Ranking Cal O-linemen (Top-3, last 25 Years)
3,627 Views | 53 Replies
...
TheDuke!!!
1:53a, 4/14/24
This one is tricky because a lot of college o-linemen switch their positions around quite a bit.

Once again, just one yabbo's opinion.

First Team:

Center: Alex Mack
Guards: Aaron Merz, Mike Gibson
Tackles: Langston Walker, Mitchell Schwartz


Second Team:

Center: Marvin Philip (absolute stud. We don't laud him enough b/c of how good Mack turned out to be)
Guards: Scott Tercero, John Romero
Tackles: Ryan O'Callaghan, Mark Wilson


Third Team:

Center: Brian Schwenke (apologies to Addison Ooms)
Guards: Jonathan Giesel, Noris Malele
Tackles: Mike Tepper, Jordan Rigsbee (apologies to Steven Moore and Matt Summers-Gavin)
TheDuke!!!
1:51p, 4/14/24
Just checking up on my list today against a list I found online of Cal players drafted into NFL.

I couldn't believe what I found. The last OL we had drafted was Schwenke in 2013 (right after Sonny's first year)/

Neither Sonny nor Wilcox has ever recruited an OL (either HS or transfer) that has been drafted. Tedford had 10 in 10 years. Sonny/Wilcox have had zero in 12 years.

This goes a long way to explaining why Sonny sucked and Wilcox sucks so badly as a Cal HC.

mbBear
8:45a, 4/15/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:

Just checking up on my list today against a list I found online of Cal players drafted into NFL.

I couldn't believe what I found. The last OL we had drafted was Schwenke in 2013 (right after Sonny's first year)/

Neither Sonny nor Wilcox has ever recruited an OL (either HS or transfer) that has been drafted. Tedford had 10 in 10 years. Sonny/Wilcox have had zero in 12 years.

This goes a long way to explaining why Sonny sucked and Wilcox sucks so badly as a Cal HC.


Yes, I have posted this several times. And by only doing the last 25 years, you miss out Ted Albrecht, who had as many All American honors as pretty much any Cal linemen ever, as well as successful NFLers Troy Auzenne and Todd Steussie and Tarik Glenn.
To accentuate your point further: 1994, Cal had first and second round OL picks. '95 and '96, two others picked late, but still drafted. '97, back with another first rounder, and '98 another second rounder.
TheDuke!!!
1:08a, 4/16/24
Sorry for the unintentional plagiarism mbBear. I've been off the board for basically the last decade.

But if you've said it before, you were 100% right. It's really weird that Holmoe only coached 3 of the last 25 years. But he put more OL in the NFL than Dykes and Wilcox combined over this period.

What did you think of the rankings for the past 25 years?
mbBear
7:57a, 4/16/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:

Sorry for the unintentional plagiarism mbBear. I've been off the board for basically the last decade.

But if you've said it before, you were 100% right. It's really weird that Holmoe only coached 3 of the last 25 years. But he put more OL in the NFL than Dykes and Wilcox combined over this period.

What did you think of the rankings for the past 25 years?
No accusation of plagiarism intended. I didn't look hard enough at your rankings to have any issues, and the NFL Draft certainly helps with that analysis anyway.
Your point remains the key one to me: what was once a given strength for Cal, even in times of very little success, has not been good over the last decade. The Holmoe stat is stunning.
TheDuke!!!
8:30p, 4/16/24
In reply to mbBear
mbBear said:

The Holmoe stat is stunning.
It was a moment of clarity for me.
01Bear
2:07p, 4/17/24
In reply to mbBear
mbBear said:

TheDuke!!! said:

Sorry for the unintentional plagiarism mbBear. I've been off the board for basically the last decade.

But if you've said it before, you were 100% right. It's really weird that Holmoe only coached 3 of the last 25 years. But he put more OL in the NFL than Dykes and Wilcox combined over this period.

What did you think of the rankings for the past 25 years?
No accusation of plagiarism intended. I didn't look hard enough at your rankings to have any issues, and the NFL Draft certainly helps with that analysis anyway.
Your point remains the key one to me: what was once a given strength for Cal, even in times of very little success, has not been good over the last decade. The Holmoe stat is stunning.

