at LT from the beginning, have been proven right. To be clear, nobody said he was necessarily the best guy at the immediate moment. What was said was he had more potential with a higher ceiling, and that if he played, he would get better and better. Instead, Farley started, struggled, and Cochran only became a starter after Farley went down with injury. Now look. Cochran was very good, and better than Farley ever has been, in his last two starts. And don't start with this ditching the vertical set nonsense. If it needed to be dropped, why was it being used in the first place?
This is a prototypical example of how sometimes coaches don't make the best personnel decisions. You can argue Dykes and co. wanted Farley because he was less risky at the moment, but it's arguable Cal could have beaten Utah, UCLA, USC, Oregon, or Stanford if Cochran started the season at LT. In other words, this isn't hindsight. It was foresight.
This is a prototypical example of how sometimes coaches don't make the best personnel decisions. You can argue Dykes and co. wanted Farley because he was less risky at the moment, but it's arguable Cal could have beaten Utah, UCLA, USC, Oregon, or Stanford if Cochran started the season at LT. In other words, this isn't hindsight. It was foresight.
