California Golden Blogs: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



Armed Forces Bowl Review: Part XII: Final Thoughts

Here are my final thoughts on the Armed Forces Bowl.  In case you missed the previous installments, here is Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, and Part XI.  (Ed Note:  I've been wanting to do an Arvo Part joke this entire frigging time, but have managed to hold off, probably for all of our sakes, but I mean c'mon!)

I think the bowl game can be distinctly broken up into two segments.  The first being the segment when Longshore was the QB, and the second being the segment when Riley was the QB.  The game changed so dramatically when Riley took the field.  Of course, the question is: why? 

There are many answers and factors.  Some are big scale factors (such as the team's motivation and morale), and others were small scale factors such as missed blocks here and there or great passes here and there.

Star-divide

Big scale factors why the team struggled in the 1st Quarter (2 drives) with Longshore as the QB and did not struggle in the remaining Quarters (9 drives) with Riley as the QB:

(1) The team was demoralized in the 1st Quarter.  This has nothing to do with the team feeling demoralized that Longshore was their QB, but about the team being demoralized from going #2 in the nation to a 6-6 team.  Any demoralized team plays less effectively as one which is excited and eager to go out there and play,  Needless to say, I don't think the team was exactly thrilled to be in the Armed Forces Bowl and probably wasn't that confident that they weren't going to get beat again.  But once the Cal offense started putting points on the board, the entire team, both offense and defense became energized and team morale went up.  The team played with more energy and fire (not to be mistaken with effort), and the overall performance of the team improved across the boards.

(2) Air Force was fresh early on.  Air Force sure did have a lot of fight to them early in the game.  They were eager and confident to take down one of the top Pac-10 teams who was still reeling from its fall from #2.  They got even more eager and confident when they started ripping apart the Cal defense.  But contrast Air Force's players in the 1st quarter to the 4th quarter, and the difference is obvious.  The Air Force players were tired, frustrated, and demoralized that Cal was mounting a comeback.

(3) It's hard to prepare for the triple option.  You can practice defending the triple option with the scout team for months.  But without running the triple option with the speed and effectiveness of Air Force itself, you really can't 100% prepare for defending the triple option.  For the first quarter, the Cal defense was still adjusting to the speed and quickness to which Air Force was operating.  It was only until after halftime until the Cal defense finally looked composed and ready for the speed of Air Force's execution.

Small scale factors why the team struggled in the 1st Quarter (2 drives) with Longshore as the QB and didn't struggle in the remaining Quarters (9 drives) with Riley as the QB:

(1) A few missed blocks on run plays early on.  This isn't to say that the Cal OL had their share of missed blocks on run plays when Riley was the QB, because they did.  But the missed blocks in the 1st quarter were critical in stopping the Cal drives in the 1st quarter.  On Cal's first drive, the Cal OL could only muster a 3 yard gain, a 1 yard gain, and a 0 yard gain.  On Cal's second drive, the Cal OL also gave up a 3 yard loss on a run play.  While the Cal run blocking wasn't phenomenal in the latter 3 Quarters, I do think it noticeably improved. 

(2) Improved pass blocking in the latter 3 Quarters.  Pass blocking for Longshore was adequate.  There was one play where the OL got beat badly.  But pass blocking for Riley vastly improved when he was in the game.  As I noted in a previous post, Riley was only pressured twice on his 19 dropbacks and those two pressures occurred in the second quarter meaning that the AF defense didn't even get close to Riley for the remaining 35-40 minutes of the game.  I think the reason for this improvement in the pass blocking is a combination of the DL having to account for a mobile QB, the OL becoming energized and inspired by the improvement in performance of the entire team, and Air Force getting tired. 

(3) Air Force didn't have the defenders to stop the Cal air attack comeback.  I think we saw enough evidence of this from the plays we covered.  I believe the Air Force Defensive Coordinator didn't want to play man coverages or to really use anything other than their base 3-4 defense because he believed he his personnel wasn't skilled enough to matchup in man coverage.  Thus, we saw lots of zones early on and Air Force defending Cal's passing attack with their 3-4 defense.  Only towards the end of the game did we see Air Force switch to man defenses in what looked to be a desperation move. 

