Her Voice Was Truly Divine!
by TwistNHook on Oct 19, 2008 9:48 PM PDT
in Football
62 comments
via www.act-sf.org
Well, let me tell you, ladies and gents, what a Saturday night I had. After watching the Kansas City Wizards defeat the San Jose soccer team on a very exciting last second goal, I went out for a night on the town.
My wife and I went to go see a delightful bit of modern American theatre, "Souvenir." This post-feminist romp is a can't miss show of non-stop hilarity! Dame Judy Kaye reprises her ever so daring Broadway role that earned her a Tony Award in 2006. She plays Florence Foster Jenkins, a New York socialite and tone-deaf diva who thought she was a great soprano. A New York socialite and tone-deaf diva who thought she was a great soprano?!?! Well, now I've seen *everything*
Dame Judy as Ms. Jenkins is truly to die for! What a angelic voice she has. And I couldn't forget the contribution of brilliant Donald Corren who plays her wry accompanist. He was so wry. So, very wry.
It truly was a heartfelt, wickedly funny look at the limits of self-perception and the unpredictable nature of friendship. And you know how much I love to discuss the limits of self-perception and unpredictable nature of friendship around here.
After that amazing show, we went over to Jardieniere, one of the finest restaurants in all of the City. I had the Riesling wine, which had a bouquet that was a bit too fruity for me. And that's hard to pull off!
I also ordered an ever so moist piece of chocolate cake. But, of course, we shared it. That goes straight to your thighs. So, after that piece of chocolate heaven, we went home for the evening, where I took a bath, shaved my legs, and headed straight to bed!
So, uh, did I miss anything else on Saturday night?
Ok, ok, that's all a lie! Well, except for the shaving the legs part. That is part of my pre-sleep Saturday night ritual. But it wasn't the only thing that sucked a LOT Saturday night.
Watching the Cal game was as depressing as experience as watching a live Broadway show about a New York Socialite with her wry accompanist that is a heartfelt, wickedly funny look at the limits of self-perception and the unpredictable nature of friendship.
Last time we had a depressing loss like this (which is to say a loss), it was against Maryland. And after that game, I tried to take stock of where we were as a team and what we could expect going forward.
After that loss, many people anticipated that we would end up splitting the OSU and Arizona games. I, personally, agreed, thinking we would defeat Arizona and lose to OSU. Now, I am not so sure we will defeat Arizona. Hey, when is that game again? I should really watch it! I hope we win!
But I thought we could take the time to look at our schedule going forward. Look to see what we can expect from this Cal team in our next 6 games (and hopefully 1 more beyond that). There will be many people looking backwards, let's take a second to look forward.
October 25, 2008 12:30 PM, UCLA
via www.usc-football-tickets.com
Our next opponent is UCLA. At home. Being at home seems to be WILDLY different for this Cal team. We're able to control players like Javon Ringer at home, but let a freshman 3rd stringer run wild on us on the road. Honestly, in college football today, it is very difficult to win on the road. Just ask USC! Well, not after this weekend, I mean against OSU. Let's take a look at UCLA's schedule:
| 9/01 | No. 18 Tennessee | 1-0 (0-0) | W 27-24 OT |
| 9/13 | @ No. 18 Brigham Young | 1-1 (0-0) | L 59-0 |
| 9/20 | Arizona | 1-2 (0-1) | L 31-10 |
| 9/27 | No. 25 Fresno State | 1-3 (0-1) | L 36-31 |
| 10/04 | Washington State | 2-3 (1-1) | W 28-3 |
| 10/11 | @ Oregon | 2-4 (1-2) | L 31-24 |
| 10/18 | Stanford | 3-4 (2-2) | W 23-20 |
They are currently 3-4 with 2 wins in the conference and 2 losses in the conference. They do have that amazing win over Tennessee, which looks less and less impressive these days. We've had two common opponents to date, Arizona and Washington State. Washington State is, yknow, Washington State, so it's hard to look too deeply into that.
