Post-UCLA Game Thoughts: All About Riley
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2008 7:26 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
Print
via imgs.sfgate.com
CBKWit did his post game thoughts. And Twist started his usual photo essay. Here are my post-UCLA game thoughts written the night of the game:
(1) Riley
If only Riley had played this well all season. Then we wouldn't have had this QB controversy. Fans wouldn't be at each other's throats. CaliSeth wouldn't be on his self-imposed ban from the blog. Olsonist and I wouldn't be arguing left and right (instead, we might even be friends! Imagine that!). We'd all be happy, and the team would possibly be 7-0 (and ranked! oh noes!!!)
Today, in my opinion, Riley played pretty well.
[HydroTech addendum: A few days after the game I see that not all Cal sports bloggers are in agreement on how well Riley performed. (See The Bear Will Not Quit explaining that "there is no reason why Riley shouldn't remain the starter if he practices and plays like this the rest of the way."); (Cf. Oski Talk explaining that "the killer part of the game was once again the poor play of the offense, including the QB, Kevin Riley."); (Cf. Bears With Fangs explaining that "Riley didn't set the field on fire ... and continued to misfire on a number of facets.").]
He had his mojo back. He had a swagger. I saw more energy, life, and confidence in his whole demeanor against today than I've ever seen from him before. Perhaps this whole "QB controversy" was the push he needed - sort of a wake-up call. The roles of Riley and Longshore are switched this year. Last year Longshore was the starter whose job was at risk. This year it's Riley who is the starter and job is at risk. Riley appears to be responding well to the possibility of him not starting.
Riley was "only" 11/22 today. But there were definitely some catchable balls which were dropped no matter whether they were dead on target or slightly off target. I think I can remember at least 3 which should have been caught regardless of the throw. Add 3 to 11 and you get 14. A completion percentage of 14/22 is just under two thirds and is good. Riley also had a solid 7.0 yards per attempt today.
In previous weeks we've talked about how Longshore changed a lot of plays at the LOS (such as against ASU). Today, we saw Riley change tons of plays at the LOS. When I saw Longshore's changes at the LOS against ASU, I said he had the requisite knowledge. I think the same conclusion applies here to Riley now that we've seen Riley do extensive play selection at the LOS.
After the ASU game, I was beginning to think that perhaps Riley hadn't been given the green light to do as many changes at the LOS as Longshore. But after seeing today's game, that notion appears incorrect.
The ability for the QB to change plays at the LOS gives the Cal offense diversity - diversity which was slightly lost in the Dunbar year. The QBs in the Dunbar offense had the ability to change the play at the LOS, but it didn't appear to be so built-in into the offense as it did with Tedford's offense last year, and what we seem to be seeing in Cignetti's offense this year.
(2) How 'bout them backs and OL?
Best and Vereen had a 6.8 yard and 7.1 yard average, respectively. Props has to be given to the big guys up front who opened up good holes for Best and Vereen after getting dominated last year. Even if you take away Best's longest run of the day, he was still averaging 5.0 yards a carry.
(3) Praise be to Tedford that Karl Dorrell snuck on the field as Kevin Craft.
Craft was actually sort of looking like an "okay" QB in the past three weeks. Today though, he looked pretty bad. I'm not even talking about the fact that he had four passes intercepted so much that many of his throws were way off target. In his defense, he had a ton of bad snaps which caused him to look down, throw off his timing, and causing him to take his eyes off of the defense. The guy is a competitor though and has a feisty character. Oh, and he is pretty good at throwing bad passes, so he does have that going for him.
via imgs.sfgate.com
(4) The sweltering sun
It seemed like the heat hit the fans hard half way through the 3rd quarter. I noticed the students seemed less willing to make noise. The alumni seemed pretty affected too. I felt like we were losing our "home field advantage" as the fans slowly melted and cooked in the sun. Am I the only one that noticed this? Or am I wrong?
(5) This Week's Sign of Apocalypse:
Frat boy behind me in the student section: "Dude, I'm bored. We need to pass."
I mean, seriously, dude. Runs are sooo boring. Unless of course, they go for 25+ yards. How come Cignetti doesn't call more run plays that go for 25+ yards? I mean, he should be like doing that every time! Duh!!!
News flash for frat boy: Jeff Tedford offenses run more than pass. If you're bored by runs then you should consider transferring to Texas Tech.
via imgs.sfgate.com
(6) Vintage Tedford Offense?
