The Cal Bears will go bowling if their defense is merely bad, not historically awful

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Halfway there

Coaches far more successful than Sonny Dykes have had awful first years.

You have issues at quarterback, you suffer general attrition, your two-deep features a terrifying number of freshmen and sophomores, and voila, you lose most of your games.

If not for a late comeback against mighty Portland State in 2013, California would have lost all of its games in Dykes' first season. With an inconsistent young offense and a dreadful young defense, against a schedule that featured six teams with at least nine wins, the Bears weren't ready. Average score against those six excellent teams: Opponent 52, Cal 20.

The quicker you can turn the page after a painful Year Zero, the better.

And on one side of the ball, the Bears moved on as quickly as possible. The Golden Bears improved from 67th to 30th in Off. S&P+. Quarterback Jared Goff threw for almost 4,000 yards with a 35-to-7 TD-to-INT ratio, thriving on passing downs. Four players had at least 580 receiving yards, and Daniel Lasco became Cal's first 1,000-yard rusher in three seasons. The Bears gained at least 500 yards seven times and scored at least 30 points 10 times. This was the offense we expect from a Dykes team.

By September 6, Cal had won more games than it had in 2013. The Bears would start 4-1 before struggling with a brutal schedule; they scored their fifth win at Oregon State but lost four times to teams in the F/+ top 20 and dropped a home heartbreaker to BYU to finish just short of bowl eligibility.

Anytime you win 400 percent more than you did the year before, the season is a success. And 2014 was a clear step forward ... on one side of the ball.

In those losses to F/+ top-20 teams, the Cal offense averaged 31 points and 430 yards. The Cal defense allowed 43 points and 506 yards per game. The Bears allowed 630 yards to Colorado, then 812 to Washington State. They were decent against the run but apocalyptic against the pass, not a good arrangement in a conference where almost everybody can pass really well.

Over the last three seasons (including his last year at Louisiana Tech), Dykes' defenses have ranked 115th, 114th, and 108th in Def. S&P+. Granted, a bad D wasn't enough to hold back a weaponized O at Tech -- Dykes' Bulldogs still went 9-3 -- but it's an impediment in college football's second-best conference.

A team this dedicated to tempo passing can succeed with minimal depth and structure on defense, but that's clearly a hurdle Dykes' Bears still have to clear. And with both Washington and Oregon State going through transition and Washington State battling its own defensive demons, this wouldn't be the worst year for Cal to learn to make some stops.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 5-7 | Adj. Record: 6-6 | Final F/+ Rk: 65
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
30-Aug	Northwestern	71	31-24	W	67%	10.2	81%
6-Sep	Sacramento State	N/A	55-14	W	93%	34.6	100%
20-Sep	at Arizona	28	45-49	L	66%	9.8	67%
27-Sep	Colorado	83	59-56	W	57%	4.2	76%
4-Oct	at Washington State	77	60-59	W	30%	-12.5	20%
11-Oct	Washington	58	7-31	L	23%	-17.0	4%
18-Oct	UCLA	12	34-36	L	58%	4.5	40%
24-Oct	Oregon	3	41-59	L	45%	-3.1	3%
1-Nov	at Oregon State	74	45-31	W	51%	0.5	54%
13-Nov	at USC	16	30-38	L	21%	-18.6	1%
22-Nov	Stanford	18	17-38	L	34%	-9.3	2%
29-Nov	BYU	46	35-42	L	49%	-0.5	22%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	35.2	30	34.9	108
Points Per Game	38.3	11	39.8	123

2. Diminishing returns

The October 4 game between Cal and Washington State was a long, exhausting, hilarious affair. WSU gained 812 yards to Cal's 589, but both teams averaged more than 8 yards per play, and the game ended up turning because of special teams: Trevor Davis returned two third-quarter kickoffs for touchdowns (which contributed to a ridiculous stretch of four combined touchdowns in just over three minutes), and, with WSU down 1, the Cougars missed a 19-yard field goal in the final minute.

The game was a classic in its own way, and it apparently left both teams as shells of their former selves. Wazzu played at a far lower level after the game, and so did Cal.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 4 games): 71% (~top 40 | record: 3-1)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 8 games): 39% (~top 80 | record: 2-6)

The win made the Bears 4-1 even though they hadn't played well in Pullman; in terms of F/+ rankings, the best opportunities for a fifth and sixth win were going to come against Washington at home the next week and Oregon State on the road in November. Cal took down OSU, but the Bears were lifeless in a 24-point loss to the Huskies. That loss would haunt them.

