Arizona State Post-Game Thoughts
by HydroTech on Oct 5, 2008 12:00 PM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintI'm always trying to out-do CBKWit, so while he did his post-game thoughts, I'm also going to do mine. The following are my post-game thoughts prior to re-watching the game.
via imgs.sfgate.com
(1) Lots of playaction. I'm not sure how many times we did it, but it seemed like Cignetti called up playactions at least 5-6 times in the first quarter alone. I like it. Unfortunately, ASU was playing good assignment football and kept going after Longshore instead of the runningback. Longshore did a great job dumping off those balls to avoid the sacks.
(2) Lots of passing early on. If I had to estimate, I think Cal's gameplan was to pass early and often. Perhaps as much as 75% of the time. It seemed like the usual "establish the run" offense turned into the "establish the pass" offense. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Tedford and Cignetti tapped Longshore to start - he has tons of experience, he has better knowledge of the offense and defenses.
(3) Great defensive gameplan. Gregory had a very nice gameplan today. What was that gameplan? Take away the deep ball with zones and 7 man coverages. I was by a bunch of guys who complained the entire game about "soft coverage." Little did they realize the same "soft coverage" they hated won the game. By taking away the deep balls, it forced Carpenter to take those short little 5 yard outs (which the guys next to me still complained about with loud "FUCKING SYD" groans when Carpenter would check down to short routes against Syd). By taking away the deep balls, it also forced Carpenter to hold onto the ball for a long time which resulted in some great coverage sacks. Carpenter CLEARLY was frustrated and injured by the 3rd and 4th quarter.
(4) Great individual effort by the pass rushers. Whether it was DL or Follett, those guys were all over Carpenter. As CBKWit already noted, Cameron Jordan had a beastly game.
(5) Vereen had a decent game. The OL never really opened up a huge gaping hole for a 40+ yard run but he took what daylight they gave him.
(6) Speaking of the OL, pretty solid pass protection and solid rushing. Neither was spectacular, but they weren't bad either. A good solid all around effort and performance in my opinion.
via imgs.sfgate.com
(7) Great game by the DBs. Sean Cattouse had a fantastic INT, and TD-breakup. Hagan had a phenomenal game. Syd played very well. I heard a lot of Cal students complaining about Syd today but I think he played without significant errors. The students around me who disliked Syd seemed to be finding complaint in the fact Carpenter was consistently taking little 5-7 yard outs on Syd.
Well, there are two things to note here. First, Cal played a lot of zone coverages and thus Syd isn't in man coverage and draped all over the WRs. Thus, fans should be aware that just because Syd may have been off the WR that it isn't a blown coverage. Second, Syd is defending the inside of the field. CBs almost always are going to defend the inside of the field and give up passes to the outside. Why? If WRs get to the interior of the field, that's often bad. That's where huge passes occur. To wit: Carpenter's TD pass to the WR on a slant (or post, I can't remember) over the middle of the field. On the other hand, passes to the outside are limited because the sidelines act as a barrier, and it's a much harder throw to the sidelines. Also, 5-7 yard outs are much better than 20 yard receptions and 40 yard TDs.
(8) Longshore was decent. Love him or hate him, he did alright. He wasn't great. He completely didn't see Tad Smith in the endzone on the first drive. He had some overthrown passes on the first drive and slightly off-target passes scattered throughout the rest of the game. But on the other hand, he wasn't bad either. He had some great TD throws, and great short completions too. The INT was questionable. Certainly, if Longshore saw beforehand that Vereen wasn't there, Longshore probably should have just thrown the ball into the ground, or taken a sack. But it's possible Longshore was expecting Vereen to get there and Vereen didn't quite get there. On the replay screen after the INT, Longshore and Vereen were having an animated discussion about that play. It looked like perhaps Longshore was expecting Vereen to be there but Vereen wasn't. A few friends of mine say that Vereen got blocked off by a defender or something. I guess this is something to look for when I re-watch the game.