Today's offense really felt like vintage 2002 and 2003 Tedford. Lots of running, establishing the run, and throwing about 25 passes per game. There were even those few trick plays (reverse, and flea flicker) which brings back memories of Cal vs. Washington in 2002.
I think today's offense was really diverse too. It seemed open. It had variety. It had all this because the run was working. When the run is working, Cal doesn't have to be one dimensional. Cal has the choice to keep with the run - which was working - or throw in a different play. And if that other play doesn't work, we can still fall back on the run since it was working.
(7) Defense Dominates
Gotta hand it to the defense. They showed up today and only gave up 13 offensive points. UCLA didn't have a first down until the 2nd quarter. Craft averaged a poor 5.8 yards per pass attempt. Excluding sack yardage, UCLA averaged around 1.5 yard per rush. Yeah... that's right. UCLA only had 16 yards of team total rushing yards. Ouch.
UCLA's Terrance Austin, who apparently gets up more for the game against Cal because Tedford & Co. didn't give him a scholarship, only had one reception for six yards.
via imgs.sfgate.com
(8) Two Areas of Concern:
First, Cal's 3rd down conversion was still not so great. Cal was 4 out of 13 on the day. This has to get better and will when our WRs get more experience. Cal's WRs are a crucial factor in 3rd down conversion when passing, so as soon as the WRs get better as a whole, then I think the 3rd down conversion will get better.
Second, the whole new "let's not cover the gunners" punt formation thing was puzzling. I'm surprised UCLA didn't try to exploit that earlier although perhaps they were waiting to draw us into a false sense of security. Did the Cal coaches think they wouldn't? I understand that the coaches were being cautious to prevent fakes up the middle but I'm not sure you can just waltz out there and completely ignore the gunners like they have hands of stone. Perhaps at least cover the gunners, then just before the snap, bring in the hawks for added protection in the middle.
(9) Riley's Grade:
I think an A- is in order. Riley's biggest mistake was almost throwing an INT, and getting a block in the back penalty. On the positive side, he threw strikes early and often.
Does yesterday's game conclusively prove that Riley should have been starting for Arizona State and Arizona? No. Riley definitely was in a slump and Longshore was worth a shot. I think we can all agree that Riley today was much different than Riley during WSU, CSU, and the first three quarters of Maryland.
Does yesterday's game conclusively prove that Riley should be the starter for the rest of the season? Probably, but only as long as he keeps up a level of play that is higher than Longshore and Riley gives Cal a better chance to win. If Riley keeps playing as well as he did today and against MSU, he'll be the starter for the rest of the year, hands down, no questions asked. But if there is a regression back to the lethargic slow starts and overthrow-athons that we saw earlier in the season... Tedford might give Longshore another go.
But Cal fans should be happy. We now know that Riley's Michigan State performance wasn't just a one-hit wonder. Now it's just a matter of getting this consistent play every single game.
If Riley can keep up this level of play on a consistent basis, the coaches won't have to think about flip-flopping with QBs, and Cal can stay right in the hunt for the Rose Bowl and "controlling one's destiny" rather than living on a prayer.
Addendum:
So it's come to my attention that the QB position is up for grabs... still. I honestly thought that with Riley's performance on Saturday, that he more or less had the inside track on the starting job until he hit another slump or he began missing too many easy throws.
Is Tedford making the correct move in seeing which QB better suits this week's gameplan (as well as seeing which QB can better execute the gameplan) instead of just picking one QB and sticking with that QB regardless of how they suit the gameplan?
Well, again, I'm not Coach. So I think I'll refrain from saying whether I think he's doing the right thing or not, but I will say that there is some logic to his madness.
Every opponent has weaknesses. Some of these weaknesses can be exploited by either QB. Others cannot. Against UCLA, Tedford said Riley got the start because he is better equipped to run the QB draw - which the coaches felt could exploit UCLA's defense. Some QBs may be better equipped to defeat certain defenses by their feet (such as Riley on the QB draw). Some QBs may have better throws on certain WR routes - routes which can exploit certain defenses. Some QBs may throw better on rollouts - rollouts which can exploit certain defenses.
Although it may be unsettling for us fans to not know who is starting each week, I suppose that is a logical reason for this unique approach. Let's trust in Tedford on these decisions. If Longshore should start next week, I don't think we should necessarily see it as a conclusive knock on Riley that he's not good enough, but perhaps that his attributes didn't quite suit the Oregon gameplan as well as Longshore's. The same applies should Riley start instead of Longshore.