Five games in, Cal was averaging 7.3 yards per play and allowing 5.9. Over the final seven, the Bears averaged 5.3 and allowed 6.5.

Part of that was obviously due to an increase in schedule strength -- four of their five weakest opponents came up in the first five games -- but even adjusting for that, the Bears fell flat. The defense was banged up (facing 106 snaps against Arizona, 110 against Colorado, and 95 against WSU made it feel like they had already played an extra game), and the passing game went from torrid to fine.

Depth should be far less of an issue. Cal returns eight of its top 10 linemen (plus a starter who missed 2014), virtually every linebacker, and six of the top eight defensive backs. Sophomores littered last year's two-deep and are now juniors. And the recruiting class includes both high-three and four-star talent and a few JUCOs to liven things up.

Oh yeah, and the offense returns eight starters, including every running back and all but one wideout. Depth: check! Now we just need to find out about the talent.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.94	25	IsoPPP+	126.2	19
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	45.2%	33	Succ. Rt. +	112.0	30
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	31.4	96	Def. FP+	96.0	108
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.8	31	Redzone S&P+	107.3	47
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	26.1		ACTUAL	20	-6.1

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	13	24	31	19
RUSHING	87	41	36	48
PASSING	6	23	31	16
Standard Downs		31	40	31
Passing Downs		13	16	7

Q1 Rk	30	1st Down Rk	16
Q2 Rk	61	2nd Down Rk	55
Q3 Rk	6	3rd Down Rk	4
Q4 Rk	21

3. And they were young, too

Cal's offense faded, but for the season, the Bears were still dramatically improved. That makes sense considering how many freshmen and sophomores the Bears were playing in 2013.

Junior quarterback Goff's passer rating improved from 123.0 to 147.6 last year, and he'll have a chance to top 4,500 yards and 40 touchdowns this year. After two years as a bit player, running back Daniel Lasco found his form, gaining nearly 1,500 combined yards. The Bears basically had three No. 1 receivers in Kenny Lawler (83 targets), Chris Harper (81), and Bryce Treggs (81), and two return, as do all five players targeted between 27 and 65 times. And the experience continues up front: five players with starting experience (80 career starts) are back.

Cal's variety and relentless tempo were too much for iffy defenses. The next trick: damaging good defenses. The Bears had their moments, averaging 8 yards per play against Arizona (48th in Def. S&P+) and 6 against Oregon (28th), but they averaged 5.4 against Stanford (fifth), 5.0 against UCLA (25th), and 4.9 against USC (35th).

Tempo only works if you're getting first downs; otherwise you're just failing at mach speed. The offense's high-tempo, mediocre performances only exacerbated defensive issues. Thanks to the pure number of reps this year's first team will have gotten together, you have to figure the Bears will improve offensively once more.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension/position change.

Player	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Jared Goff	6'4, 210	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9127	316	509	3973	35	7	62.1%	25	4.7%	7.1
Luke Rubenzer	6'0, 190	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8472	12	21	166	2	3	57.1%	2	8.7%	6.7
Austin Hinder					1	3	13	0	0	33.3%	0	0.0%	4.3
Chase Forrest	6'3, 190	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8232
Ross Bowers	6'2, 180	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8697

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Daniel Lasco	RB	6'0, 210	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9019	210	1115	12	5.3	4.0	44.8%	3	2
Luke Rubenzer	QB	6'0, 190	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8472	50	218	3	4.4	3.1	38.0%	2	1
Khalfani Muhammad	RB	5'9, 170	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8768	46	215	4	4.7	5.6	30.4%	0	0
Vic Enwere	RB	6'1, 225	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8535	34	193	2	5.7	4.7	47.1%	1	0
Jared Goff	QB	6'4, 210	Jr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9127	30	150	0	5.0	3.0	53.3%	9	4
Tre Watson	RB	5'10, 195	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8608	25	94	1	3.8	2.1	36.0%	0	0
Chris Harper	WR					5	17	0	3.4	2.7	20.0%	1	0
Austin Hinder	QB					4	11	0	2.8	1.9	25.0%	0	0
Jeffrey Coprich	RB	5'8, 175	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7913
Lonny Powell	RB	5'11, 210	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8827

4. A few more big run plays wouldn't hurt

The line should be solid, and Goff is attracting attention as a potential 2016 draftee. The backbone of the offense is solid. Really, the one area of improvement could be the number of big plays the Bears produce, especially on the ground.