As for Arizona, they played them on September 20 in the Rose Bowl, losing 31-10. That huge TE guy who killed us last night killed them, too. I would say that Cal played better on the road against Arizona than UCLA did at home. It is difficult to use some sort of transitive property in college football, but I think there is still some value to be gained by comparing common opponents.
Although UCLA will be coming off of an exciting last minute victory against Stanford, I still feel reasonably confident about this game. UCLA does not have a lot of talent and what talent it does have has been injured. UCLA has some BAAAAAAAAD defeats, the sort of defeats that Cal has generally avoided in the Tedford era. Playing at home against these guys, I think that that puts us in a solid position for victory.
November 1, Somethingoclock, Oregon
Another home game. Home cookin for our boys. This will be a markedly tougher opponent, however. Oregon was picked by some to challenge for the conference crown this year. Similar to UCLA they have had some rough injuries, in one game even playing a possibly extinct Stegosaurus as QB. Let's look at their schedule to date.
| 8/30 | Washington | 1-0 (1-0) | W 44-10 |
| 9/06 | Utah State | 2-0 (1-0) | W 66-24 |
| 9/13 | @ Purdue | 3-0 (1-0) | W 32-26 OT |
| 9/20 | Boise State | 3-1 (1-0) | L 37-32 |
| 9/27 | @ Washington State | 4-1 (2-0) | W 63-14 |
| 10/04 | @ No. 9 USC | 4-2 (2-1) | L 44-10 |
| 10/11 | UCLA | 5-2 (3-1) | W 31-24 |
| 10/25 | @ Arizona State | 10:00 PM |
They are coming off of a bye after a solid victory. They face ASU in Arizona before coming to Berkeley. That could be a very difficult game for the Ducks. ASU has had troubles this season (to put it lightly) and will be gunning for a solid victory over another solid Pac10 team. I'm not sure who will win that game, but I wouldn't be shocked if ASU managed to pull it off.
Similar to ASU, Oregon has had its share of troubles this year. It slaughtered the first two teams it faced, but then had trouble on the road with Purdue. No real shame in that, but expectations were a bit higher before that game. The real kicker was losing to Boise State, at home. I'd say more about that 44-10 loss to USC, but two things help me hold my tongue:
1. After last night's game, I fear we might lose by a similar score in LA.
2. USC had lost to OSU the week before and was embarrassed.
Oregon is going to be a much tougher test than UCLA, but I still think we can beat them. Their much hyped defense has been exposed this year (just like ours was last night). They are having major problems with injuries on the offensive side of the ball (just like we were having last night). I feel confident that Cal can defeat Oregon here, if only because we seem to play a lot better at home and Oregon has shown, it is a much different team on the road than at home (like us!).
November 8, 2008. Somethingoclock. USC
via images.southparkstudios.com
I previously had a sliver of hope after the ASU game. Maybe, just maybe, if our D holds strong and our offense can eke out JUST enough, maybe.
I have lost that hope.
Let's move on.
November 15, 2008, Uncelar, At Oregon State
via dnr.state.il.us
| 8/28 | @ Stanford | 0-1 (0-1) | L 36-28 |
| 9/06 | @ No. 19 Penn State | 0-2 (0-1) | L 45-14 |
| 9/13 | Hawaii | 1-2 (0-1) | W 45-7 |
| 9/25 | No. 1 USC | 2-2 (1-1) | W 27-21 |
| 10/02 | @ No. 15 Utah | 2-3 (1-1) | L 31-28 |
| 10/11 | Washington State | 3-3 (2-1) | W 66-13 |
| 10/18 | @ Washington | 4-3 (3-1) | W 34-13 |
It's tough to figure out what the deal is with OSU. They have had some rough losses in there, such as Stanford and PSU. But they did beat USC, which is saying something. Then, the next week they lose to Utah. This is a bit of a back and forth team. They are known for peaking at the end of the season. Which is why facing them in mid-November ain't no good!