Overall, I'd give Longshore a 7 out of 10. If you like grades, I'd give him a "B." Any higher than a B would be unfair since it would probably ignore the slightly overthrown and off-target passes scattered throughout the day. But any lower than B would be unfair since it would probably ignore Longshore's 3 TD passes, the solid immemorable short completions, Longshore avoiding sacks on the playaction rollouts, and Longshore's expertise in the offense (directing motion men - at least 3 times Longshore had to correct the position and motion of WRs/TEs).
Did Longshore do enough to secure the starting spot for next week? Definitely not. But he certainly has made the decision even tougher for Tedford and Cignetti.
Final thoughts:
via imgs.sfgate.com
Let's not let the QB controversy sour the victory. Let's just enjoy the victory. Our D played great. We have two capable QBs. We're 4-1. Nobody got injured today. Be happy.
Go Bears!
117 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A lot of Cal fans are ridiculously stupid
They know nothing about football and love to make insane comments for no fucking reason at all.
One guy especially was yelling for a PI call when a defender broke up a pass because “he interfered with the pass by touching the ball”. Doh!
In other words, Go Bears!
My favorite "fan" from yesterday's game
Was this girl who started chanting “We want Riley” after Nate’s first incomplete pass. This was just after he was 4/4 for 31 yards and two first downs on his previous passes.
ಠ_ಠ
I’m pretty sure she already has been. For him. Like, DUH.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
interesting
interesting that fans were complaining about Squid while the commentators were slobbering over how he has become far and away the best corner in the conference. on TV he looked like a star. he played like a champion.
Even in person he was fantastic. I didn’t hear any complaints from our fans about any specific players (except the anti-Nate girl who was silenced and never to be heard from again).
ಠ_ಠ
He was fantastic except for one play
Although a couple of times from where I was he looked like he wanted to go for the pick instead of bat down the pass and it ended up complete
In other words, Go Bears!
there was lots of compliments
on syd in our area.
Ball State tied as #1?
It makes sense according to the methodology of that poll, but that poll’s methodology ranges from questionable to downright bad.
ಠ_ಠ
Ball State as #1
Yeah they’re in the AP now and….who is gonna beat them? Their non-conference schedule was a joke – it’s all MAC teams here on out.
Only if I have can post MY thoughts:
Cal play good. ANGER SMASH!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I have a woefully inadequate penis.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
TwistNHook, I hereby shun you forever.
Go Bears!
by RollOnYouBears667 on Oct 5, 2008 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions
To echo some of your thoughts...
It seems the defense looks VERY solid this year, and is steadily improving. Bob Gregory deserves much credit. He took a lot of heat last year, but now is coaching a defense that’s right up there with the ‘03-’04 teams. I hope he stays for a long time.
I don’t EVER remember Cal having a secondary this good and this deep. The increased competition has clearly helped Conte. I haven’t seen anyone better than Syd in the conference (or the country, for that matter). People criticizing Syd can’t possibly be watching him very closely. In man, he makes a play on the ball every time. In zone, he keeps everything in front of him, and never misses a tackle. Meanwhile, Hagan is Decoud-esque in run support. Cal has 5-6 really good DB’s, which makes me pretty excited about going up against ’zona’s spread offense.
I actually think Cal is in a great position with respect to its QB’s. Longshore had a very solid game, and he’s physically a much improved player from last year. It’s great to see him overcome so much (injury, Royal Tanenbaums-esque meltdown last year) and perform so well, despite sporadic boos (arrrgggghhhh). In general, I favor Riley because he’s more mobile, and I think mobility is a huge factor for qb’s in college football. However, Hydro, you have me convinced that much of Riley’s ineffectiveness has been due to Riley (though I still think play calling needs to take better advantage of his skill set). I would be very surprised if Longshore did not start the remainder of the games this year. However, I hope Tedford continues to have a quick trigger on swapping the two. I also hope Riley sees significant action in the ‘$C game ’cuz 1) Longshore doesn’t have the greatest track record against $C, and 2) it sure would be nice to have a QB who’s a running threat in that game.