Lasco, Khalfani Muhammad, Vic Enwere, and Tre Watson combined for about 26 carries per game, and while Lasco was the primary ball-carrier, the backups were a little more explosive (and less reliable). With quarterback Luke Rubenzer moving to safety, Cal won't have the mobile element at QB -- it'll be all Goff. So the backs will be asked to create a little bit more; will that mean more carries for the backups? Does Lasco have a gear we haven't seen yet?

If the passing game does better against good defenses, the added stress could open up a few more lanes for the backs.

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Kenny Lawler	WR-Z	6'3, 195	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9011	83	54	701	65.1%	16.4%	60.2%	8.4	50	8.4	101.0
Chris Harper	WR-X					83	52	634	62.7%	16.4%	65.1%	7.6	2	7.5	91.3
Bryce Treggs	WR-H	5'11, 185	Sr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9591	81	52	583	64.2%	16.0%	56.8%	7.2	-46	7.2	84.0
Stephen Anderson	WR-Y	6'3, 220	Sr.	NR	NR	65	46	661	70.8%	12.8%	53.8%	10.2	115	10.2	95.2
Maurice Harris	WR-Z	6'2, 195	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.7662	47	25	252	53.2%	9.3%	66.0%	5.4	-62	5.4	36.3
Daniel Lasco	RB	6'0, 210	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.9019	41	33	356	80.5%	8.1%	63.4%	8.7	-28	8.8	51.2
Trevor Davis	WR-X	6'2, 180	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7000	39	24	399	61.5%	7.7%	59.0%	10.2	106	10.2	57.4
Darius Powe	WR-Y	6'3, 220	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9153	27	20	328	74.1%	5.3%	59.3%	12.1	92	12.2	47.2
Khalfani Muhammad	RB	5'9, 170	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8768	11	7	63	63.6%	2.2%	36.4%	5.7	-22	4.7	9.1
Raymond Hudson	FB/WR	6'3, 235	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8267	10	8	124	80.0%	2.0%	60.0%	12.4	31	12.5	17.9
Matt Rockett	WR-H	5'10, 180	So.	NR	NR	4	3	18	75.0%	0.8%	75.0%	4.5	-17	3.5	2.6
Jack Austin	WR-X	6'3, 210	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8404
Chad Hansen	WR-X	6'2, 195	So.	NR	NR
Patrick Laird	WR	6'0, 210	So.	NR	NR
Kenny Portera	WR	5'10, 175	So.	NR	NR
Erik Brown	WR-Z	6'1, 175	RSFr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9306
Carlos Strickland	WR	6'5, 200	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9261
Jaylinn Hawkins	WR	6'1, 200	Fr.	4 stars (5.9)	0.9019
Austin Aaron	WR	6'5, 210	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8593
Kanawai Noa	WR	6'0, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8528
Brandon Singleton	WR	6'0, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8506
Greyson Bankhead	WR	5'10, 160	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8460

5. All the receivers you could want

Considering the potential 2016 reset -- Goff could be gone, and five of this year's top six returning wideouts are seniors -- now would be a good time for the passing game to peak.

Lord knows a lot of players were trending in the right direction. Lawler emerged as a lovely go-to option. After missing the Oregon State game with injury, he caught 25 passes for 297 yards and three scores (all against BYU) in the final three games. That's a 100-catch, 1,200-yard pace projected over a full season.

Perhaps the most interesting breakout belonged to Stephen Anderson, an unheralded receiver/tight end who nearly quadrupled his receptions total and had a couple of huge performances in close wins: seven catches for 136 yards against Colorado and nine for 117 against Oregon State.

Between Lawler, Anderson, possession man Bryce Treggs, Trevor Davis, Darius Powe, Cal has too many experienced receivers to keep satisfied. Meanwhile, exciting players like sophomore Jack Austin, redshirt freshman Erik Brown, and a load of higher-upside freshmen are just waiting. They'll get their turns in 2016, but it will be interesting to see who among the youngsters breaks into such an experienced rotation.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	107	2.97	4.24	41.7%	66.7%	18.2%	122.4	2.6%	7.7%
Rank	44	61	3	34	66	49	37	17	72