(4) Riley's mobility created problems.  Riley's ability to scramble and be a threat on QB boots creates problems for the defense.  It keeps the defense honest when pass rushing as well as defending against the run.  As I showed in one play, Air Force ignored Longshore on zone reads and went straight for the runningback.  In a play not covered by this series (but pictures of this play can be found here), an Air Force defender lets Forsett (who has the ball) run right by him because the AF defender thinks Riley has the ball on a boot and thus must cover Riley.

(5) The presence of Desean "THA1" Jackson, Robert Jordan, and Thomas Decoud.  These guys were crucial in Cal's comeback.  Jackson caught the first Cal touchdown which ignited the comeback.  His mere presence on the field also demands attention from the defense.  Robert Jordan had a huge day with 6 catches for 148 yards.  And Thomas Decoud finished the day with about 10 tackles or so which is darn good for only 3 quarters of play.

(6) Riley had a phenomenal game.  He only had 3 incompletions; the goal line pass, the hail mary, and a lame duck which slipped out of his hands.  I personally don't count the hail mary as an incompletion since it's one of those "ah, what the hell" kind of throws, so I like to think Riley only had two incompletions.  Make no doubt about it, Riley had a fantastic game.

(7) The switch to the 3-4 defense in the second half.  When switched to the 3-4 defense and began stopping Air Force's offense, the AF offense became demoralized.  This puts pressure on the AF defense to stop the Cal offense.  Needless to say, the AF defense wasn't doing well to stop the Cal offense (6 straight Cal scoring drives not counting the drive just before halftime).  Cal's switch to the 3-4 defense doubly impacted Air Force on both sides of the ball.  The AF offense felt demoralized by the stiffened resistance of the Cal D, and the AF defense felt the added pressure to (somehow) stop the Cal air attack.

Final thoughts:

I want to touch on the tender subject of Riley vs. Longshore.  Quite unfortunately, immediately after the bowl game it seemed as if Longshore took too much of the blame for Cal's performance in the 1st quarter.  As I've discussed in previous posts and shown in plays we've covered in this series, I think the reason why Cal struggled so much early on has nothing to do with Longshore's performance.  He did pretty well.  There was possibly one questionable pass, and a questionable decision on a zone read, but other than that, I think Longshore was for the most part wrongly victimized for the entire Cal team (both offense and defense) not playing well early on. 

We saw a few missed blocks here and there.  A critical dropped pass killed a 4th down.  The entire team looked demoralized.  The defense was getting gashed by a motivated Air Force triple option. 

But then came Riley (and THA1 and Jordan).  Riley evaded a defender in his face due to a bad block and threw a touchdown pass.  That gave the team some life.  The Cal defense felt like weight was lifting off their shoulders and the outcome of the game wasn't completely on them to hold Air Force scoreless since the 1st quarter Cal offense wasn't scoring (0 out of 2 on 2 drives).  The Cal offense seemed motivated by the realization that they could score and elevated their play.  Soon the Cal offense looked unstoppable and was gashing Air Force's weak pass defense with deep passes and the game was won.

In my opinion, the biggest reason why the team played so much better when Riley was the QB, was because they became motivated.  Not motivated because Riley was the QB as opposed to Longshore.  Not motivated because they wanted Riley all along or something, but motivated because the Cal offense scored with a big play after games of trudging and bumbling along.  The motivation provided by the first touchdown sparked a huge emotional change for the entire Cal team.  Both offensive and defensive squads began to play better due to the influx of motivation and inspiration from the touchdown.  Riley benefited from that improved play and because Longshore was already out of the game, he didn't get that opportunity. 

Bottom line, the entire Cal team played to their potential in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters.  Riley's touchdown sparked the team to play to its potential.  Had the team been playing to its potential for all four quarters, regardless of who was the QB, Cal would have scored more than 50 points and won by 30.

0 recs | Comment 103 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I actually saw the tape from the alternate reality you were speaking of...
Had the team been playing to its potential for all four quarters, regardless of who was the QB, Cal would have scored more than 50 points and won by 30.

...and we still sucked until Tedford put Riley in.

by GoldBlooded on Jul 20, 2008 8:11 PM PDT   0 recs

In response

I coincidently watched the bowl game today. I agree with almost everything written here. This series was absolutely well done. The only question I have regards around morale. Was the team sick of Longshore’s 4th q’s? My guess is yes. My guess is that they wanted a dynamic qb in the game. Longhore manages a game, and he had great receivers who make him look good. Riley takes risks (with will eventually hurt him) that can “motivate” a team. I think that Cal offensive players were sick of looking bad, and were excited by the pass to DJ that got them going.