If the Cal team we saw yesterday shows up, then it could end poorly. Cal has had this odd relationship with OSU the past few years. Lose brutally at home, crush them on the road. Will this trend continue? I, for one, hope so! But am doubtful.
If we had so much trouble with that speed back in Arizona, the Rodgers brother will kill us. I am not feeling very confident about this game and would not be shocked now, if we lost it, going 1-4 on the road this year.
November 22, Big Game!
via macleans.files.wordpress.com
Well, Stanford has had a bit of an up and down season. Let's look at their schedule to date.
| 8/28 | Oregon State | 1-0 (1-0) | W 36-28 |
| 9/06 | @ No. 15 Arizona State | 1-1 (1-1) | L 41-17 |
| 9/13 | @ TCU | 1-2 (1-1) | L 31-14 |
| 9/20 | San Jose State | 2-2 (1-1) | W 23-10 |
| 9/27 | @ Washington | 3-2 (2-1) | W 35-28 |
| 10/04 | @ Notre Dame | 3-3 (2-1) | L 28-21 |
| 10/11 | Arizona | 4-3 (3-1) | W 24-23 |
| 10/18 | @ UCLA | 4-4 (3-2) | L 23-20 |
They beat Oregon State, then get WAXED by ASU. They beat Arizona, but lose in a crushing fashion to UCLA. It is difficult to really learn a lot from here. Looking at common opponents doesn't help much, either. They beat Arizona (in Palo Alto), but then got destroyed by ASU (in Arizona). Conflicting signals there.
The only real signal you get from that is that Stanford is a similar team to Cal, insomuch as they play much better at home. Beating OSU, SJSU, Arizona at home, but losing to ASU, TCU, ND, and UCLA on the road. They did defeat UDub on the road, but it is UDub.
We have the Big Game at home this year. I think Cal will be UP to get revenge for last year. At this point, since we probably aren't going to the Rose Bowl, since the Holiday Bowl is our probably Best Case Scenario, the Big Game is a truly special game for us. It is always a special game, but I think in the past few years when we were winning it easily, people didn't care as much.
Won't be the case this year. I feel reasonably confident about winning this game.
December 6, 2008, Washington
UDub. Oh, UDub. They are having a rough season. Let's take a look:
| 8/30 | @ No. 21 Oregon | 0-1 (0-1) | L 44-10 |
| 9/06 | No. 15 Brigham Young | 0-2 (0-1) | L 28-27 |
| 9/13 | No. 3 Oklahoma | 0-3 (0-1) | L 55-14 |
| 9/27 | Stanford | 0-4 (0-2) | L 35-28 |
| 10/04 | @ Arizona | 0-5 (0-3) | L 48-14 |
| 10/18 | Oregon State | 0-6 (0-4) | L 34-13 |
Rough. If we lose this one, well, as BearsNecessity says he might finally pay the $150 for FireJeffTedford.com. Then again, the same thing could be said about last year. But this at home. Instead of on the road. I think we can manage this one.
The Apple Cup is the game before when UDub takes on Wazzu. It is in Pullman this year, so there's a chance that UDub could be winless when they face us. They will be demoralized and there's a chance Willingham will not even be there anymore.
Final Thoughts:
Well, when I last wrote, I thought 8-4 was a reasonable season for Cal. Splitting Arizona-OSU and splitting Oregon-ASU. Now, I fear we will lose both Arizona and OSU. But I'm feeling more confident about winning both ASU and Oregon.
The key games are the Oregons. It seems wildly likely that we'll win UCLA, Stanford, and UDub, while also losing to USC. The Oregons are the ones that cause the most concern. Especially OSU.
OSU is the game that this season most likely hinges on. If we can pull that one off, we could end the season 9-3. That might be enough to make the Holiday Bowl. If we lose that one, it could leave us at 8-4. Seems more like the Sun Bowl, but who knows. There's parity in the Pac10 this year.
