Well, I never played d-end, but my understanding is that he should have just played riley straight up, make him commit and knock the crap out of him. The ball would be pitched to forsett, and the LB who went out with the FB would then need to beat Taufoou to the inside and make a play in space against forsett—not an easy task. However, the DE gave up the inside, and left riley to make an easy play, which you never want to do. Defending the option is about playing assignment football, and stringing the play out to the sidelines (if it goes to the pitch back), and using superior speed to scrap across to clean up the mess.

It’s interesting, because you figure the AF defense is used to playing against the option. I wonder how much the AF coaches prepared them for this look from us. It seemed from the way he played it like the DE was told that Longshore would always pitch it in that scenario, and forgot that he was out of the game and was not told about Riley’s superior mobility vis a vis Longshore.

I think the best way to defend the option is for the DE to not commit to anyone (if anything, just scrape the outer most blocker but don’t give up outside containment). If the DE commits to anyone (the QB or the RB), then the QB will option the ball to make the DE wrong. The DE wants to make the QB choose first, then the DE will react thus the DE won’t take himself out of the play. So I think the DE should have stood his ground more or less, waited until Riley either committed to the run or pitched the ball, then attack the ball carrier.

You forgot that CGB is also like the treesitters in their Longshore lovin’ pig-headedness.

the real reason why Riley looked so much better than Longshore was because of the disparate O-line play each QB received, rather than the fact that one QB was just better than the other.

Sure, I can totally accept that. It’s natural. The O-line voted with their feet. Riley’s mobility is going to make our job easier so we’re going to make his job easier.

I have gone on the record many times stating that I am not pro-Longshore or anti-Riley. I think many readers of this blog (who don’t read regularly or just started reading us) often mistake my defense of Longshore as being pro-Longshore/anti-Riley. That is not true. I am not pro-anybody. I want Tedford to play the best player. I want Cal fans to support the starter. I want Cal fans to not unfairly criticize Cal players. Last year, in my opinion, I felt like Longshore received a lot of misguided and unwarranted criticism. Many Cal fans placed 100% of the blame on Longshore. Many times I attempted to show that Longshore’s mistakes weren’t entirely his fault and that the fault was often shared with receivers, the offensive line, as well as just the game situation (not to be confused with saying Longshore is absolved of ALL fault). Nevertheless, some readers continue to think that if I defend Longshore from misguided and unwarranted criticism that means I’m pro-Longshore. That is not true. I merely want to help others see what I think is the truth: that Longshore isn’t as bad as most Cal fans probably think.

Ducky23 also mentions that I am purposely leaving out facts to help support what he thinks is my agenda (to promote Longshore over Riley). He states that I failed to mention that Riley’s mobility can influence the way the defense plays the offense. While I have no way of proving what I am about to say, it is the truth. I wrote these posts over a month ago because I was traveling internationally for a while and wasn’t sure if I’d have internet access (that is why the first 6 posts or so have editor additions by TwistNHook stating that I might not be able to respond to questions or comments quickly). I wrote these posts, saved them as drafts, and left them for my co-bloggers to publish when needed. In my final post, which at this time has not been published yet, but was completed over a month ago, I do mention that Riley’s mobility influenced the defense and helped with the offense’s success in the final 3 quarters. When the final post is published, you’ll see my statement in that post. So while Ducky23 does bring up the good point that I certainly did forget to include a significant point in the first 11 parts of my posts (although I did confirm this notion through another reader’s comment), in the end I did include this important point in my analysis but it just hasn’t been published for Ducky23 and others to see.

Nevertheless, if readers feel that I am patronizing them (as Ducky23 suggests) by attempting to pass off analysis showing what I believe is the truth for my endorsement of Longshore, then I am sorry and will attempt to do a better job making it clear when I am just trying to show what I believe is the truth versus my personal player preference.

Finally, Ducky23 also suggests that this entire blog is pro-Longshore. That is not true. I think Ducky23 is forgetting that this blog is merely a compilation of posts by 5 guys who happen to know each other. What one writer writes is not the opinion of the entire blog or the rest of the writers although some of the other writers may share similar sentiment. I would just like to remind people that there is no California Golden Blog “consensus” or “opinion” but merely the individual and independent opinions of TwistNHook, HydroTech, YellowFever, CBKWit, and Ragnarok.

I am glad that Ducky23 reads our blog and continues to do so. After reading this (rather long) post, I hope that he now has a better understanding of my personal opinion as well as where I’m coming from.

I actually learn a lot too from doing this analyses.