You left out two of Holmoe's seasons; he was HC at Cal for five, not three, years. I'd happily forget the Tom Holmoe years, too, except they served as my introduction to Cal football. Holmoe's first season as HC was my freshman year. I graduated right before his final season at Cal. Cal went 0-fer against the Furd for all those years.


Edited to add: Sorry, this should've been directed at The Duke!!!

Also, Duke, while your math is right re Holmoe (re 3 years in the last 25 years), it relieves him of responsibility for two more years of mediocrity. I also question whether the OL who drafted into the NFL draft were recruited under and developed by Holmoe or if they were Gilbertson's and Mooch's recruits.
01Bear
2:09p, 4/17/24
In reply to 01Bear
Please delete.
TheDuke!!!
2:09a, 4/19/24
Hi 01Bear. I won't get too into the weeds, as I think you only understood my point after your rebuttal (happens all the time on the internet - no biggie).

I favored 25 years over 27 years. It was a cleaner number - a quarter of a century. So only three of Holmoe's seasons make the cut.

Of course this is arbitrary. But historical lists favor increments of 25.
TheDuke!!!
2:11a, 4/19/24
It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.
01Bear
12:50p, 4/19/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:

It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.

If anything, I tend to think the posters in the FB board really want to see some solid line play, the problem is that with the last two HCs, that hasn't been as developed. Leaving aside that there's a much smaller pool of talented big men who can play football at the D-1 P5/4 level than there are skilled position players who can do the same, there's the simple matter that our last HC and current HC only really seem to coach one side of the football. That obviously makes it much more difficult to recruit the bigs for the other side of the ball. Even when it comes to recruiting for their side of the football, these two coaches haven't always been so great.

Dykes's offense was really Tony Franklin's, where big strong OL was not as crucial as quick OL. The OL were taught to play from a higher stance and with their hands up at the snap. (I may not know much about football, but that's antithetical to how most OL play as it leads to being out leveraged by the DL). I think the idea there was that the OL was supposed to be quick and agile enough to get to their blocking assignments for passing plays. Unfortunately, this also meant the opposing teams' DLs were getting lower and winning the trenches on running plays.

As for Sonny's defense, I think that's best summed up with "What defense?" Dykes was able to attract talented players, but was unable to coach them up on defense. Case in point, Dykes brought in future unanimous All-American Evan Weaver. However, Weaver played as a reserve defensive end under Dykes. When Wilcox took over in 2017, he moved Weaver to linebacker, where the latter flourished.

Under Wilcox, the defense made substantial initial progress, but has regressed in recent years. Some of this may be chalked up to Wilcox's inability to recruit DL depth, which makes it hard to overcome injuries to the DL. However, Wilcox has recruited LBs pretty well; this may be because he was a LB in his playing days and is better able at recognizing potential LB talent. Or it could be that the best DL players don't believe our DL coaches can develop them into the next Cameron Jordan or Tyson Alualu.

On the offensive side, it's been pretty apparent that Wilcox either (1) has no clue what he's doing, (2) handed over the reins to his OCs, or (3) a combination of 1 and 2. As a result, he's unable to attract the talent we need on the OL. Of course, it doesn't help that OL is one of the hardest groups of players for whom to predict collegiate success. Big young studs who regularly pancaked smaller HS opponents may struggle against playing opponents as large as they.
Big C
1:26p, 4/19/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:

It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.

Most football fans understand the importance of the O-line. In fact, some try and show off how much they "know" by saying stuff like "it's all about the O-line" (or "it's all about the O-line and D-line"). That's a ridiculous overstatement, of course, but the lines are really important.

Once Sonny's teams started dropping 50 on opponents, less people were complaining about his O-lines (though we still struggled in short yardage situations).

I think a good Head Coach will acknowledge the due importance of the O-line by identifying and paying for a good position coach and allotting plenty of scholarships to the position. The OL Coach will, in turn, be a good recruiter, a good talent evaluator, and a good technician and developer of talent. In turn, he will likely be paid more than most of the other position coaches (perhaps designated "Associate HC" to justify the salary).

Hopefully this year's Cal O-line will be the best we've had in years. Low bar, so possible!
TheDuke!!!
2:51a, 4/20/24
Interesting points 01Bear and Big C.