I don’t know which qb will be better this year. But things got bad last year, and Riley’s performance, in my opinion, was the thing that got us back to be an explosive offense.

Riley will be a very good qb. Longshore already is a very good qb. But after reading all 12 parts, I think Riley deserves more credit for having the “balls” that Longshore doesn’t.

by Moscow Doug on Jul 20, 2008 8:17 PM PDT   0 recs

Hydro has made a complete analysis of Longshore’s balls and can, hopefully, bring a full analysis as soon as possible.

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 20, 2008 8:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

which i'm sure will be gripping

and fondling, and teasing, and licking and…

by Moscow Doug on Jul 20, 2008 8:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’ve had a chance now to see a sneak preview and I can describe the analysis as “most cupping.”

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 20, 2008 8:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m watching the La Tech game right now, and I’ve decided that Nate deserves nothing but the best. Hydro, I imagine, has something special in mind. Tea bagging? Incubating? I only know it will be special.

by Moscow Doug on Jul 20, 2008 8:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Thank you

Thanks Moscow Doug. I’m glad you agreed with “almost everything” I’ve written. It’s nice to know I am not entirely crazy or off in another reality. I am curious to know what you disagreed with though.

I <3 Longshore

by HydroTech on Jul 20, 2008 8:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

This blog is so much better than all other Cal blogs (not to give you guys the Hydro-NL treatment) that I don’t really want to give you guys crap. This series does not mention the fact that Riley has that gunslinger mentality that Nate does not have. Aaron had it. That inspires teams. Given all the talk about lack of team leaders last year, I’m surprised that no one has touched on Longshore’s inability to inspire his teammates,

by Moscow Doug on Jul 20, 2008 8:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Moscow Doug, we appreciate the kind words. And, of course, we are always open to criticism. I appreciate your honest and reasonable criticism. I think at one time, Longshore probably was very well-respected by his teammates. I fear that as the year dragged on last year, that respect dwindled. But hopefully, he has/can rebuild it for this coming year, independent of whether he is the starter.

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 20, 2008 8:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Longshore, regardless of all that has been written on this site and others, is going to be the starter. It’s his job to lose. And he is very good. So I can only hope that he can regain his form. But since this is a “rebuilding” year, I woulld be glad to see Riley get significant playing time so we can build towards next year, when we have a ligitimate shot of competing for a pac-10 title.

by Moscow Doug on Jul 20, 2008 8:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Perhaps I am naively optimistic, but I am not so quick to give up on this year. Longshore or Riley, I feel we can compete in the Pac-10. Maybe not knock off USC, but shock a few people.

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 20, 2008 8:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Based on Tedford’s comments this off-season, I expect Riley to get much more playing time this year (if he doesn’t start). Whether it’s coming into games during the 3rd or 4th quarter once we’ve built up a decent lead, or coming in to take over for a stagnant Cal offense, I think Tedford will be much more wiling to play Riley this upcoming year. As Tedford said, one thing he needed to do better last year was to give the younger guys more experience. The only way to do that is to rotate guys in and out more. When do you rotate guys in and out more? When you’re winning by a lot, losing by a lot, or a player isn’t performing as well as he could be.

I <3 Longshore

by HydroTech on Jul 20, 2008 9:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I hope you’re right. I refuse to question Tedford. But these player can only play 4 years. And they need some time on the field to adjust to the speed. Imagine if Riley had a performance like he had against AF during the UDub game. Or against the Furds. Woulda been big

by Moscow Doug on Jul 20, 2008 9:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I wish I had a torrent/dvd of the Big Game. I’d love to break down that game and see what went wrong.

I <3 Longshore

by HydroTech on Jul 20, 2008 9:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i can do that for you, hydro

everything. everything went wrong. cal (with certain exceptions) had no interest in playing that game, and they got beat over and over again by a much less talented team who wanted it a lot more.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 20, 2008 9:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ugh that game was painful to watch. I was more interested in getting some coffee (I admit the french fries and coffee sold at the Stanfurd stadium was pretty good albiet expensive but I used to work in Palo Alto as an intern so I knew about that).

In any case it seemed like no player was really motivated to play.. Even Forsett. They were sort of going through the motions because they had to.

But the Furds were pumped up.

