Starting QB against Oregon?

by California Pete on Oct 26, 2008 3:19 PM PDT

I hesitate writing this, because I think we're all sick of our own retreaded arguments. But I just can't resist.

I've been on the fence all season on the Riley-vs.-Longshore debate, which more often than not means I'm arguing for Longshore since Riley seems to be the more popular choice among the fan base. Since neither guy has clearly distinguished himself to date, I suspect that Tedford and Co. will do what they have done the last 2-3 weeks: develop a game plan and then decide which guy seems to be best suited to execute it.

It's less ideal than having one guy as THE guy, but I suppose it seems a reasonable enough approach given the situation. What frustrates me are some of the flawed arguments I often see made on the Rilerians' behalf. Here, for example, is what ESPN's Ted Miller recently wrote:

Riley has three clear advantages over Longshore: 1. He doesn't turn the ball over (see just two interceptions in 128 passes); 2. He's more mobile and therefore can escape a pass rush and create a positive plays with his feet; 3. He's a sophomore (Longshore is a senior) and will be the quarterback two more seasons.

Argument #1 is a fair one, and quite possibly it is the argument that should seal the deal for Riley. I'll concede that. But arguments #2 and #3 are flawed. For #2, yes, Riley is more mobile, and thus he was the guy better suited to a game plan that featured a QB draw or two. But Longshore actually gets sacked less than Riley, and Riley has yet to translate his greater mobility into truly better play.

It's #3, though, that I take the most issue with. Cal is still in the thick of the Rose Bowl hunt, and the Bears truly control their own destiny now that Zona has lost again. This team is not yet playing for next year, so if given the choice between a still somewhat raw sophomore and a senior who already has one conference championship under his belt, the choice seems obvious: go with the senior.

Again, I don't think my reverse-argument #3 is definitive, either. Argument #1 might still very well trump it. Until the Bears lose another game, however, I have little patience for the Play-Riley-because-he'll-be-here-next-year line.

The opinions expressed in a FanPost are not necessarily those of the California Golden Blogs or any of its authors. However, they are just as important as the opinions of any of the authors. And doubly so as compared to TwistNHook!

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree about Play-Riley-For-Future thing. Except that I think we should play Riley for the future.

Confused? Bored? Enraged?

I’ll explain!

Longshore seems like a very good quarterback. At home, at least. On the road, less so. We have two KEY road games coming up, where Riley seems more suited for success than Longshore. Forget playing for the future of 2009, let’s play for the future of 2008. We need to get Riley the in-game experience between now and 2 weeks from now to HOPEFULLY get Cal wins against USC and OSU.

We probably could have won yesterday with Longshore. And we might be able to win against Oregon with Longshore. He has beaten them twice afterall.

But I think Riley gives us the best chance to beat USC and OSU. So, we need to get him the experience to help with that.

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Oct 26, 2008 3:33 PM PDT 0 recs

I will give you one more chance to bet one Coliseum Italian Sausage with grilled bell peppers and onions (a $7 value) that your boy Longshore will be signed by an NFL team next season.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Oct 26, 2008 4:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

I just spent an entire post explaining why I think Riley should start, Olsonist.

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Oct 26, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

Aw, I thought Longshore was MY boy! My loss.

by zoonews on Oct 27, 2008 10:03 AM PDT up 0 recs

Fair enough. Just as playing for 2009 is thinking too far ahead, playing just for this week would be not looking far ahead enough. I’ll buy that.

Go Bears!

by California Pete on Oct 26, 2008 6:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

QB Competition will remain open

Okanes:
“Jeff Tedford once again said the quarterback position will be evaluated through the week for next Saturday’s game against Oregon.”

by BearsNecessity on Oct 26, 2008 5:50 PM PDT 0 recs

that is a characteristically tedford thing to say. we have to play riley because the o-line is so dessimated that we need the mobility that riley can provide. see example 1: flea flicker.