What do you think we are looking at? I've included a poll with the Pac10 Bowls here. Vote in the poll and tell us what you think!
0 recs |
62 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Watching the Cal game was as depressing as experience as watching a live Broadway show about a New York Socialite with her wry accompanist that is a heartfelt, wickedly funny look at the limits of self-perception and the unpredictable nature of friendship.
You know I did think the 2nd quarter, with its bursts of excitement followed by periods of hardnosed grit had nuances of Kipling, while the 3rd quarter was a ghastly bit of prose, a downward spiral of MacBethian proportions. The 4th quarter was Gatsbian. It was like a lazy Long Islander, reduced to wafting in cigarette smoke, beaten in life and watching the lighthouse beacon of the Rose Bowl, far out at sea, a distant and fading reminder of our past glory.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 19, 2008 10:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
having been an integrative bio major at cal, your words, they are like greek to me. but it sounds so lyrical and poetic. single tear.
by ch0ster on Oct 19, 2008 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not all bad news bears,
The Cal Volleyball women smacked the ’Furd at the farm today, winning in 4 games! This broke a 28 year losing streak at the farm. (Stanford is like the USC of volleyball)
They are now in sole possession of 1st place in the conference. If they win out against the rest of the conference (which is definitely possible), they’ll probably earn a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney.
GO BEARS!!
by torchbear on Oct 19, 2008 10:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What’s too bad about Stegosaurus starting for Oregon is that he would have come to Cal, but Jurassic period education is so outdated there was no way he could qualify academically.
Anyway, your reasoning is fundamentally sound. I think 8-4 looks about right, and I’ll be happier if they do better or disappointed if they do worse.
by sec119 on Oct 19, 2008 10:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So this is what it sounds like when doves cry
Let’s not get too crushed here. I’m as disappointed as anyone, but let’s remember that we all recognized that the team is very inexperienced in a lot of key positions and figured a record of 8-4 or so this year was about what we expected before the season started.
And about Nate, he made some stupid decisions. I actually didn’t see the game, because shockingly not all girlfriends are excited about the prospect of riding the subway an hour each way to go watch a football game started at 10 PM, but from reading the box score Riley didn’t prove himself to be the answer either. It seems at this point that maybe Tedford should go with Riley for at least one game if only because Riley might not be much worse (i.e. switching Tarvaris Jackson for Gus Frerotte) but I don’t think he should be crucified for not doing it either. Riley hasn’t shown he’s better than Longshore THIS YEAR, but I’m willing to buy into the idea he probably has more upside.
Still happy over the fact that the Nets signed Ryan Anderson. Now if only they can sign Leon Powe after this year...
by yellow fever on Oct 20, 2008 6:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I just checked BearInsider and there seems to be a decent amount of Tedford crucification regarding the QB situation. I really don’t see why. Neither QB looked great. Longshore was solid until his huge mental error. Riley was uninspiring although in a tough situation. I feel like many people over on BI just don’t want to see Longshore at all this season and are blaming Tedford for playing Longshore. I’m not sure what people expect. Do they just want Tedford to pick one QB and stay the course no matter what happens with that QB? Are people just tired of Longshore and want to see Riley no matter what?
I see a fair argument for saying that we should play Riley because Longshore appears to be making the same mistakes as last year, but then again, aside from MSU, with Riley we might get a really slow start and take ourselves out of winnable games because of the slow starts.
There are positives and negatives for each QB. Do people really want just one QB no matter what? Or do people just NOT want Longshore any more?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 20, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Logic is out the window with several people on BI. There are a lot of the anti-Longshore people that are just completely inconsistent, even within their own argument. If you switched the performance of the players in question, they’d be saying the exact same thing. Amazed that we got to such a level of vitriol in a single bad season last year (that was still a winning season!). I wonder what the silent majority thinks, it appears to be the same posters dominating the discussion and poisoning the whole thing.