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Jul 21, 2008 11:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The best part of that day for me was an epic in-n-out run after the delays on bart, in which we had 15 minutes in milbrae to get in-n-out and get to CalTrain. Victory, thy name is a Double-Double animal style.

by 408 on Jul 21, 2008 12:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I haven’t really written about Longshore’s ability to inspire teammates because I don’t know much about whether he can or not. I’m not in the huddle and stuff so I don’t know how he is (although I’ve heard players telling each other stories about Longshore in the huddle). I really didn’t mention whether Riley is good in the huddle or not either since I wasn’t around when he started getting reps with the active players. The only inspirational stuff I can really speak about (regarding both QBs) is what I see on TV and can reasonably infer from their actions (as opposed to words).

In my time with the team, when I was around Longshore (but not in the huddle) I learned he’s a nice and friendly guy. He doesn’t come across as entirely awe-inspiring, the most influential, or very visibly and audibly fired up (like Greg Van Hoesen or Daymeion Hughes) but he definitely plays with a passion and strives for excellence.

I <3 Longshore

by HydroTech on Jul 20, 2008 8:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

as any player should

but, from watching choppy feeds or listening to Starkey or downloading torrents of the games from 11 time zones away, I feel, in my personal opinion, that, given more time, Riley has the ability to get more out of his teammates than Longhore has, This is hardly an expert opinion, just an observation. If Longshore recaptures that quality, than I think he is the unequivical starter. With either qb, we will nake a bowl. My guess is that Riley has the qualities to make us very good (or very bad) where if Longshore starts, we will be mediocre. I just perfer the risk, considering the lack of experience we have on offese this year.

by Moscow Doug on Jul 20, 2008 9:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I feel, in my personal opinion, that, given more time, Riley has the ability to get more out of his teammates than Longhore

I can’t say I disagree with you there.

I <3 Longshore

by HydroTech on Jul 20, 2008 9:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

But…................Hydro…..............what about our secret pact to assist evil cartoon villain Nate Longshore until he can take the Cal football team down from the inside????? This is not helping!!

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 20, 2008 9:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

This is exactly why I think Riley has so much support for someone with so little experience; Longshore is seen as someone with a ceiling of the Holiday Bowl and a floor of the Armed Forces, where as Riley is (whether you think it true or not) seen by many as having ceiling of the R-word and a floor of a losing record. And I can’t say I’m against what seems like the high risk high reward play, wondering what it might lead to in ‘09 and ‘10

by 408 on Jul 20, 2008 9:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Figuring out the triple option was key

regarding your large-scale factor number 3, i think you’re spot on. in fact, you can look at the previous time Cal played Air Force (to open the 2004 season), and you’ll see the same thing. the Cal defense gave up TDs on 2 of AFs first 3 drives (with an interception sandwiched in between), and the Bears only led 21-14 at halftime. however, watching the game, you could literally see the Cal linebackers figuring out the option, being fooled less quickly and less often, and the Zoomie’s offensive success began to dry up. Cal shut out AF in the second half on their way to a huge 56-14 victory.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 20, 2008 9:56 PM PDT   0 recs

Practicing the option

I was a little surprised it took them a half to figure out the option. The staff saw it a couple of years prior, and I’m sure the practices all featured a scout squad running the option.

by sec119 on Jul 20, 2008 10:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Option

As the article mentioned, it is impossible to replicate the option in practice to the degree of skill and precision that AF plays it. These guys are almost all upperclassmen, and have been playing and practicing the option in that system for at least 2 years. Moreover, the option literally starts, and lives with the skill and ability of the QB. AF’s QB was a 4 year starter, who was a master at running the option. You can imitate it for the scout team, but we couldn’t get close to how good these guys were, and thus it takes a bit of time for the defense to catch up on the speed and precision of the pitches and cuts. Remember, AF almost beat Tenn last year in Knoxville the week after our game. The triple option is a bitch.

"The trees on the [Student Athlete High Performance Center] are not protected -- and cannot be 'saved' -- by any law."

by Vandalus on Jul 21, 2008 11:50 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree with Water Boy mostly

except for the first part and the last part and the stuff in between. Well, not quite.

1. Yes, the team was utterly demoralized. This kind of reminded me of Michigan after losing to App State they lost the next game against a nobody. Michigan eventually fought back to a pretty good season. It sucks to suck. It’s fun to win. As a team, Cal was demoralized.