As for OL recruiting, I agree that none of our OL coaches or head coaches have been a big pull for talented HS o-linemen.

But Coach M was the best O-line coach we had over the past 25 years. He was the one who developed the 10 draft picks. And he also got bumped up to OC (where he was in over his head). But he was a great position coach.

However, I don't recall him being an ace recruiter.

The second best OL coach we've had over this period was Ed White, who served under Holmoe.

I don't think anyone else deserves the #3 spot.
TheDuke!!!
2:56a, 4/20/24
Actually, now that I think about it, we could do a lot worse than bringing back Ed White. He is a really cool guy. A bit of an eclectic polymath like Franklin was.

Sure, he is 77 years old now. But even as an older person, he can't be any worse than the guys we have had since Coach M left us (and Marshall during Coach M's gap years).

BillyBoyBlue
2:22p, 4/21/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:



... It's really weird that Holmoe only coached 3 of the last 25 years. But he put more OL in the NFL than Dykes and Wilcox combined over this period.



I believe the OL did so well under Holmoe because they were selected and coached by ex-Cal player Ed White, an incredible coach who brought in a number extra walk-on OLinemen with the theory that you can never have too many OL. I remember there were years after that when we had only one new OL scholarship recruit. Thank goodness we have an OL coach as our offensive coordinator. Hopefully he'll be able to restock the line ...

BBB
BillyBoyBlue
2:29p, 4/21/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:

Interesting points 01Bear and Big C.

As for OL recruiting, I agree that none of our OL coaches or head coaches have been a big pull for talented HS o-linemen.

But Coach M was the best O-line coach we had over the past 25 years. He was the one who developed the 10 draft picks. And he also got bumped up to OC (where he was in over his head). But he was a great position coach.

However, I don't recall him being an ace recruiter.

The second best OL coach we've had over this period was Ed White, who served under Holmoe.

I don't think anyone else deserves the #3 spot.


Tedford and Coach M inherited a number of Ed White's recruits. Once they went through the system, I don't think our OL performed as well ...

BBB
TheDuke!!!
9:45p, 4/23/24
You make a coupla very good points BillyBoyBlue about Ed White and the talent Tedford/CoachM inherited.

I didn't see enough improvement in our O-line last year or in our O-line recruiting to conclude that Coach Bloesch is a decent position coach. Did we experience a recruiting bump since Bloesch was promoted?

Coach M was our last OL coach who was also our OC. He was not a good OC. But he is a very good OL coach.

I would love it if we brought White back today. Sure, he is 77. But he doesn't need to recruit. It isn't like we would have any drop-off in recruiting if our O-line coach didn't hit the recruiting trail. There isn't much room to go down from where we are.
Shocky1
9:52p, 4/23/24
^ dumbest idea evah
calumnus
11:35p, 4/23/24
In reply to Big C
Big C said:

TheDuke!!! said:

It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.

Most football fans understand the importance of the O-line. In fact, some try and show off how much they "know" by saying stuff like "it's all about the O-line" (or "it's all about the O-line and D-line"). That's a ridiculous overstatement, of course, but the lines are really important.

Once Sonny's teams started dropping 50 on opponents, less people were complaining about his O-lines (though we still struggled in short yardage situations).

I think a good Head Coach will acknowledge the due importance of the O-line by identifying and paying for a good position coach and allotting plenty of scholarships to the position. The OL Coach will, in turn, be a good recruiter, a good talent evaluator, and a good technician and developer of talent. In turn, he will likely be paid more than most of the other position coaches (perhaps designated "Associate HC" to justify the salary).

Hopefully this year's Cal O-line will be the best we've had in years. Low bar, so possible!


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Offense was not a problem under Dykes. As pointed out above, Air Raid does not require dominate OL. Does everybody remember how bad Leach/Dykes unheralded OL made our vaunted front four (Lorenzo Alexander, Brandon Mebane, Matt Melele, Worrell Williams, Phillip Mbakogu, Ryan Riddle, Desmond Bishop, Tosh Lupoi…) look in the 2004 Holiday Bowl?