One last thought on Longshore: seems like 90% of his INTs come on plays where he’s throwing it to where the receiver should be. It seems like the staff (particularlty Tedford) oughta be able to coach him out of that, no? (i.e., don’t throw it if the play ain’t there).
I too am hoping Tedford is quick to play a different player who isn’t being effective as long as such ineffectiveness is mostly due to that player and not others. I do not believe a player should necessarily be benched when less than 50% of his effectiveness is due to other players.
As for Longshore not having the greatest track record against $C, well, few QBs do if any at all. Who starts against $C basically comes down to this: 5 year player with tons of experience vs. inexperienced player with more mobility. It’s a very tough choice to make. I don’t envy Tedford. He’s already drawn enough anger from Cal fans for playing Longshore yesterday. I think that criticism will only get worse should Longshore start and the team loses or Longshore doesn’t perform well.
One last thought on Longshore: seems like 90% of his INTs come on plays where he’s throwing it to where the receiver should be. It seems like the staff (particularlty Tedford) oughta be able to coach him out of that, no? (i.e., don’t throw it if the play ain’t there).
Well, Tedford wants the QB to throw it to where the WR should be. Tedford wants throws in anticipation rather than waiting for the WR to get open before throwing because sometimes that’s too late. Great QBs, and NFL QBs throw in anticipation. Anticipation throws are especially more important in the NFL. And if 90% of Longshore’s INTs occur when he’s throwing to where the receiver should be but an INT happened because the receiver didn’t get there, then it’s probably the fault of the receiver (assuming the pass is on target to where the receiver should be). And if it’s the case that most of Longshore’s INTs are when he’s throwing it to where the receiver should be and the receiver isn’t getting there, then that’s probably why Tedford stuck with Longshore for so long – because the fault was more on the receivers than Longshore.
As for the INT against ASU – surely if Longshore knew for a fact that Vereen wasn’t going to be at the spot, then Longshore probably shouldn’t have thrown it. But the play develops really fast and a lot of those screen passes happen before the RB turns himself to the QB and arrives at the spot where the RB should be. If you watch the play, Longshore is throwing the pass in anticipation of where Vereen should be. But of course, Vereen got blocked off by a defender. Sooo… perhaps that play was just kind of one of those bad luck plays that really isn’t anyone’s fault. Vereen was trying to get there but couldn’t. Longshore was expecting Vereen to be there and probably had to no reason to believe that Vereen wouldn’t get there.
All in all, that INT was more a product of the defense recognizing it was a screen rather than Vereen or Longshore. It’ll go down in the statistics books as Longshore’s fault but the defense was ALL over that play. There were two ASU linebackers who recognized the screen and were by Vereen – the one why INTed the ball, and the one who blocked off Vereen.
*
I’m very happy with yesterday’s game though. I agree that Gregory called up a great game. We do have some very talented DBs this year, and a lot of them.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 5, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Took the words right out of my mouth… Agree with Hydro:
Well, Tedford wants the QB to throw it to where the WR should be. Tedford wants throws in anticipation rather than waiting for the WR to get open before throwing because sometimes that’s too late. Great QBs, and NFL QBs throw in anticipation. Anticipation throws are especially more important in the NFL. And if 90% of Longshore’s INTs occur when he’s throwing to where the receiver should be but an INT happened because the receiver didn’t get there, then it’s probably the fault of the receiver (assuming the pass is on target to where the receiver should be). And if it’s the case that most of Longshore’s INTs are when he’s throwing it to where the receiver should be and the receiver isn’t getting there, then that’s probably why Tedford stuck with Longshore for so long – because the fault was more on the receivers than Longshore.
When I started to collect the video for my Longshore INT highlight film this is the conclusion (almost exactly) that was going to go into my analysis.
If the receivers are at fault, then it would follow that Riley and Longshore have similar interception rates since they have the same receivers. However, Longshore’s INT rate is 3 times Riley’s.