So I guess Tedford's words are a warning to us fans. We might see different QBs from here on out through the rest of 2008. Simply put, which QB gets the start will hinge on which QB gives Cal the best chance to win via execution of the opponent-specific gameplan.
via imgs.sfgate.com
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m thinking that Tedford will continue to say that the QBs will be evaluated week-to-week for the rest of the season, regardless of whether he’s made his mind or not. We should just monitor the reps in practice.
The QB draw seems to be a very effective play for us when used sparingly. After all, this play (and roll out mobility) earned Riley the starting job to begin the season.
I hope we can get the torrent for this game.
...nuh nuh nuh gone
it was on espn360
but I don’t know how long it will be available there.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Oct 27, 2008 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I thought Riley played well too.
The WRs dropped a lot of catchable balls. Very frustrating.
From what I remember Riley only made one bad through, the one in the end zone where he didn’t lead his WR enough and the DB was able to make the play as a result.
It was freaking hot!
Overall I’m glad we won. Our offense will have to be in snyc all 4 quarters to beat Oregon.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
by Hey Bowles Hall! on Oct 27, 2008 8:27 AM PDT reply actions
Disagree about Riley's performance . . .
Hydro, you say Riley played “pretty well” and grade him as an A-. I think you’re being very generous. Up until the flea ficker in the 4th quarter, the game was 20 – 13 and Cal’s offense looked pretty bad, IMO. There were way too many 3 and outs up until that point and “our” 3rd down conversion rate was poor. I attribute these problems to Riley’s poor passing, receivers dropping catchable balls, and conservative play calling by Cignetti/Tedford (too many runs on 3rd down situations).
IMO, Riley didn’t play bad or good, he played OK. He didn’t play good enough to close the door on this QB debate once and for all, but he didn’t play badly either. And most notably he appears to play better late in the game, whereas we all know the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Longshore that appears in the 4th quarter. I think you and others may be seeing things different b/c of one play (the flea flicker), b/c that and the failed faked punt did change the complexion of the game. Understanding that grading is totally subjective, I would give Riley a C+ for his performance and stick with him the next game.
As for our record the next 5 games I was a bit pessimistic and voted 2 – 3. I wasn’t very impressed with our defense against the spread and this offense has sometimes given Gregory problems, so I’m picking Oregon to win. I also see Cal as losing to U$C and OSU b/c they just seem like a totally different team on the road.
"You can have the alimony. But I want some pussy payments!" - Chris Rock
I think we will win the Big Game, and the Oregon and Washington games.
I think we can win at Oregon State.
I’d give Riley a B+. Mario’s argument is strong but I don’t think he gives RIley enough credit for not turning the ball over. With this offense, that’s key. I also think the play calling became more Tedford and less Cignetti after the half. It just seems that way.
Grading rubric:
- An A in my book means exceptional against a good team, that he laughs at their defense and their cheerleaders are smiling when he comes on the field.
- An A- means the game is a foregone conclusion in the first quarter.
- A B+ means he wins the game with some style and doesn’t make any bone headed mistakes.
- A B means he wins the game and doesn’t make any bone headed mistakes.
- A B- means he wins the game despite a bone headed mistake, or loses against a tough opponent.
- A C is a loss with a variety of explanations.
- A D or below means his first name is Nate.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
The line was pick’em when it was released, then moved to Cal -2.5 (which still indicates that Vegas thinks Arizona was going to win)
by BearsNecessity on Oct 27, 2008 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Cal listed was a 2-point favorite. And I recall you gave the great Mormon One a C.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
For a typical college game, Vegas doesn’t care who wins as the line isn’t actually an attempted prediction of any sort of football outcome. The line is a mechanism by which the bookie attempts to get an even amount of money on both sides of the wager. Motion occurs as a result of where the money goes because if the bookie has done his job right, the outcome (something they can’t control) is irrelevant and the commissions (a constant) will be profit. So… the line moving from 0 to, say, Cal -2 simply means that not enough people were betting ‘zona to that point. If you think about this enough you’ll come up with great rational to put a lot of money on a game based purely on your analysis of the betting psychology of each side. You’ll still lose your boat, but you’ll lose it smart and that’s the California way. Go Bears!