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Jordan Rigsbee	RG	6'4, 300	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9147	36
Chris Adcock	C					28
Steven Moore	LT	6'6, 305	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8288	23
Alejandro Crosthwaite	RG					21
Chris Borrayo	LG	6'3, 305	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8272	16
Matt Cochran	C	6'3, 295	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8823	4
Brian Farley	RT	6'7, 280	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	NR	1
Dominic Granado	LT	6'4, 290	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7826	0
Myles Bunte	OL	6'7, 335	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8934	0
Aaron Cochran	LT	6'8, 335	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8678	0
J.D. Hinnant	LG	6'4, 290	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8525	0
Vincent Johnson	RT	6'5, 295	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7994	0
Addison Ooms	C	6'4, 290	RSFr.	NR	NR
Michael Trani	OL	6'3, 290	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8217
Semisi Uluave	OL	6'5, 235	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8907
Ryan Gibson	OL	6'3, 265	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8544

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.92	105	IsoPPP+	82.8	112
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	47.5%	119	Succ. Rt. +	93.3	96
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	30.6	54	Off. FP+	102.0	38
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	5.0	117	Redzone S&P+	94.1	90
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	17.4		ACTUAL	17.0	-0.4

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	124	112	97	113
RUSHING	38	61	59	57
PASSING	128	121	111	123
Standard Downs		91	72	104
Passing Downs		123	123	121

Q1 Rk	86	1st Down Rk	107
Q2 Rk	92	2nd Down Rk	101
Q3 Rk	104	3rd Down Rk	124
Q4 Rk	111

6. The run defense wasn't awful (but nobody chose to run)

Cal was pretty stiff in short-yardage situations and allowed only 10 carries of 20-plus yards all season. The Bears ranked 59th in Rushing Success Rate+, got a nice push in the middle from tackles Mustafa Jalil, Trevor Kelly, and Austin Clark (two of whom return), and benefited from strong pursuit by linebackers Michael Barton, Jalen Jefferson, and Jake Kearney (combined: 14.5 non-sack tackles for loss).

Cal didn't have a great run defense, but it got the job done.

Unfortunately, nobody had to worry about running because, at 121st in Passing S&P+, California had the worst power-conference pass defense in the country. The only FBS defenses with worse: Idaho, UNLV, Old Dominion, UMass, WKU, SMU, and Tulsa. Yuck.

The failure was comprehensive. Cal had the third-worst pass rush in the country (the only teams that generated less pressure: Navy and New Mexico State) and defensed only 51 passes (80th in the country) despite opponents passing non-stop.

You name it, and it was an issue. Youth? Definitely -- four of the top five tacklers in the secondary were freshmen or sophomores. Injuries? Yep. Cal had 14 DBs who averaged at least 0.5 tackles per game, and only four played in all 12 contests. A couple of wideouts (Bryce McGovern, Patrick Worstell) even got a shot.

With so much returning for coordinator Art Kaufman in the front seven, one can assume the run defense will again be decent. And with 11 of 14 DBs back, experience at least won't be as much of an issue. But wow, does the pass defense have a long way to go to simply be mediocre.

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	105	2.95	3.32	36.8%	61.4%	17.5%	43.6	1.9%	4.3%
Rank	43	68	71	37	33	93	126	122	116

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Mustafa Jalil	DT	6'3, 300	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9254	12	24.5	3.4%	5.5	1.5	0	0	0	0
Kyle Kragen (2013)	DE	6'2, 245	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7959	12	22.5	3.3%	4.5	3.0	0	0	0	0
Todd Barr	DE	6'2, 245	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9515	12	14.5	2.0%	4.0	2.0	0	0	2	0
Trevor Kelly	DT	6'2, 300	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8514	12	14.0	1.9%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Austin Clark	DT					11	13.5	1.9%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Noah Westerfield	DE	6'3, 245	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8383	12	13.0	1.8%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jonathan Johnson	DE	6'2, 240	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8464	7	11.0	1.5%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Tony Mekari	DE	6'1, 280	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8210	12	11.0	1.5%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Brennan Scarlett	DE					5	8.5	1.2%	2.5	2.0	0	1	1	0
Marcus Manley	DT	6'2, 300	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7483	12	7.5	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Puka Lopa	DE	6'2, 260	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8168	10	6.0	0.8%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Harrison Wilfley	DE					11	4.5	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
David Davis	DT	6'1, 290	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8161	10	1.5	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Kennedy Emesibe	DE	6'3, 255	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8479
DeVante Wilson	DE	6'5, 255	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8317
James Looney (Wake Forest)	DT	6'3, 285	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8397
Russell Ude	DE	6'4, 250	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8721