Year G-GS C-A Pct Yards TD INT Long Yds/G
2005 1-1 8-11 72.7 131 1 1 44 131.0
2006 13-13 227-377 60.2 3,021 24 13 62 232.4
2007 12-12 230-384 59.9 2,580 16 13 49 215.0
Longshore, Nate 5-3-2 62 0 50 0
Longshore, Nate 8-7-0 53 0 13 0
Nate Longshore 13-9-0 100 2 29 0
Longshore, Nate 28-17-1 198 3 30 1
(11+377+384+5+8+13+28) = 826 passes
(1+13+13+2+1) = 30 INTs
30 INTs in 826 passes for 3.63%
Riley
2007 4-1 36-56 64.3 563 5 1 64 140.8
Riley, Kevin 24-17-0 202 2 42 1
Riley, Kevin 14-6-0 51 1 14 0
Riley, Kevin 58-33-1 423 3 34 5
Kevin Riley 13-6-0 59 1 17 0
(56+24+14+58+13) = 165 passes
(1+1) = 2 INTs
2 INTs for 165 passes 1.21%
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
Well, then, doesn’t Tedford have egg on HIS face for winning yesterday’s game. How unbelievable!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
●Counselor, even rhetorical questions deserve question marks. Now if we had editing then that wouldn’t be a problem. But that not being the case, I’m going to have to take points off. I don’t want to, but you give me no choice.
-1
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
There’s no question there. Tedford has egg on his face and it’s fairly unbelievable!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
●Counselor, Well, then, doesn’t Tedford have egg on HIS face for winning yesterday’s game is a rhetorical question, deserving of a question mark. Does serves as a conditional auxiliary verb. You could have phrased it, Well, then, Tedford has egg on HIS face for winning yesterday’s game. You could have, but you didn’t.
-2
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
Interesting comparison
Slightly flawed however. If the constant is having the same set of receivers, then the only valid year for comparison is 2007. Of course, this will boost Longshore’s INT % markedly. Olsonist, I had no idea you were willing to manipulate the data to make Nasty Nate look better!
2007 Nate 3.38%
2007 Kevin 1.78%
Longshore still had twice the INT percentage that Riley had for 2007.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
About right
Though I’m actually surprised that his ‘07 percentages are better than his career. Looks like time under Tedford’s tutelage has done him well. That’s a positive sign for Riley moving forward.
In case you didn’t realize, I was being tongue-in-cheek in the comment above.
The sample size is too small to compare Riley and Longshore statistically and draw any relatively useful conclusions. Longshore’s played four times more games than Riley up to this point.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Decreasing the uncertainty in your mean value estimate by a factor of two requires that you acquire four times as many samples.
That just means that given the larger number of games that Longshore has played means that he is more likely to have a career 3.63% INT rate, that this is a more accurate statistic (twice as accurate in this case) than Riley’s 1.21% stat.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
Yeah, it’s slightly above average (the average INT/attempt rate was 3.19% in 2007), but not by much. But it’s unlikely Riley’s interception rate will stay that low.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions
But it’s unlikely Riley’s interception rate will stay that low.
I disagree. Riley has thrown two INTs. OSU had a really good pass defense, and in his first he got intercepted start once in the second quarter of the game. Maryland, it was a tipped ball.
The pro-Longshore cabal gives Longshore credit for his fifth year senior wisdom. But that should show up in judgment and INT rates, especially late in the game. By comparison Rudy Carpenter has 26 INTs for 958 passes for 2.71% rate.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
The pro-Longshore cabal
I’m part of a cabal now? I hope we don’t have to pay dues!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
A Cabal? Are you sure it isn’t a posse or a club?
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
It’s late. The Twisted/Maharg tag team has bested me for the evening. Nite nite.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
Oh god, I have to pay MORE dues now!?!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Make the check payable to The Fighting Mahargs.
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
All right meow. Hand over your license and registration.
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
Live Drunk or Dye is more like it.
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
As if.