2. AF wasn’t any good. They didn’t deserve to be on the same field if Cal was playing the way they could. For everything that happened in this game you have to look at Cal.

3. The Triple Option took some getting used to true, but mostly the defense was demoralized early on as the team as a whole was. Rag’s right. Cal adapted and handled it before.

4. Longshore deeply sucked. Let’s get that straight. I’ve covered this in detail in other posts but at his best he’s a reliable QB with a bunch of superstar play makers. He himself is not a playmaker. When he tries to make plays he throws interceptions. Ultimately I think Longshore was the root of the demoralization. Nice guy but just not getting the job done. I remember Tedford benching Lynch for fumbling and Longshore sure as hell is no Lynch. Going into this game did Tedford ever discipline Longshore for fucking up? Even once? Yeah, the 2006 Tennesse game.

5. Riley ruled. Correlation is not causation except that in this case it is. Riley was the proximate cause of the comeback. He caused the comeback. He willed the comeback.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 20, 2008 10:09 PM PDT   0 recs

“He willed the comeback.”

My fear is that if you keep referring to Riley as a magickian, somebody might try to drown him in Lake Merritt to double check. Let’s try to keep our players alive, Olsonist. Let’s try to keep them alive.

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 20, 2008 10:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You have your man crushes. I have mine.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 20, 2008 10:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Although my Marshawn man-crush didn’t come at the expense of JJ.

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 21, 2008 7:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

This kind of reminded me of Michigan after losing to App State they lost the next game against a nobody.

Oregon? Man it’s tough to be a somebody.

by joffle on Jul 21, 2008 7:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, you’re right. A little bit of overwriting on my part. But they did lose to Oregon 39-7 at home. This was a collapse.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 21, 2008 8:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

“The Air Force players were tired, frustrated, and demoralized that Cal was mounting a comeback.”

I thought it was more due to watching Shaun Carney’s career end in front of their eyes rather than anything Cal did. Falcons didn’t stall on offense until his leg went sideways.

And let’s be honest, the playcalling is a reflection of who is at quarterback and who is on the field. Whether Riley or Longshore commands more respect in the huddle is up for debate, but Longshore had no receivers and the coaches didn’t really place him in an enviable situation to start things off.

Riley was fully healthy with a full set of receivers and a 21-0 deficit. You go for broke at that stage and you have nothing to lose, and Air Force is one of the weakest Pass Ds in the nation. Just remember that a bowl game like that one is just a glorified exhibition in the end, regardless of how well either team played. We’ll have to see it replicated for 60 minutes.

by BearsNecessity on Jul 20, 2008 11:11 PM PDT   0 recs

Riley was fully healthy with a full set of receivers and a 21-0 deficit. You go for broke at that stage and you have nothing to lose, and Air Force is one of the weakest Pass Ds in the nation.

Very good point about going for broke. Tedford called a warmup screen pass for Riley’s first pass, but only a few plays later Tedford called up the deep routes for big plays, big gains, and touchdowns.

I <3 Longshore

by HydroTech on Jul 20, 2008 11:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I thought AF pass D was ranked in the 50’s while teams we faced such as UDUB’s pass D was ranked 117th in the country.

by banwagonbear on Jul 21, 2008 6:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Obscuring the obvious

I agree with much of this piece. Yes, the triple option is tough to prepare for. Yes, getting Desean, Jordan and Decoud back helped.

Overall, however, this piece too frequently assigns causes in an arbitrary fashion.

This has nothing to do with the team feeling demoralized that Longshore was their QB, but about the team being demoralized from going #2 in the nation to a 6-6 team.

Is there some reason to believe that it had nothing to do with Longshore?

I bet it had a lot to do with Longshore. It seems reasonable to believe that Jordan and Jackson suspension’s had something to do with their feelings about the QB situation, correct?

By the end of the year, was there any way for anyone to separate the losses and Longshore’s performances? I know that I certainly couldn’t.

After the Armed Forces Bowl, I don’t think that many people believed Longshore did anything exceptionally poorly on his two drives. But he did nothing to indicate that he was going to suddenly start playing well.

You cite the touchdown from Riley to Jackson as being the cause of the turnaround. It seems difficult to ignore that nothing in Longshore’s past performances indicate that he is capable of making that same pass even when he is at his best.

