 15,000." I respect that, and if he is right, he has bragging rights or "I told you so's" or whatever he likes. As others point out, it'll take time to actually confirm if he was right (until he wins a few conference championships, Rose Bowls, etc).  Maybe we can revisit this later in the season, but it may still be too early to tell.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=17441.msg201965#msg201965 date=1506197059]
The weenies are putting a lot of pressure on Darnold.  Perhaps we should have blitzed him.  ???

Given that he was able to gain 28.5 yards per attempt against our blitz, the question wasn’t whether we should have blitzed him more, but rather how could we have blitzed him more effectively.

BC
[/quote]

This is it.  Stanford blitzes have become quite predictable. 

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=17441.msg201965#msg201965 date=1506197059]
The weenies are putting a lot of pressure on Darnold.  Perhaps we should have blitzed him.  ???

Given that he was able to gain 28.5 yards per attempt against our blitz, the question wasn’t whether we should have blitzed him more, but rather how could we have blitzed him more effectively.

BC
[/quote]

This is it.  Stanford blitzes have become quite predictable. 

[fullmetal]

I'm with OF.  If you pay attention to the football fundamentals, you'll see that kal has become a team that makes plays.  And outside of 4 INTs by the kal QB today, they could have had a real shot at beating U$C...not sure Stanford was really ever in a similar position (kal and U$C were tied at 13 to start the 4Q).

[fullmetal]

I'm with OF.  If you pay attention to the football fundamentals, you'll see that kal has become a team that makes plays.  And outside of 4 INTs by the kal QB today, they could have had a real shot at beating U$C...not sure Stanford was really ever in a similar position (kal and U$C were tied at 13 to start the 4Q).

[OutsiderFan]

Don't want to make it all about the USC game, but inside the numbers, Cal actually largely outplayed them.  Didn't give up a single play of 20+ yards.  First downs were 22-21 USC.  Cal out-gained USC and only gave up 346 yards.  Rushing differential was .1, essentially even.

Cal effectively had 6 turnovers and missed a chip shot FG, yet only lost by 10 points.  Truly amazing. 

[OutsiderFan]

Don't want to make it all about the USC game, but inside the numbers, Cal actually largely outplayed them.  Didn't give up a single play of 20+ yards.  First downs were 22-21 USC.  Cal out-gained USC and only gave up 346 yards.  Rushing differential was .1, essentially even.

Cal effectively had 6 turnovers and missed a chip shot FG, yet only lost by 10 points.  Truly amazing. 

[BostonCard]

Funny, before this game, OF wrote:

ɐɔ has outscored opponents 57-13 in second halves so far. 
ןɐɔ is #3 in turnovers forced.

These things don't happen unless the coaching staff has prepared the players to perform, put them in positions to have success, and without the players trusting their coaches and each other.  It also doesn't happen without all the coaches being on the same page, with the offense and defense working to help each other.  Wilcox has struck a great balance between demonstrating and controlling his emotions on the sidelines in games.  This seems to have translated to the team.

Of course, now that Cal was outscored 17-7 in the fourth quarter and had 6 turnovers, he’s focused on the fact that Cal had more total yards, and only lost by six, despite the six turnovers.

I give Cal a lot of credit.  They played USC even through three quarters, before the wheels fell off.  Their defensive effort against UsC was substantially better than ours.  Based on the totality of evidence so far, I would probably favor Cal by a field goal against Stanford in a neutral field if they were to play tomorrow.  But they did get beaten today, and they lost it in the fourth quarter through sloppy play, so maybe we should get a few more data points.

BC

[BostonCard]

Funny, before this game, OF wrote:

ɐɔ has outscored opponents 57-13 in second halves so far. 
ןɐɔ is #3 in turnovers forced.

These things don't happen unless the coaching staff has prepared the players to perform, put them in positions to have success, and without the players trusting their coaches and each other.  It also doesn't happen without all the coaches being on the same page, with the offense and defense working to help each other.  Wilcox has struck a great balance between demonstrating and controlling his emotions on the sidelines in games.  This seems to have translated to the team.

Of course, now that Cal was outscored 17-7 in the fourth quarter and had 6 turnovers, he’s focused on the fact that Cal had more total yards, and only lost by six, despite the six turnovers.