I’m naturally blond and proud of it. We are the Master Race. That apostate Longshore is an embarrassment to us.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
As a self-loathing Jew, I’m not sure how to feel about your Nazi White Power salute.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
By all means Olsonist, you should really write a Fanpost expressing these opinions.
For all the interceptions he doesn’t throw, he doesn’t throw many completions either. At the moment he’s completing less than 57 percent of his passes, a number that puts him below such great leaders like Tavita Pritchard and Kevin Craft. He doesn’t even rank in the top 100 quarterbacks in the nation, a stat that must be galling to Tedford.
I don’t disagree with any of your assessments that Riley is and has the potential to be an above average quarterback, but he has not done much to distinguish himself as a superior QB to Longshore.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 6, 2008 2:00 AM PDT up reply actions
I was trying to get my brain to figure out a way to say that. So, thanks for relieving me of the burden.
I have almost no training in statistics so I can’t say whether or not this is a valid inference, but how did Longshore look over his first 165 pass attempts?
He threw five interceptions in his first six games with 157 pass attempts (about 3.18%, around the average).
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s better to use all of the data available or as Avi suggested the 2007 data when the receivers were the same. I will say that in Riley’s first start, the OSU loss, he was much better than Longshore’s first complete (sort of) game, the Tennessee loss where he got pulled for Ayoob.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
Longshore was on the road. Riley was at home.
Longshore was starting the season opener. Riley was playing with a team that started the season 5-0.
Riley had the best quarter (his 4th). But there isn’t much variance comparing the first three quarters between each quarterback.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Avi, Riley had 10 minutes to prepare. Longshore had all summer to prepare, arguably all year. Both opponents finished AP #25 their respective years. Riley was getting booed at home.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
You are very, very quickly approaching Troll status.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 5, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually I enjoy Olsonist’s arguments, they are at least reasonable and well thought out.
Trolls are half the people who post on the Cal Football Fans board.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 6, 2008 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not calling this trolling
But I think you’re starting to approach Skip Bayless, Olsonist. You know, “TIGER WOODS IS GREAT, BUT WHY CAN’T HE FLY!?!?!??!”
I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.
Dude went to Stanford and didn’t even graduate. Like Reese Witherspoon, he’s lucky to have a job.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
Hating on Longshore AND Reese Witherspoon?
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
Olsonist doesn’ care about blond people.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well, I especially didn’t like when Longshore was dying his hair and denying his blondness.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
I some what disagree.
longshore’s pics come when the play is telegraphed and breaks down either to good defense by the other team (asu’s pic) or a mistake by our team.
Agree somewhat
While all offenses have many plays where the QB throws the ball to where the receiver should be, the QB still has to read the defenses on those plays. He has the advantage of knowing where the receivers are going, but he still has to read the defense to make sure there aren’t going to be say, three guys standing in the same place. At the time of the throw, the quarterback should have made the read and calculated that the defenders will not be at the given location at that time.
Longshore’s interception yesterday was a poor read but because he should have been aware that the RB did not have a clear path to that spot, because it was clear many defenders also would be at that spot. Additionally, It was a slow developing screen pass making it seem likely that he wasn’t suppose to throw it unless the RB was actually open. To blame it on the receiver seems quite wrong.
I blame yesterday's on good defense
he didn’t really seem to look that direction until he was letting go of the ball with a defender up his nose.
by Rocksanddirt on Oct 5, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t EVER remember Cal having a secondary this good and this deep.
2005 – Mixon and Hughes at the corners… Mclesky and Harrison as safeties… rated #1 defensive secondary in the Pac10…. and my favorite group.
We interrupt this analysis
CBKWIT WINS HIS FANTASY GAME!
Barely, over the Maharg (I swear you bring the best out of the teams you play CBKWit).
This would not be possible without me, because without McCoy he probably loses. You’re welcome for your $700 billion bailout.
I feel so proud.
I lost, the Eagles lost, I have no reason to live
Although I am tied for first again in the Pick’em , and the Phillies advanced. I’m still way more distraught over the Eagles though.
I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.