However, if your offense requires power running or a QB sitting in pass protection with time to survey the field and ho through progressions then you better have good OL, and not just one or two that make the NFL: you need a solid five, even if not all will play in the NFL.

We know Spavital's Air Raid offense did not require great OL, but Bloesch was the run-game coordinator and he emphasizes it. I think the offensive scheme and effectiveness is a huge question for this year. As I mentioned before, the OL looked terrible on the bowl game: 73 yds rushing at 2.3 ypc with one of the best RBs in Cal history, one we are touting for the Heisman? With Fernando hurried and throwing up 3 Int. And all this against the #86 rushing defense, #81 defense overall?

Hopefully, the OL is great this Fall because I suspect Bloesch's offense requires it.
bledblue
2:51p, 4/24/24
In reply to calumnus
calumnus said:

Big C said:

TheDuke!!! said:

It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.

Most football fans understand the importance of the O-line. In fact, some try and show off how much they "know" by saying stuff like "it's all about the O-line" (or "it's all about the O-line and D-line"). That's a ridiculous overstatement, of course, but the lines are really important.

Once Sonny's teams started dropping 50 on opponents, less people were complaining about his O-lines (though we still struggled in short yardage situations).

I think a good Head Coach will acknowledge the due importance of the O-line by identifying and paying for a good position coach and allotting plenty of scholarships to the position. The OL Coach will, in turn, be a good recruiter, a good talent evaluator, and a good technician and developer of talent. In turn, he will likely be paid more than most of the other position coaches (perhaps designated "Associate HC" to justify the salary).

Hopefully this year's Cal O-line will be the best we've had in years. Low bar, so possible!


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Offense was not a problem under Dykes. As pointed out above, Air Raid does not require dominate OL. Does everybody remember how bad Leach/Dykes unheralded OL made our vaunted front four (Lorenzo Alexander, Brandon Mebane, Matt Melele, Worrell Williams, Phillip Mbakogu, Ryan Riddle, Desmond Bishop, Tosh Lupoi…) look in the 2004 Holiday Bowl?

However, if your offense requires power running or a QB sitting in pass protection with time to survey the field and ho through progressions then you better have good OL, and not just one or two that make the NFL: you need a solid five, even if not all will play in the NFL.

We know Spavital's Air Raid offense did not require great OL, but Bloesch was the run-game coordinator and he emphasizes it. I think the offensive scheme and effectiveness is a huge question for this year. As I mentioned before, the OL looked terrible on the bowl game: 73 yds rushing at 2.3 ypc with one of the best RBs in Cal history, one we are touting for the Heisman? With Fernando hurried and throwing up 3 Int. And all this against the #86 rushing defense, #81 defense overall?

Hopefully, the OL is great this Fall because I suspect Bloesch's offense requires it.
Most of the linemen listed on this thread were not big time recruits. Offensive linemen are developed over a few years. The last time we developed OL'ers was when coach M was here. An offense can only make up so much for a poor OL play. Time will tell if Bloesch is good at the P4 level.
All time best OL'ers
1st team- Tarik Glenn
Todd Steussie
Alex Mack
Troy Auzenne
2nd team- White
- Schwarts
- Karts
-Albrecht

-
calumnus
3:02p, 4/24/24
In reply to bledblue
bledblue said:

calumnus said:

Big C said:

TheDuke!!! said:

It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.

Most football fans understand the importance of the O-line. In fact, some try and show off how much they "know" by saying stuff like "it's all about the O-line" (or "it's all about the O-line and D-line"). That's a ridiculous overstatement, of course, but the lines are really important.

Once Sonny's teams started dropping 50 on opponents, less people were complaining about his O-lines (though we still struggled in short yardage situations).

I think a good Head Coach will acknowledge the due importance of the O-line by identifying and paying for a good position coach and allotting plenty of scholarships to the position. The OL Coach will, in turn, be a good recruiter, a good talent evaluator, and a good technician and developer of talent. In turn, he will likely be paid more than most of the other position coaches (perhaps designated "Associate HC" to justify the salary).

Hopefully this year's Cal O-line will be the best we've had in years. Low bar, so possible!