Don’t ask me, I’ve given up the discussion over there. Personally, I think it is time to look past this year and just give Riley the starting job, not because he particularly looks good (he doesn’t). However, in my opinion we will pretty much win as many games with Riley as Nate at this point, so let’s get on with building towards next year…
by tmoran3020 on Oct 20, 2008 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I think it is time to look past this year and just give Riley the starting job, not because he particularly looks good (he doesn’t).
This occurred to me too, but at the same time I can’t help but wonder how much of it is just a reaction to how badly we lost the last game.
by sec119 on Oct 20, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It honestly seems like some folks at BI
are taking a page out of the treesitters’ book…
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are throwing botles full of what at who now???
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, more like covering their ears and going LALALALALALALALALAL when logical Longshore arguments are presented. Much like the sitters did except with arguments for the stadium project, not Longshore.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard Nate Longshore is a monument to World War I war veterans.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard Nate Longshore occupies Native American burial grounds.
ಠ_ŕ˛
by Berkelium97 on Oct 20, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard Nate Longshore is a native plant.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
apropo
I saw RunnieDub on Telegraph Friday evening. He didn’t look good. I think he was wearing a sleeping bag he found in a toilet.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 20, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Much of Nate Longshore predates the building of the stadium.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate is unstable and dangerous in the event of an earthquake.
ಠ_ŕ˛
by Berkelium97 on Oct 20, 2008 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate Longshore is Guantanamo Berkeley.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate Longshore cannot be removed without doing irreversible harm to the environment.
ಠ_ŕ˛
by Berkelium97 on Oct 20, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There currently is a court injunction against anybody harming Nate Longshore.
Too bad nobody told Arizona!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the injunction prevents removal of Nate Longshore for two more years, many Cal fans will not be pleased.
ಠ_ŕ˛
by Berkelium97 on Oct 20, 2008 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard Nate Longshore is actually a landscaping project.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, Tedford has automatic escalators in his contract if ground is broken on the Mansion party yacht.
by sec119 on Oct 20, 2008 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how do you break ground on a yacht?
Go Bears!
by RollOnYouBears667 on Oct 20, 2008 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus it sounds a lot better than Sandy Barbour broke water on the Mansion Party Yacht.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a common misperception
Nate’s lack of mobility only makes him look like he’s a monumental statue or oak tree.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 20, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
i think picking one qb and allowing him to get all the first team reps and get more time with the WRs would benefit the team considerably. i don’t see any argument that one qb should be nate, but i’d much rather see nate get 100% of hte first team reps if the only time we will see riley is in garbage time down 15 points.
by droski on Oct 21, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know if Cal goes 8-4, thats a 66% win percentage. In baseball, that comes out to 106 wins. In the NFL, its 10.5 wins. In basketball, 54 wins.
Wouldn’t we all be happy with those wins in the other leagues (except for, I guess, the NFL one because that is a little bit lower than 106 wins in baseball, but would still probably be solid enough to make the playoffs)? Only in college football is a .66 season somehow a total disaster.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think an 8-4 season is a disaster for us
Prior to the season starting, most people estimated that we’d win 8-9 wins this year. We are on track for that from the looks of things thus far. I know this loss was a tough one, but were we really expecting to waltz away with an easy win here? No we weren’t judging from the fact that most of us estimated losing 3-4 games this year (USC, UO, OSU, UA).
Once again, I say an 8-4 season is par for the course in 2008. Meeting par is not a disaster.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 20, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree wholeheartedly, Hydro. Others, however, view things differently.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, but
the Pac-10 is weak this year. Going 8-4 against weak competition is a rebuilding year at this point. I don’t like our chances in either road game remaining, so to even go 8-4 we need to win out at home. That’s certainly doable looking at the schedule, but not meeting 8-4 looks fairly likely as well.
by tmoran3020 on Oct 20, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was a tough loss
One of the hardest things to accept from this loss is that this team has problems that cannot necessarily be solved during the course of a week.