Thank you Avi!
You may now have sex with Twist.
And you’re right, I do bring out the best of everyone I play. I now have the third most points, but I’ve “allowed” the second most points, 737. For reference’s sake, only 2 other teams have had more than 600 points scored against them.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think Nate deserved the start yesterday but I’m very concerned about the Arizona game because it’s on the road. The numbers from yesterday’s game and the ’06 loss to Arizona are frighteningly similar. Thank god we have two weeks.
Longshore v. Arizona St. (2008)
17/28, 198 yds, 3 TD, 1 INT. 3rd Down Efficiency: 2-10.
Scoring: 1st Qrt. 10-7 Cal, 2nd Qrt, 17-7 Cal, 3rd Qrt. 24-14 Cal, 4th Qrt. 24-14 Cal.
Longshore @ Arizona (2006)
17/36, 250 yds, 1 TD, 3 INT. 3rd Down Efficiency :3-13.
Scoring: 1st Qrt. 10-3 Cal, 2nd Qrt. 17-3 Cal, 3rd Qrt. 17-10 Cal, 4th Qrt. 24-20 Ariz.
Totally agree
I said before the season started that Nate has a poor history with Arizona… in rare cases Nate plays poorly against weak defenses…. it’s strange but true… he did this twice vs WashingtonST and twice vs Arizona. (His worst performances come from USC but it’s against a great defense).
Of course I hope Coach makes his decision based on practice… but statistically Nate has had two shots at Arizona and has been disappointing… in 2007 we won but if you re-watched the game you could say that Nate played very poorly. In 2006 Nate also played poorly and should’ve never needed Djax’s out of bounds TD at the end… plus we kept the game close because of a Djax PR TD.
Nate: 2007 Arizona @ Cal
Won 45-27: 16/30 235yds 53%, 1TD, 1INT, 123.5rating
Nate: 2006 Cal @ Arizona
Lost 20-24: 17/36 250yds 47%, 1TD, 2INT, 98.1rating
—-
I trust Tedford because he knows Nate’s history vs Arizona’s defense well… but my personal bias for this game is Kevin.
How is Arizona’s pass defense weak?
2006
125.55 passer rating-62nd in the country, but played very well against Booty and USC (103.43), Dixon and Oregon (71.94), Longshore and Cal (98.05)
2007
115.51 passer rating-33rd in the country
2008
85.32 passer rating-2nd in the country
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow, didn’t know they were that good in 2007… although in 2006 they were pretty weak and we should have shredded them. In general their secondary play was predicated on forcing teams to avoid Cason… plus they lost their starting safety in our game and we should couldn’t take advantage.
As for 2008… I wouldn’t fall in love with them quite yet… the fact that they’re 2nd in the nation is not very meaningful because of they’re schedule.
Even before the season started we knew they were going to have the best record in the Pac10 going into our game… THey don’t play ANYBODY with any kind of pass offense until the second half of their season… who have they played so far?…
Idaho, Toledo, New Mexico, UCLA (Craft) and Washington (without Locker)… Trust me, if we had that schedule we’d be 5-0 and in the top 5 in almost ever defensive category.
85.32 is still damned good, no matter the opponents. Especially for college.
They’ll fall back to the pack a little starting Saturday, but I’d say they’re in the top 3 or 4 passing defenses in the Pac-10.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Great photo of Tony Felder
It’s been a long time since we’ve seen so many defensive highlights packed in a single game. Felder’s hit. Follett’s hit. The fumble. The INTs and pass break-ups. That was fun to watch. If Gregory’s troops keep playing like this, Cal is a legitimate competitor for the conference title. ‘SC is obviously still the favorite, but this team has at least a puncher’s chance. On to Tucson to erase some sour memories.
Go Bears!
Don't forget Worrell's hit
at the end of the second half, breaking up a pass. It was gnarly!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
puppies
I understand the allure of Riley, he’s got legs and resembles A-Rodge in his gamer attitude. I also understand the associations of Longshore to The Great Collapse. That being said, Longshore is our man. This team is COMPLETELY different than last year on offense. We lost everyone. So all of our skill players are freshmen, sophs, or juco transfers. They are all green.