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Offense was not a problem under Dykes. As pointed out above, Air Raid does not require dominate OL. Does everybody remember how bad Leach/Dykes unheralded OL made our vaunted front four (Lorenzo Alexander, Brandon Mebane, Matt Melele, Worrell Williams, Phillip Mbakogu, Ryan Riddle, Desmond Bishop, Tosh Lupoi…) look in the 2004 Holiday Bowl?

However, if your offense requires power running or a QB sitting in pass protection with time to survey the field and ho through progressions then you better have good OL, and not just one or two that make the NFL: you need a solid five, even if not all will play in the NFL.

We know Spavital's Air Raid offense did not require great OL, but Bloesch was the run-game coordinator and he emphasizes it. I think the offensive scheme and effectiveness is a huge question for this year. As I mentioned before, the OL looked terrible on the bowl game: 73 yds rushing at 2.3 ypc with one of the best RBs in Cal history, one we are touting for the Heisman? With Fernando hurried and throwing up 3 Int. And all this against the #86 rushing defense, #81 defense overall?

Hopefully, the OL is great this Fall because I suspect Bloesch's offense requires it.
Most of the linemen listed on this thread were not big time recruits. Offensive linemen are developed over a few years. The last time we developed OL'ers was when coach M was here. An offense can only make up so much for a poor OL play. Time will tell if Bloesch is good at the P4 level.
All time best OL'ers
1st team- Tarik Glenn
Todd Steussie
Alex Mack
Troy Auzenne
2nd team- White
- Schwarts
- Karts
-Albrecht

-


Yes. See the thread on our most recent transfer portal addition from Michigan State. There is so much uncertainty around recruiting and developing of OL that it makes sense to bring a lot of good prospects into the program hoping to have 5 good upper class men every year. Additionally, a good preferred walk-on program for OL makes a lot of sense to me.
mbBear
8:22a, 4/25/24
In reply to calumnus
calumnus said:

bledblue said:

calumnus said:

Big C said:

TheDuke!!! said:

It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.

Most football fans understand the importance of the O-line. In fact, some try and show off how much they "know" by saying stuff like "it's all about the O-line" (or "it's all about the O-line and D-line"). That's a ridiculous overstatement, of course, but the lines are really important.

Once Sonny's teams started dropping 50 on opponents, less people were complaining about his O-lines (though we still struggled in short yardage situations).

I think a good Head Coach will acknowledge the due importance of the O-line by identifying and paying for a good position coach and allotting plenty of scholarships to the position. The OL Coach will, in turn, be a good recruiter, a good talent evaluator, and a good technician and developer of talent. In turn, he will likely be paid more than most of the other position coaches (perhaps designated "Associate HC" to justify the salary).

Hopefully this year's Cal O-line will be the best we've had in years. Low bar, so possible!


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Offense was not a problem under Dykes. As pointed out above, Air Raid does not require dominate OL. Does everybody remember how bad Leach/Dykes unheralded OL made our vaunted front four (Lorenzo Alexander, Brandon Mebane, Matt Melele, Worrell Williams, Phillip Mbakogu, Ryan Riddle, Desmond Bishop, Tosh Lupoi…) look in the 2004 Holiday Bowl?

However, if your offense requires power running or a QB sitting in pass protection with time to survey the field and ho through progressions then you better have good OL, and not just one or two that make the NFL: you need a solid five, even if not all will play in the NFL.

We know Spavital's Air Raid offense did not require great OL, but Bloesch was the run-game coordinator and he emphasizes it. I think the offensive scheme and effectiveness is a huge question for this year. As I mentioned before, the OL looked terrible on the bowl game: 73 yds rushing at 2.3 ypc with one of the best RBs in Cal history, one we are touting for the Heisman? With Fernando hurried and throwing up 3 Int. And all this against the #86 rushing defense, #81 defense overall?