Nate Longshore has shown that while he is an accurate passer, he still makes those same bizarre mental mistakes that he made last year. And once he does, his confidence visibly breaks down. Despite Longshore’s accuracy, our receivers have been very inconsistent. They have each made some great plays, but far too often they drop passes. Kevin Riley hasn’t been the savior we all thought he was. He certainly has potential, as he demonstrated last year and against MSU, but his passes have generally been wildly inaccurate. The problems in the passing game have made it very difficult for our team to mount a successful comeback, something which will probably cost us at least one more game.
Our running game has been rather one-dimensional. Sure, that one dimension is unbelievable, break-free-and-it’s-a-TD speed, but we are really missing a Marshawn-esque tackle-breaking running back. With our injuries at O-line, it’s been tough for us to have a consistent, chain-moving running game. And when our opponents stack the box against us, our run game gets shut down. DeBoskie is listed as about 15 lbs heavier than Best and Vereen, so I’m hoping he has bulked up during his redshirt year. Next year we need strength to balance our speed in the running game.
I’m willing to accept that the defense’s performance was an aberration. They uncharacteristically missed tackles and made numerous mistakes that seemed very out-of-character.
At least our kicking has shown that it will be solid for the next four years. Anger and Tavecchio have been increasingly impressive.
We can still go 9-3 or (more likely) 8-4 with a good chance at the Holiday Bowl. The final standings in the conference will probably have a few teams tied at second place with three losses. Let’s hope we’re one of them, and that Arizona is not.
ಠ_ŕ˛
by Berkelium97 on Oct 20, 2008 8:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The one thing I disagree with is the need for a heavier RB. Bigger RBs do have an advantage when it comes to breaking tackles but it’s not necessary to have one to win. Yet, I feel like lots of people cite not having a 225 lb. RB as one of the reasons why we’re losing – and it’s not.
What matters more than the weight of the RB, is the OL. Just look at WVU and Oregon State. They do just fine with smaller backs because they can get such great OL blocking. This year’s OL has been somewhat inconsistent at run blocking.
I really don’t think a heavier RB is necessary. It’s a luxury, but definitely not a necessity.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 20, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Joe Igber, J.J. Arrington, Justin Forsett…they didn’t exactly tip the scales. There’s nothing wrong with our backs. It’s the blocking up front—and the defenses’ ability to leave the receivers single-covered—that is letting us down.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 20, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree. I think that while perhaps a heavier running back need not be your every-down back, a heavy guy IS a weapon in 3rd-and-short and goalline situations. Remember Javorskie Lane? Yeah, he wasn’t the next coming of Barry Sanders but he scored a ridiculous number of touchdowns… You cannot attribute that 100% to the Oline (considering Lane was as big as some of them).
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but
I’m not sure I’d characterize the Bears’ running problems as being unable to convert 3rd-and-short. I am equally, if not more, concerned about the inability to consistently produce on 1st and 2nd downs.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 20, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I agree with CA Pete.
Put it this way. What would be more beneficial to Cal? A bigger RB? Or a better OL? The answer, for almost every team in every situation, is almost always the latter.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 20, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point I was trying to make, Spazzy, but failed to make, is that a better OL would be more beneficial to Cal more often than merely a bigger RB would be beneficial to Cal.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 20, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our offensive line is going to be a huge issue the next two years. Just staring at our depth chart and redshirts portends a pretty gloomy outlook.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 20, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have the same concerns based on how this year has gone, but also questions. Didn’t Cal clean up in O-line recruiting a couple of years ago? Wasn’t Mitchell Schwartz part of a Fab Five unit that was supposed to anchor the Cal line for years to come? With the exception of Schwartz, are those guys just not developing as hoped?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 20, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know what’s going on, but our current pass protection/running schemes have probably gotten a little too stale and predictable. It makes sense given that we’re running the same run block schemes from seven years ago and our opponents are finding ways to break it up and anticipate against it.