I give Cal a lot of credit.  They played USC even through three quarters, before the wheels fell off.  Their defensive effort against UsC was substantially better than ours.  Based on the totality of evidence so far, I would probably favor Cal by a field goal against Stanford in a neutral field if they were to play tomorrow.  But they did get beaten today, and they lost it in the fourth quarter through sloppy play, so maybe we should get a few more data points.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Cal is a seriously under talented team to USC.  Nothing that happened today changes my observations or belief that Wilcox is a great coach in the making.  In fact, it validates them.  No way should Cal have been able to hold USC to no plays of at least 20 yards and 30 points, especially after turning it over 6 times, including one inside it's own 5.

It was particularly noteworthy to see the defense never gave up, even after all the turnovers and mistakes by the offense.  Cal teams of recent vintage would have folded, given up 500+ yards and well over 40 points.

[OutsiderFan]

Cal is a seriously under talented team to USC.  Nothing that happened today changes my observations or belief that Wilcox is a great coach in the making.  In fact, it validates them.  No way should Cal have been able to hold USC to no plays of at least 20 yards and 30 points, especially after turning it over 6 times, including one inside it's own 5.

It was particularly noteworthy to see the defense never gave up, even after all the turnovers and mistakes by the offense.  Cal teams of recent vintage would have folded, given up 500+ yards and well over 40 points.

[Hulk01]

Cal looked impressive.  They appeared to be playing USC dead even for more than a half. 

[Hulk01]

Cal looked impressive.  They appeared to be playing USC dead even for more than a half. 

[Goose]

ןɐɔ is a seriously under talented team to U$C.  Nothing that happened today changes my observations or belief that Wilcox is a great coach in the making.  In fact, it validates them.  No way should ןɐɔ have been able to hold U$C to no plays of at least 20 yards and 30 points, especially after turning it over 6 times, including one inside it's own 5.

It was particularly noteworthy to see the defense never gave up, even after all the turnovers and mistakes by the offense.  ןɐɔ teams of recent vintage would have folded, given up 500+ yards and well over 40 points.

Jury is still out. I think there is no question that C.al is better. They didn't quit on defense, which is to say, they have a defense, which last year they didn't.  However, after they have lost a few, they may not look so good. Wilcox's U$C defenses didn't live up to expectations. Now he is the HC, so maybe that doesn't mean much, but it may. I do think their ability to bother Darnold is very significant, not so much saying C.al is good, but rather that Darnold maybe isn't as good as he is given credit for.

[Goose]

ןɐɔ is a seriously under talented team to U$C.  Nothing that happened today changes my observations or belief that Wilcox is a great coach in the making.  In fact, it validates them.  No way should ןɐɔ have been able to hold U$C to no plays of at least 20 yards and 30 points, especially after turning it over 6 times, including one inside it's own 5.

It was particularly noteworthy to see the defense never gave up, even after all the turnovers and mistakes by the offense.  ןɐɔ teams of recent vintage would have folded, given up 500+ yards and well over 40 points.

Jury is still out. I think there is no question that C.al is better. They didn't quit on defense, which is to say, they have a defense, which last year they didn't.  However, after they have lost a few, they may not look so good. Wilcox's U$C defenses didn't live up to expectations. Now he is the HC, so maybe that doesn't mean much, but it may. I do think their ability to bother Darnold is very significant, not so much saying C.al is good, but rather that Darnold maybe isn't as good as he is given credit for.

[Redrum]

Don't want to make it all about the U$C game, but inside the numbers, ןɐɔ actually largely outplayed them.  Didn't give up a single play of 20+ yards.  First downs were 22-21 U$C.  ןɐɔ out-gained U$C and only gave up 346 yards.  Rushing differential was .1, essentially even.

ןɐɔ effectively had 6 turnovers and missed a chip shot FG, yet only lost by 10 points.  Truly amazing.

"Scoreboard"
Well, a couple more: Use WINS as your metric.  This ain't Olympic figure skating.

[Redrum]

Don't want to make it all about the U$C game, but inside the numbers, ןɐɔ actually largely outplayed them.  Didn't give up a single play of 20+ yards.  First downs were 22-21 U$C.  ןɐɔ out-gained U$C and only gave up 346 yards.  Rushing differential was .1, essentially even.

ןɐɔ effectively had 6 turnovers and missed a chip shot FG, yet only lost by 10 points.  Truly amazing.

"Scoreboard"
Well, a couple more: Use WINS as your metric.  This ain't Olympic figure skating.