Zoonews, as a gambler who understands all of this, if you keep on being informative like this, you will make it harder for me to make money.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 27, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
BearsNecessity, as someone who doesn’t understand anything, if you keep telling people not to be informative, it will make it harder for me to make money.
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
I’m gonna need bullet points on that one.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well, I guess we’re going to have to disagree on Riley’s poor passing. But how are WRs dropping catchable balls Riley’s fault? And the supposed conservative playcalling Riley’s fault? I don’t think those can fairly be attributed to Riley. As for the “Cal offense looked pretty bad…” it looked bad as a whole, no doubt. But how much of that was due to Riley? Riley isn’t run blocking. Riley can’t catch his throws. Riley threw two touchdown passes on the first drive that weren’t caught (if my memory serves me correctly).
I agree that the Cal offense looked pretty bad and slow from the start, but I don’t attribute much of that to Riley – whereas I think you do.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I blame Riley for that block in the back that brought Jeremy Ross’ leap play back!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
If thats the worst Riley does, Im happy.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I'm not blaming Riley for playcalling and dropped balls
I was trying to recognize that the poor offense was not all Riley’s fault. But if he’s so good why doesn’t he pull a bugs bunny and catch his own throws?
But seriously, maybe I am being a bit hard on him, and as Olsonist pointed out he’s not throwing interceptions, which is what I meant to say by bringing up the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Longshore idea. And you are right about the O-line. I thought they got manhandled by U of A, and didn’t do much better (at least in terms of pass protection) against Fucla. Still, upon further review I might change my grade to a B for him, but I just didn’t see enough consistent passing from him to give him higher than that. I’m just probably being too harsh on him, knowing that he (and everyone else – coaches included) are going to have to do MUCH better against Oregon, SC and OSU.
"You can have the alimony. But I want some pussy payments!" - Chris Rock
by oaktownmario on Oct 27, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
He played ok
There were definitely a couple really bad passes, I remember one that was uncatchable and we were lucky to get a PI call, another one that was forced as he was about to be sacked and should have been intercepted, and another couple times he should have thrown the ball away but held on a couple seconds too long (which is a recurring theme, part of the package – sometimes it helps with some miracle he pulls out of his *ss, sometimes he takes a sack he didn’t need to).
That being said, he had poor pass protection, especially as the game went on (which I understand after the fact was injuries on the O line) and the receivers continue to have hands of stone. Morrah in particular frustrates me – sometimes he makes these key catches, other times the easy catch – not so much. But if the throw is off at all, we have no receivers that will make the catch.
The offense is as bad as ever. This is going to be a rough part of the schedule, IF we can get past Oregon that will be huge.
I’d like to comment also on the crowd. It stunk. I do not buy the heat argument, I think the fanbase has too high of expectations at this point, and when we aren’t seeing the amazing offenses of years past there is nothing there. Night games as better – perhaps it is the heat issue, but I think it is just more electric when it is a big game under the lights…
Given the 12:30 start this week for the Oregon game, the injuries and the generally poor O, flip a coin for this week.
Good post, a few comments...
“So I guess Tedford’s words are a warning to us fans. We might see different QBs from here on out through the rest of 2008. Simply put, which QB gets the start will hinge on which QB gives Cal the best chance to win via execution of the opponent-specific gameplan.”
What can NL give you that you can’t get from KR?
He “knows” the offense better? He gets off to better starts?
Nate is a good QB, he’ll light up the bad teams, but we know we can’t win the tough games against the likes of SC with him. Also Nate hasn’t improved, he still makes the same killer pick-6, INT mistakes. Nate disappears in the 2nd half, Riley has shown that he can finish strong.
As for changing the play at the LOS. I think Riley got more freedom in the UCLA game. Riley did change plays in previous games, but I think it’s more of changing blocking schemes, or the direction of the run. In this game, looks like he was able to call his own number and change run plays to passes.
Did Riley audible to the flea flicker? Looked like Riley was calling an audible before the play, but I’m wondering if that was just for show. Or was it one of those situations where they called two plays in the huddle?
on the flea flicker it was
likely deciding which side the fake run play was to, based on the defense.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Oct 27, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
best place holder in the pac10!