That and a weaker O-line have contributed to the decline.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 20, 2008 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
those techniques and strategies seemed pretty damned good with forsett last year. I think it’s more losing Tepper and Guarnero at this point.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Oct 20, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure. I haven’t analyzed it, but our run game is being stopped more and more the past three seasons. We get huge yardage plays that mask our inability to consistently run the ball.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 20, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s just our OL. Running schemes have stayed pretty much the same for decades with slight variations here and there but for the most part, things don’t really change that much in the running scheme department.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 20, 2008 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
I haven’t analyzed it either, but I seem to remember our running game doing just fine at consistently moving the chains in recent years. Forsett is not a burner and rarely picked up huge gains, but he had a a high ypc average. And Marshawn…he’s Marshawn.
I was quite pleased with our running game last year (save goal line plays, of course). I thought we did a great job picking up solid yardage consistently.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Oct 20, 2008 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I wasn’t trying to argue that a giant running back is what is keeping Cal from winning right now…just that in general, a big running back can be a powerful weapon, not “unnecessary.” And I’m sure you would agree the last few years there have been many situations, particularly at the goalline, where a big RB would have been very useful. I think it more useful, especially with a weak line, to have one big RB and one small one.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, I do agree that a bigger RB would have been helpful in goalline situations over the past few years … but I would say that a better OL would have been more beneficial in those situations rather than a bigger RB. If you look at those situations where we didn’t score running the ball in goalline situations, I think you’d find that the problem wasn’t that Forsett (or whoever) wasn’t getting into the endzone because he lacked weight, but because poor OL blocking led to defenders getting into the backfield or at least getting more penetration than they should of.
I just think that before we start pointing to the RB for not being big enough to get short yardage, we really need to point to the OL first.
Sorry, Spazzy, I guess we’re deadlocked in disagreement. I’m a firm believer that a running game’s effectiveness is more because of the OL rather than the RB. A great OL can do a lot for small or horrible RBs, whereas a poor or mediocre OL can only do so much for the RB no matter how talented or big.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 20, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, anyone catch Best picking up the blitz Saturday night? That was sweet.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 20, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s easier to get one RB than five OL, though.
by sec119 on Oct 20, 2008 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet you it’s easier to teach blocking and weight gain than it is to teach skitskat shake n bake n fry n then shake again.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember Javorskie Lane. I remember Cal’s weak Pac-10 defense dumping him into the ground in San Diego.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 20, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhhh...
The good ol’ days
...nuh nuh nuh gone
by Thoroughbred on Oct 20, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember Cal taking over that game in the 1st half, making aTm throw to try and comeback…
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 20, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish we had torrents of 2004. I haven’t found anything outside of the Big Game smackdown though.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 20, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny story about that play…I read a different play (titled Glorious!) about Ms. Foster Jenkins when I was a Literary Management Intern. It was really funny. No comment on A.C.T.’s version, and besides, you did such an excellent copy-paste job, what more could I contribute?
While I lack commentary on Saturday’s game, my belief is that seeing a play is a fine way to spend a Saturday evening. But then again, I was a theatre major and have heightened appreciation for such things.
Fin.
by RemorsefulBruinBabe on Oct 20, 2008 4:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you trying to say I never actually say the play and that I just cut and pasted those words from the ACT promotional materials?
Slanderoso!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that you “say the play,” no.
by RemorsefulBruinBabe on Oct 20, 2008 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn you lawyers and your technicalities and correct spelling slash grammar! Damn you!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 20, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was one who would argue preseason that 8-4 was an acceptable resultsfor this season. that is before i realized how god awful the rest of the pac-10 is. 8-4 might be a bit optomistic at this point too.
by droski on Oct 21, 2008 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
as for nate, i’m not sure what argument could be made that he should continue to be the starter. sure kevin might screw up, but one is a 5th year senior and unlikely to improve while the other has less than half a season under his belt.
by droski on Oct 21, 2008 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