Hopefully, the OL is great this Fall because I suspect Bloesch's offense requires it.
Most of the linemen listed on this thread were not big time recruits. Offensive linemen are developed over a few years. The last time we developed OL'ers was when coach M was here. An offense can only make up so much for a poor OL play. Time will tell if Bloesch is good at the P4 level.
All time best OL'ers
1st team- Tarik Glenn
Todd Steussie
Alex Mack
Troy Auzenne
2nd team- White
- Schwarts
- Karts
-Albrecht

-


Yes. See the thread on our most recent transfer portal addition from Michigan State. There is so much uncertainty around recruiting and developing of OL that it makes sense to bring a lot of good prospects into the program hoping to have 5 good upper class men every year. Additionally, a good preferred walk-on program for OL makes a lot of sense to me.
Albrecht's awards/recognition on the college level is on par with anyone.
TheDuke!!!
12:30a, 4/26/24
In reply to Shocky1
Shocky1 said:

^ dumbest idea evah
No, OL the choices of Dykes and Wilcox were the dumbest ideas ever. White couldn't have been worse.

Tedford had a good OL coach in Coach M. But Marshall was a much worse idea than bring White back.
TheDuke!!!
12:35a, 4/26/24
In reply to calumnus
calumnus said:

Big C said:

TheDuke!!! said:

It definitely seems like posters on BearInsider favor the skilled positions over the OL. Even the list containing chancellors and ADs got more attention than this one.

The skilled position thread even contains angry false accusations against me! No one cares enough about the o-line to say aggressive and stupid things on this particular thread.

This probably has something to do with why our O-lines have sucked so badly under Dykes and Wilcox. But I am not smart enough to figure out the precise connection between internet apathy and hogs on the line.

Most football fans understand the importance of the O-line. In fact, some try and show off how much they "know" by saying stuff like "it's all about the O-line" (or "it's all about the O-line and D-line"). That's a ridiculous overstatement, of course, but the lines are really important.

Once Sonny's teams started dropping 50 on opponents, less people were complaining about his O-lines (though we still struggled in short yardage situations).

I think a good Head Coach will acknowledge the due importance of the O-line by identifying and paying for a good position coach and allotting plenty of scholarships to the position. The OL Coach will, in turn, be a good recruiter, a good talent evaluator, and a good technician and developer of talent. In turn, he will likely be paid more than most of the other position coaches (perhaps designated "Associate HC" to justify the salary).

Hopefully this year's Cal O-line will be the best we've had in years. Low bar, so possible!


The proof is in the pudding as they say. Offense was not a problem under Dykes. As pointed out above, Air Raid does not require dominate OL. Does everybody remember how bad Leach/Dykes unheralded OL made our vaunted front four (Lorenzo Alexander, Brandon Mebane, Matt Melele, Worrell Williams, Phillip Mbakogu, Ryan Riddle, Desmond Bishop, Tosh Lupoi…) look in the 2004 Holiday Bowl?

However, if your offense requires power running or a QB sitting in pass protection with time to survey the field and ho through progressions then you better have good OL, and not just one or two that make the NFL: you need a solid five, even if not all will play in the NFL.

We know Spavital's Air Raid offense did not require great OL, but Bloesch was the run-game coordinator and he emphasizes it. I think the offensive scheme and effectiveness is a huge question for this year. As I mentioned before, the OL looked terrible on the bowl game: 73 yds rushing at 2.3 ypc with one of the best RBs in Cal history, one we are touting for the Heisman? With Fernando hurried and throwing up 3 Int. And all this against the #86 rushing defense, #81 defense overall?

Hopefully, the OL is great this Fall because I suspect Bloesch's offense requires it.
I don't remember it that way. First, Leach and Dykes have totally different OL schemes. Leach had his line in the largest splits I have ever seen. Second, Dykes had fairly normal splits and called a halfway decent amount of power run plays. Leach never called a run play in his life. He just left it up to his QB to audible to a run play when the defense only had 4 or 5 in the box.

I don't recall Texas Tech's o-line beating up our guys at all. I recall the QB throwing it so quickly that our D-Line didn't matter.

I also recall O-Line woes being a really big deal when Dykes was here. We were terrible in the red zone against halfway decent teams. And snaps routinely flew over the QBs head.

Dykes would often comment that the reason our teams were not successful was fairly basic -- we failed to be good at blocking at tackling.
MinotStateBeav
9:19a, 4/26/24
You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.
calumnus
12:19a, 4/27/24
In reply to MinotStateBeav
MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.


I thought we all agreed it was our defense that was bad under Dykes? Offense was Top 10, with our QB going #1 in the draft, then we lead the PAC-10 on offense again the next year with Davis Webb.