The Bear Will Not Quit, The Bear Will Not Die.

by The Enchanter on Oct 26, 2008 7:25 PM PDT up 0 recs

Actually, I don’t think the flea flicker had anything to do with the OL being decimated. Last year, Tedford drew up a special play to take advantage of UCLA’s overly run-support aggressive safeties (the double play action bomb to THA1). The flea flicker this year uses the exact same concept and preys upon UCLA’s safeties’ tendency to overplay the run. I do not believe the flea flicker had anything to do with the OL injuries.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Oct 26, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

At the end of the first half, UCLA had the ball with 4th and 2 on the 5. There was a little less than a minute and Tedford let the clock run down to 11 seconds when UCLA called their final TO to set up for their FG. Cal had two remaining TOs. UCLA hit the FG for a halftime score of 17-10 Cal.

A minute is enough to get into field goal range. Why would Tedford let the clock run down?

If UCLA is going to go for the FG then they’ll bleed the clock.
If UCLA is going for it (4th 2 on the 5) they’ll want time in case of a first down.
If Cal wants a FG they’ll want time.

A minute is a long time. Any ideas?

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Oct 26, 2008 8:52 PM PDT 0 recs

That honestly didn't occur to me while watching the game

Not that I was thinking about it, but at the time it felt like the right decision to me. I was personally glad UCLA settled for the field goal attempt, and at that point in the game, I didn’t see anything from our offense that suggested we had a shot at moving back down the field for a last-second field goal attempt of our own.

You’re right that, strategically, it doesn’t seem to make any sense, but I guess it just seemed like Cal wanted to get the heck off the field and into the locker room without anything disastrous happening.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Oct 26, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

I was also a little surprised that UCLA didn’t go for it on 4th and 2 at the 5. They could either go for the EZ or for a first down with a minute to go. They should have been playing a lot more aggressively since they were the underdog team playing an away game.

It seems that Tedford did want to get his players off the field, which seems completely reasonable.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Oct 26, 2008 11:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

I'm tired of disagreeing with you, so I'm going to agree with you

I too was surprised UCLA wasn’t playing more aggressively and go for it. Or at least try to get the defense to jump offsides. On the other hand, UCLA did pass the ball 41 times which is sort of a lot and aggressive.

I too think it’s completely reasonable for Tedford to get his players off the field. Perhaps Tedford didn’t want to take a timeout to not give Slick Rick more time to re-think things and go for it.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Oct 26, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up 0 recs

UCLA did pass the ball 41 times which is sort of a lot and aggressive.

I’m not sure that was being aggressive so much as accepting of the fact that they had essentially no running game. They had 16 total rushing yards on 22 attempts, with a long of 8 yards by Kevin Craft. Their longest run by a tailback was 6 yards.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Oct 27, 2008 12:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

I’m not sure that was being aggressive so much as accepting of the fact that they had essentially no running game.

Right. But also, when yards per pass attempt is greater than yards per rush, going with the greater option can be considered aggressive too.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2008 12:22 AM PDT up 0 recs

I agree as well

I was very surprised (and relieved) that UCLA didn’t go for it there. I guess getting pushed back two yards on the previous play might have scared them off, and if they don’t get it, UCLA goes into halftime down two scores and Cal gets a huge momentum boost. Still, that’s the conservative approach, and it’s the sort of play-it-safe playcalling that really hurt Karl Dorrell.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Oct 27, 2008 12:06 AM PDT up 0 recs

It makes sense now. An über-fan behind me was upset with Tedford based on this play.

UCLA wasn’t going for it because Cal was dominating their offense and specifically their run game. Playing it safe for UCLA meant they went into the locker room down 7 on an uptick rather than down 10 or more on a failure. This is not so bad. Cal on the other hand knew they were going to win so they didn’t press it and got the team off the field for the half.

Some UCLA people who were complaining about us scoring with two minutes to go might want to revisit this play.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Oct 27, 2008 3:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

HAY GUYZ WHO IS BETAR LONGSUCK OR MY BF RILEY

by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 27, 2008 12:08 AM PDT 0 recs

I think we’ve all mutually determined that the better QB is ManSweenBridgBollerRodgers. That dude is awesome! (Although Old Blues, such as myself, still prefer KappMortBartFerraRothlawski.)

Go Bears!

by California Pete on Oct 27, 2008 6:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

After the statue is complete and the frescoes in the hall of riley are done. And after we’ve partied hardy upon the Party Yacht, let’s go eat at Beau Sweeney’s, Cajun-style family fun!

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Oct 27, 2008 7:29 AM PDT up 0 recs