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Michael Barton	WILL	6'0, 230	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9185	12	58.5	8.1%	7.5	1.5	0	2	0	0
Hardy Nickerson	MIKE	6'0, 225	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8121	12	51.0	7.1%	2.0	0.0	1	0	1	1
Jalen Jefferson	SAM	6'2, 235	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8781	12	45.5	6.3%	6.5	2.0	1	1	0	0
Jake Kearney	SAM	6'3, 220	Jr.	NR	NR	10	29.5	4.1%	4.0	0.0	1	2	0	0
Devante Downs	MIKE	6'3, 245	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8891	12	26.5	3.7%	5.0	3.0	0	0	0	0
Arthur Wainwright	LB	6'3, 215	Sr.	NR	NR	11	7.5	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Raymond Davison	SAM	6'2, 225	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8277	11	7.0	1.0%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Edward Tandy	MIKE					6	5.5	0.8%	0.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Aisea Tongilava	WILL	6'1, 220	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8244	8	4.5	0.6%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Hamilton Anoa'i	SAM	6'3, 235	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8253	11	4.5	0.6%	1.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Nathan Broussard	LB	6'3, 250	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8389
Maximo Espitia	LB	6'2, 235	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8148

7. Wanted: a pass rush, even a mediocre one

The non-existent pass rush can't be pinned on the secondary, at least not really. Sure, quarterbacks didn't have to wait long to find an open receiver, as evidenced by their 65 percent completion rate.

But as decent as Cal was against the run, the Bears liked to leave QBs upright. The Bears faced more than 45 pass attempts per game and somehow managed just 16 sacks. Sixteen! In 560 attempts! Linebacker Devante Downs had three sacks in reserve opportunities ... and nobody else had more than two.

The return of senior Kyle Kragen will help; he missed 2014 with mono, and his three 2013 sacks would have tied for the team lead last year. And between sophomores Noah Westerfield and Tony Mekari, seniors Puka Lopa and Jonathan Johnson, and perhaps freshmen Kennedy Emesibe and Russell Ude, surely someone else will emerge as a replacement-level pass rusher, right? And maybe Downs will develop further? Right?

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Michael Lowe	SS					11	60.0	8.3%	5.5	0	0	1	0	1
Cameron Walker	CB	5'11, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8666	12	46.5	6.4%	0.5	0	1	4	0	0
Cedric Dozier	CB	5'10, 180	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8923	12	41.5	5.7%	1	0	0	5	0	0
Stefan McClure	FS	5'11, 200	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9394	8	39.0	5.4%	1.5	0	1	0	0	1
Griffin Piatt	S	6'3, 200	Jr.	NR	NR	6	32.5	4.5%	1	1	3	6	0	0
Darius Allensworth	CB	5'11, 190	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8630	12	26.0	3.6%	1	1	0	6	0	0
Bryce McGovern	SS					12	22.0	3.0%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Darius White	CB	6'1, 180	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8585	10	21.0	2.9%	0	0	1	3	0	0
Joel Willis (2013)	CB	5'11, 190	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8585	10	19.0	2.8%	0.5	0	0	3	1	0
Avery Sebastian	FS					7	15.5	2.1%	0	0	1	0	1	0
Caleb Coleman	CB	6'0, 185	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8119	9	12.5	1.7%	0	0	2	3	0	0
Patrick Worstell	DB	6'2, 190	Jr.	NR	NR	8	5.5	0.8%	0	0	0	1	1	0
Trey Cheek	CB	5'10, 175	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8369	6	3.0	0.4%	0	0	0	1	1	0
David Garner	S	5'9, 195	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	3	3.0	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
A.J. Greathouse	CB	6'0, 190	So.	NR	NR	9	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Luke Rubenzer	S	6'0, 190	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8472
Quentin Tartabull	S	5'11, 190	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8514
Antoine Albert	DB	6'1, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8590
Khari Vanderbilt	DB	6'2, 185	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8356
Derron Brown	S	6'2, 190	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8116
Malik Psalms	DB	6'3, 175	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8646
Trey Turner	DB	6'2, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8435

8. Find a first string, then keep it on the field

Darius Allensworth led Cal cornerbacks with six passes defensed as a freshman. Caleb Coleman had five in minimal opportunities. Trey Cheek made a couple of plays in even fewer opportunities. Cameron Walker and Cedric Dozier are juniors now. Darius White is a senior. Joel Willis is back after missing almost all of 2014 with injury.