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
by Hey Bowles Hall! on Oct 27, 2008 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I really just don’t agree with the “Riley played well” argument. Take out the flea flicker, and he threw for 100 yards, with a sub-5.0 YPA. He played ok, didn’t get as much help from the line and receivers as he should, but by no means did he play well. On the other hand, he played at least as well as Longshore could be expected to…My guess (and hope) is that he played well enough to make himself the front-runner to start the rest of the games if neither QB can separate himself from the other.
I think Riley played ok. There were definitely drops, pressure, penalties that killed some drives. He’s definitely my starter next week and the rest of the year.
One encouraging thing was seeing some of the WRs actually get some YAC going. I haven’t seen much of that this year, but we had a couple of good YACs on Saturday. It’s all about the YAC.
I may not be a funny bastard, but at least I'm a bastard.
Okay, well, if we’re going to play what-if and take away his flea flicker then let’s give him completions for those passes that were dropped. Riley then has a completion percentage around 2/3rds and a YPA greater than 7.0 which is good.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I guess this is the difference between me and others. I see past just the plain results. Last year, I was saying Longshore wasn’t as much at fault, and sometimes not at all at fault for some of his INTs (we need not restart that argument here though). I was saying that because I was looking past the mere results (the INTs) and looking at other things too (game situation, pressure, WR routes, etc.). This past game against UCLA, I’m looking past Riley’s poor completion percentage. I don’t see a poor completion percentage, but about three drops (perhaps even a fourth), and (i think) two balls which were thrown away. Riley really only threw perhaps 5-6 not-good balls (whether they were “bad” or just “okay” is debatable but not relevent, hence why I say “not-good”).
I admit, if you look at just the results – just the stats – Riley’s performance was “okay.” As in like C+ or so. But if you don’t ding him for stuff outside of his control, and purposeful detrimental stats (such as balls thrown away) then his performance looks much better.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I love to play what if.
What if Kevin Riley was a pink unicorn who went NEIIIIIIGH!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I would be flying back down for the Oregon game. And Stegosaurus would be really made that he’s not starting at QB.
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
If Stegosaurus gets made this could be BAD!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Gotta say I think my hypothetical is a bit less out there than yours…Anyways, while our receivers have too many drops, it’s an unreasonable assumption to think college receivers are going to catch everything they get their hands on. DeSean had his share of drops over the years, Jordan certainly had a decent amount, Hawkins had some, Makonnen used to drop one every once in a while, and don’t even get me started on LaShaun Ward. Our receivers need to step up but that doesn’t necessarily mean catching every single ball they have a chance to.
Basically what I’m trying to say is this, an A- grade would be more like an average Aaron Rodgers performance, not an average Kevin Riley performance. We need Riley to step up if he’s going to take this team to a higher level.
by HyphyBearsFan on Oct 27, 2008 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
while our receivers have too many drops, it’s an unreasonable assumption to think college receivers are going to catch everything they get their hands on.
I agree, it’s unreasonable to expect our WRs to catch everything. But so we should just incorporate other player’s mistakes into the QB’s stats? I mean, for simplicity’s sake of creating “official stats” then yes. But for the purpose of informally trying to accurately determine how well the QB played, I think you cannot just incorporate another player’s mistakes into his stats.
Hyphy, I think we can strike a middle ground here. I agree our WRs aren’t going to catch EVERYTHING. But for the purpose of determining how well the QB played, you SHOULD just assume that IF he throws a catchable ball, that it should be caught and should count as a completion (excluding situations where the defense player clearly would have broken up the play regardless).
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’ve got a proposal. You steal Aaron Rodgers back from the Packers for us, and I’ll agree with everything you say. Everything. Just think about it.
by HyphyBearsFan on Oct 27, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, make sure he steals Rodgers back 3 years ago for the 2005 season. Its not like Rodgers did much in those 3 years anyway… >.>
Rodgers, Lynch, Jackson…That almost lineup will haunt me for the rest of my life as a Cal fan.
by CaliforniaBone on Oct 27, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
game thoughts
1. The heat, my god, the heat!!! Fans grew more and more out of it until the 4th quarter. The flea-flicker woke them back up. And I’m not going to forget Neuweasel calling those damn timeouts. What an ass.
2. Anyone else in the student section hear the dude heckling the dance team? COME ON DANCE TEAM. GET IT TOGETHER. LET’S SEE SOME MOVES DANCE TEAM.