Nate is brown. Nate knows the offense like the back of his hand so he can effortlessly call a play and then TELL THE PLAYERS EXACTLY WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO ON THEIR ROUTES. Having watched the game again, it is obvious that the receivers are running crisper routes. Riley is certainly the future, and if this team had experience he would be our man. With this team, we need another coach on the field to tell these puppies what to do.
Sure, Riley needs to get his reps. Tedford will work him into the offense. But seriously, our offensive was sluggish and that was WITH Best. Let’s give Nate another game with the Jet in the backfield.
Hagan
I have been really impressed with Hagan the past couple of weeks. I think he has more potential than Syd because he’s a little bit bigger and more aggressive in tackling. Also, he seems to play with a swagger that has not been seen in the secondary since Daymeion Hughes. If Hagan keeps up his stellar play, then by season’s end he could rival Syd for “Top Corner” honors on the team and in the Pac-10
much ado over nothing. who was that guy on the Sundevils a few years ago who completely pancaked our PR with a flagrant foul, after he called fair catch?
Swamphunter is carrying the torch for Cal!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I remember now. I was thinking of a much older situation against Oregon State.
by Tedfordisgod on Oct 5, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
It was before '04
I want to say it was the 2000 meeting at Memorial, when Beavs were still coached by Erickson, but it could have been 2003. (Our maddening losses at home to Oregon State are all running together in my aging mind…)
Go Bears!
That could be the explanation for USC being installed as 25.5 point favorites against ASU.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 5, 2008 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions
ASU as a whole absolutely deserved worse
I’ve never heard so many complaints from the band about a fan base. Worst fans in the Pac-10, if not a close secnd to SC. And we are completely serious here, thrown beer bottles, saliva raining down on them, on the BAND. Marching in to the stadium, leaving the stadium, during the game, all kinds of swearing, physical threats of violence, ASU is full of retards, nothing else, plain and simple. That goes for the stands as well as the football field. Good job Zack!
All that stuff from ASU? Are you sure you weren’t in the Coliseum? That sounds more like USC fan behavior. How many young children swore at you?
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Not at me specifically,
but my close friends that attended were so pissed that they are now of the mindset that they would never go back, even if they didn’t have to pay for the trip. And all the band alumni here know how fun away trips are, even to Corvallis or Pullman. At least at the Coliseum the guys in jerseys are too fat to keep up with the pace of marchup to do anything to us.
Agreed, kind of
Mixon, Hughes, McClesky and Harrison were great (especially McClesky). But the difference between this group and that group is the ridiculous depth Cal now has in the secondary with “second stringers” Cattouse, Conte, Hicks, and DJ Campbell. In addition, if Syd and Hagan stay all 4 years, those guys will probably end with most of the DB records at Cal.
And Hydro’s input is great about the college-to-pro transition for QB’s and throwing the ball to where the player oughta be, but TedfordisGod touched on the idea I was sorta trying to get at, which is that the really good QB’s can figure out when a play just isn’t there (or isn’t going to be there), and throw the ball away instead of throwing into double or triple coverage without knowing your guy is gonna be able to make the play. I suppose it’s a combination of making the right read and having good instincts about how a play is developing, and it seems like something Longshore could be better at. That being said, Longshore is a very solid college QB as long as he stays healthy and doesn’t freakin’ get booed by his own peeps.
Uh, let’s not toss that ‘05 squad over the ledge yet. That team finished the season 25th in the nation in passing efficiency defense. And they had way more experience than Hagan, Johnson or Young, so as the season grew longer they didn’t lapse as much. Remember they’ve looked good against ASU (32nd), Colorado State (43rd), Washington State (115th), ok against Michigan State (79th), and bad against Maryland (66th).
They played their best football this season on Saturday. I expect a letdown next week against the 12th best passing team in the country.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 6, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
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
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.