At safety, Stefan McClure is both a rare senior and former four-star recruit. Converted receiver Patrick Worstell made a couple of plays. JUCO transfer Derron Brown made an immediate impact this spring. Converted quarterback Luke Rubenzer looked decent.

Two more JUCO transfers could hit the rotation, as could star freshman Malik Psalms.

And hey, the names here are great: Psalms, Vanderbilt, Greathouse, Cheek, Tartabull, Piatt. Sounds like members of a country club waiting list. (And that says nothing of 2015 signee Evan Rambo.)

There are options here, is what I'm trying to say. Decent potential, none proven.

McClure, Worstell, Tartabull, Trey Cheek, and Griffin Piatt were all hurt this spring, and granted, Dykes said "the safety situation is a little bit of a mess." I'm trying here. Find your four or five best players, find a couple of decent backups, hope they stay healthy, hope the pass rush ... well ... exists ... and you've got an improved defense.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Cole Leininger	6'1, 200	Sr.	52	39.8	5	17	16	63.5%
Jared Goff	6'4, 210	Jr.	3	40.7	1	0	2	66.7%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
James Langford			77	58.5	25	2	32.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
James Langford			56-57	7-7	100.0%	4-10	40.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Tre Watson	KR	5'10, 195	So.	20	20.4	0
Khalfani Muhammad	KR	5'9, 170	Jr.	14	20.6	0
Trevor Davis	KR	6'2, 180	Sr.	13	32.6	2
Chris Harper	PR			13	7.7	0
Trevor Davis	PR	6'2, 180	Sr.	8	8.8	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	72
Field Goal Efficiency	71
Punt Return Efficiency	43
Kick Return Efficiency	26
Punt Efficiency	95
Kickoff Efficiency	90
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	21

9. Wanted: better legs

It speaks volumes that opponents were kicking off enough for three different Cal return men to have at least 13 returns, but returns were a strength. Punt returns were consistent, and kick returns (especially Trevor Davis') were explosive. But Cal's own kicks/punts and coverage were lacking, and while James Langford wasn't amazing on kickoffs, he was automatic inside of 40 yards as a place-kicker. His absence could be felt in that regard.

Cal would have produced strong special teams ratings with decent kicks. We'll see if that changes.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk
5-Sep	Grambling State	NR
12-Sep	San Diego State	77
19-Sep	at Texas	36
26-Sep	at Washington	55
3-Oct	Washington State	66
10-Oct	at Utah	39
22-Oct	at UCLA	7
31-Oct	USC	13
7-Nov	at Oregon	4
14-Nov	Oregon State	70
21-Nov	at Stanford	11
28-Nov	Arizona State	24

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-6.3% (72)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	46 / 28
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-3 / -8.6
2014 TO Luck/Game	+2.3
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	17 (8, 10)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	4.7 (0.3)

10. Play well at home

Cal's in a weird place. The Bears don't enjoy a lustrous history; before Jeff Tedford showed up in 2002, they had been to six bowls and finished ranked four times in the previous 50 years. So they don't hold any long-term entitlement to success.

But Tedford engineered a sustained period of solid football -- at least seven wins every year from 2002-09, plus 10-win, top-15 campaigns in 2004 and 2006 -- and over the last five years, Cal has recruited at a top-30 level. So nine wins in three seasons is far below the realm of acceptability.

It's easy to see the Bears improving further, but it's hard to see the win total increasing beyond about 6-6 or 7-5. If the old "defense travels" truism holds, and if defense is still Cal's bugaboo, then the schedule isn't kind: five road opponents are projected top-40 teams, and the sixth (No. 55 Washington) isn't that far off the mark. If you go 1-5 or 0-6 on the road, then you have to basically win out at home to reach a bowl, and that means going 1-1 against Arizona State and USC.

The Pac-12 North is in a bit of transition. Oregon is replacing some of its stars, Stanford's season could go in quite a few different directions, Washington State's ceiling is probably 6-6 or so, and Washington and Oregon State are undergoing facelifts. Now would be a good time for Cal to put a semi-competent defense on the field and win some games.

But the odds are still in favor of a poor defense and a record that tops out around 6-6. Cal games are high-scoring and entertaining, and the Bears' offense should be fantastic, but at some point Cal fans are going to demand a little more.