This will be Wilcox's 8th year. Dykes' guys are long gone. Wilcox has had plenty of time to install his preferred OL strategy.
MinotStateBeav
4:32a, 4/27/24
In reply to calumnus
calumnus said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.


I thought we all agreed it was our defense that was bad under Dykes? Offense was Top 10, with our QB going #1 in the draft, then we lead the PAC-10 on offense again the next year with Davis Webb.

This will be Wilcox's 8th year. Dykes' guys are long gone. Wilcox has had plenty of time to install his preferred OL strategy.

Wilcox and Dykes have nothing in common really, except that both lines have performed poorly but for different reasons. Dykes offense was pass heavy and relied on getting the ball out in 2.5 seconds. Wilcox in general has much more fundamentally sound offensive lines and runs a balanced offense, he's just recruited poorly and I think the Pac-12 has been a lot stronger under Wilcox. Dykes guys could not block, the coaches he employed were teaching some very poor fundamentals. Under Justin they seem to be teaching the right things but his recruiting on the lines hasn't been good and so they aren't improving like we would have hoped. I think that's improving in the last year, we'll see if its a trend.
bledblue
2:51p, 4/28/24
In reply to MinotStateBeav
MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.
When Dykes was hired, they didn't have an Ol'er who benched over 300lbs!
mbBear
8:00a, 4/29/24
In reply to bledblue
bledblue said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.
When Dykes was hired, they didn't have an Ol'er who benched over 300lbs!
really? you sure that wasn't 400? If true, wow....
TheDuke!!!
8:27p, 4/29/24
In reply to mbBear
mbBear said:

bledblue said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.
When Dykes was hired, they didn't have an Ol'er who benched over 300lbs!
really? you sure that wasn't 400? If true, wow....
I remember it being 300. The old S&C coach had been snatched from the basketball program. He was more into lots of reps than lots of weight.
calumnus
9:17p, 4/29/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:

mbBear said:

bledblue said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.
When Dykes was hired, they didn't have an Ol'er who benched over 300lbs!
really? you sure that wasn't 400? If true, wow....
I remember it being 300. The old S&C coach had been snatched from the basketball program. He was more into lots of reps than lots of weight.


For people that need a refresher:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2013/1/21/3870220/cal-football-2012-what-did-you-see-from-the-offensive-line
Goobear
9:38p, 4/29/24
In reply to calumnus
calumnus said:

TheDuke!!! said:

mbBear said:

bledblue said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.
When Dykes was hired, they didn't have an Ol'er who benched over 300lbs!
really? you sure that wasn't 400? If true, wow....
I remember it being 300. The old S&C coach had been snatched from the basketball program. He was more into lots of reps than lots of weight.


For people that need a refresher:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2013/1/21/3870220/cal-football-2012-what-did-you-see-from-the-offensive-line
Damon Harrington..
Big C
10:04p, 4/29/24
In reply to MinotStateBeav
MinotStateBeav said:

calumnus said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.


I thought we all agreed it was our defense that was bad under Dykes? Offense was Top 10, with our QB going #1 in the draft, then we lead the PAC-10 on offense again the next year with Davis Webb.

This will be Wilcox's 8th year. Dykes' guys are long gone. Wilcox has had plenty of time to install his preferred OL strategy.

Wilcox and Dykes have nothing in common really, except that both lines have performed poorly but for different reasons. Dykes offense was pass heavy and relied on getting the ball out in 2.5 seconds. Wilcox in general has much more fundamentally sound offensive lines and runs a balanced offense, he's just recruited poorly and I think the Pac-12 has been a lot stronger under Wilcox. Dykes guys could not block, the coaches he employed were teaching some very poor fundamentals. Under Justin they seem to be teaching the right things but his recruiting on the lines hasn't been good and so they aren't improving like we would have hoped. I think that's improving in the last year, we'll see if its a trend.

If Wilcox's O-lines are fundamentally better than Dyke's were and yet Wilcox's offenses in general are so much worse, that sure doesn't support that lame conventional wisdom that the offensive line is so all-important.
TheDuke!!!
11:23p, 4/29/24
In reply to Big C
Big C said:

MinotStateBeav said:

calumnus said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.