3. I got into a discussion with my friends after the game about what a wide receiver should and shouldn’t catch. We noticed that they dropped a lot of balls that were slightly off target, maybe a foot off in each case. They claimed the ball should have been better thrown, and that it was the QB’s fault. I claimed that if the ball hits both the receivers’ hands, he should catch it. Does anyone remember those two fantastic grabs the fUCLA WR made? Both were behind him, over his head, with SQT basically giving him a mouth exam. Yet he caught them for big gains.
I mean, if you put Alex Mack in an open field, and heave the ball right at the numbers with no defenders and no pressure, he will catch it. Yet he is not a wide receiver. The wideouts are wideouts because they and ONLY they are talented enough to make the catches that no one else can make, and that no one else can reach. Often times, the QB will have to deliberately make a poor throw to keep the ball away from defenders; he has to put it out of bounds, or two feet too high. Great wideouts make those catches. Remember Riley’s first TD pass in the AF bowl last year? Does Alex Mack make that catch? I don’t think so…
I think we’ve been spoiled lo the past 5 years, with Lyman, Macarthur, Jordan, Hawkins and of course Desean. We knew coming into the season that our receivers were green, but I don’t think anyone expected it to be this bad. Or more like folks expected at least ONE receiver to become the go-to guy, which has not happened.
That said, we’ve seen some pretty great catches and post-catch moves: Nyan’s nice cut in the UCLA game, Jeremy Ross’s nice TD catch from and moon launch against UCLA, Nyan’s leaping TD catch from Nate a few games back. So I definitely see the raw talent and potential for greatness with just more practice. They just need to be more consistent on the easy 5-10 yard passes for first downs. I am confident this will happen.
4. I am less and less worried about the departure of the senior LBs next year. Mohamed was just named Pac 10 D player of the week.
mohamed had a big game.
the tv announcers talked about him constantly.
when they wern’t trying to get into Crafts pants.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Oct 27, 2008 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I haven't yet watched my recording of the game.
Before we put the game away in the fourth, did the announcers talk about Craft potentially leading “another big comeback”? I feel like they talk about that in every UCLA game that is close in the third quarter.
ಠ_ಠ
The best part of the telecast
was Joe Kapp, who provided an extended interview early in the third quarter. The guy is starting to show his age—no shame in that—but he has lost absolutely none of his infectious love for the University of California and his humble appreciation for his teammates. Even when losing, it’s easy to see why kids loved playing for the guy. (And I especially love how he needles David Norrie for going to UCLA instead.)
Here is Joe in one of his finest moments—a day I will never forget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJFfgt4w6g
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 27, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I generally agree that if you get 2 hands on it, you have to catch it. There was the obvious Cunningham TD drop. I thought Morrah dropped one that was a little tricky, but he should have had it.
But it takes 2 to tango. Riley had Ross on a sure TD but didn’t quite put enough air under it. Ross could have made the catch, but it would have been spectacular. I keep hoping it will click. Maybe it will, maybe not till next year.
I may not be a funny bastard, but at least I'm a bastard.
Maybe I’m overthinking it a bit, but this is one area where I can see the prolonged QB shuffle having a negative impact. It seems like the receivers have to maintain a distinction between the two in terms of “rhythm”, say timing and release and trajectory and so on, in order to execute at the highest level. This additional load is on top of receiving only half of the reps with the starting QB in practice as they would get in a stable situation. Maybe this is good for development or something, but it can’t be good for results right now.
I’m afraid my constant yelling would provoke the Old Blues!
Although my favorite yell yesterday was, “GET OFF MY LAWN YOU STUPID KIDS!”
by CaliforniaBone on Oct 27, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
So I just realized people have been complaining about how hot the game was. Well, stop complaining. Some of us live on the east coast and can’t go to games. Except when Cal plays at Maryland. Now THAT game was hot.
Oh and one more thing: Best "My Cal Story" Ever.
That guy is awesome.
For those who missed it at home: this dude is 93 years old, and hasn’t missed a Bears home game since 1934. He saw, with his own eyes, the Oakland Hills firestorm in ’91 engulf the area his home lived in, during the UW game, but did not leave the game. Sure enough, when he returned home, the entire area had burned to the ground. This posed a problem to his attendance streak since all of his tickets were burned up too. But the athletic department printed out new tickets for everyone who lost their homes in the fire, which he thought was “awful nice thing of them to do.”
He also never left a game early due to weather, and never left a game early, period, and hates it when YOU DO. So stay until the clock hits 0:00!!!!!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 27, 2008 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