I thought we all agreed it was our defense that was bad under Dykes? Offense was Top 10, with our QB going #1 in the draft, then we lead the PAC-10 on offense again the next year with Davis Webb.

This will be Wilcox's 8th year. Dykes' guys are long gone. Wilcox has had plenty of time to install his preferred OL strategy.

Wilcox and Dykes have nothing in common really, except that both lines have performed poorly but for different reasons. Dykes offense was pass heavy and relied on getting the ball out in 2.5 seconds. Wilcox in general has much more fundamentally sound offensive lines and runs a balanced offense, he's just recruited poorly and I think the Pac-12 has been a lot stronger under Wilcox. Dykes guys could not block, the coaches he employed were teaching some very poor fundamentals. Under Justin they seem to be teaching the right things but his recruiting on the lines hasn't been good and so they aren't improving like we would have hoped. I think that's improving in the last year, we'll see if its a trend.

If Wilcox's O-lines are fundamentally better than Dyke's were and yet Wilcox's offenses in general are so much worse, that sure doesn't support that lame conventional wisdom that the offensive line is so all-important.
I'm not sure that Wilcox's O-lines were fundamentally better than Dykes' O-lines.

Between the two of them, neither coach had an O-line drafted in 11 years. So it would seem the improvement couldn't have been all that much (if anything).

For all of our O-line ineptitude under Dykes, his linemen did protect our QBs and RBs well enough to get a couple of them drafted. Khalfani Mohamed, Goff, Webb, Lasco.

We haven't had a single RB or QB drafted under Wilcox.



calumnus
12:41a, 4/30/24
In reply to TheDuke!!!
TheDuke!!! said:

Big C said:

MinotStateBeav said:

calumnus said:

MinotStateBeav said:

You know when the offensive line started to decline at Cal was when there was philosophical switch to get smaller more mobile lines. I think that caused us to have more injury issues from it too. Tedford and Mihalchek (I know I tortured the spelling) knew how to build and recruit offensive line. Dykes and the line of O'line coaches he hired were so bad at coaching, I'll never forget their philosophy of "Lose slowly" and watching our guys get ran over lol.


I thought we all agreed it was our defense that was bad under Dykes? Offense was Top 10, with our QB going #1 in the draft, then we lead the PAC-10 on offense again the next year with Davis Webb.

This will be Wilcox's 8th year. Dykes' guys are long gone. Wilcox has had plenty of time to install his preferred OL strategy.

Wilcox and Dykes have nothing in common really, except that both lines have performed poorly but for different reasons. Dykes offense was pass heavy and relied on getting the ball out in 2.5 seconds. Wilcox in general has much more fundamentally sound offensive lines and runs a balanced offense, he's just recruited poorly and I think the Pac-12 has been a lot stronger under Wilcox. Dykes guys could not block, the coaches he employed were teaching some very poor fundamentals. Under Justin they seem to be teaching the right things but his recruiting on the lines hasn't been good and so they aren't improving like we would have hoped. I think that's improving in the last year, we'll see if its a trend.

If Wilcox's O-lines are fundamentally better than Dyke's were and yet Wilcox's offenses in general are so much worse, that sure doesn't support that lame conventional wisdom that the offensive line is so all-important.
I'm not sure that Wilcox's O-lines were fundamentally better than Dykes' O-lines.

Between the two of them, neither coach had an O-line drafted in 11 years. So it would seem the improvement couldn't have been all that much (if anything).

For all of our O-line ineptitude under Dykes, his linemen did protect our QBs and RBs well enough to get a couple of them drafted. Khalfani Mohamed, Goff, Webb, Lasco.

We haven't had a single RB or QB drafted under Wilcox.




Wilcox has not had a single offensive player drafted at any position in 7 years. OL, QB, RB, WR, TE….zero.

Wilcox has had 6 DBs, 3 LBs and 1 DL drafted. The only DL drafted, Looney, was a Dykes guy who played for Wilcox one year.
CLOSE
×
Cancel
Copy Topic Link to Clipboard
Back
Copy
Page 1 of 2
Post Reply
×
Verify your student status Register
See Membership Benefits >
CLOSE
×
Night mode
Off
Auto-detect device settings
Off