You continue and make the claim that…

Riley benefited from that improved play and because Longshore was already out of the game, he didn’t get that opportunity.

True, but citing lack of “opportunity” in Longshore’s defense just seems wrong. He was on the bench because he didn’t make enough of the many opportunities that he had been given despite consistently poor performances and injury.

My analysis remains the same as it did on the day of the game – maybe Riley is just better. Maybe the playcalling is better when he is at QB with more mobility and accuracy. Maybe WRs run better routes when the know the QB is going to read the field before deciding where to throw the ball. Maybe the OL blocks better when they know the QB is going to use all the time he can get. Maybe the defense plays better when the offense scores every time they get a stop.

Ultimately, it is easy to get so analytical that we obscure the obvious. Riley played exceptionally, Longshore did not. The quarterback was the difference.

by Tedfordisgod on Jul 21, 2008 12:39 AM PDT   0 recs

I hate to sound like an apologist

But that’s what I am. And I’d like to bring up what Rob Neyer brings up whenever a player suddenly drops in production – the possibility that said player is more injured than initially believed.

We all KNOW Longshore was injured. Should he have been playing? Well, that’s not his call, that’s Tedford’s. Should Longshore have said he wasn’t 100% and willingly offered to turn the reins over to Riley? You can debate that if you want, and you can say that Longshore should have recognized that he was hurting the team. Me, I appreciate the fact that he was trying to play through pain.

Everyone says he’ll be fully healthy to start this year. So why not see how he performs to start the season before making any judgments?

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Jul 21, 2008 7:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If I feel comfortable judging people that I don’t know except by their comments and chosen username, I feel comfortable judging people I’ve watched play football for multiple years. Judgments for everybody!!

I kissed Dumpster Muffin and I liked it. The taste of her hippie chapped lips.

by Maharg on Jul 21, 2008 8:52 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Huh? You’re injured and you play like crap. But it’s ok if you go out and demoralize everyone who’s depending on because after all you’re injured. Is that how the circular reasoning goes?

If Longshore was injured and questionable for the AF game, then you have to conclude that Tedford really fucked up playing Longshore in the Big Game. And Longshore deeply sucked for the entire Big Game against the worst pass defense in the Pac-10. I couldn’t believe that he got the AF start at all. I was demoralized that he got the Big Game start. Remember when Tedford mixed things up and started Levy over a slumping Ayoob? Where is accountability for Longshore? Can he do no wrong?

I think that HT and YF and Twisted labor their reasoning to avoid the obvious: Riley played brilliantly. Longshore sucked.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 21, 2008 8:52 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

hey, I'm not disagreeing he sucked

I’m just saying the possibility exists that he sucked because he was injured.

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Jul 21, 2008 9:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So, how much of a concern is Longshore’s health? Didn’t he already get injured again this year? I really wonder how much of an issue Longshore’s durability is. I have no doubt that he is capable, but so far, he’s been injured every season he’s started, hasn’t he?

by Taf42 on Jul 21, 2008 9:19 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

if you’re an NFL team looking to draft a QB in 2009, you have to be concerned with Nate’s durability. however, assuming Tedford has learned his lesson about sticking with a hobbled starting quarterback, I think Cal fans have less to worry about. having a backup as capable Kevin Riley (assuming he is the backup; at this point your guess is as good as mine) is a luxury that few college teams enjoy.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 21, 2008 9:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

If nothing else, Riley’s shown what he can do, and Longshore (if he starts) should be put on an extremely short leash. I’m not advocating starting Longshore at all costs – I just think that the two should engage in a fair competition for the job before anointing Riley as the savior.

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Jul 21, 2008 9:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Riley played brilliantly. Longshore sucked.

Riley did play brilliantly, and Longshore was certainly looking up at mediocrity in the Big Game. However, his performance in the bowl game was at least decent; not brilliant, but much better than we’d seen out of him in a while. As Hydro’s series exhaustively showed, there were other factors in play, and the biggest fault you could find with Nate is that he didn’t play with the brilliance of Kevin Riley.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 21, 2008 9:22 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There is reasonable criticism of Nate Longshore and then there is unreasonable criticism of Nate Longshore. We are merely trying to foster an atmosphere of reasoned criticism of Nate Longshore as compared to the rampant and, IMHO, highly unreasonable criticism of Nate Longshore. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of late 2007 was so poisonous that it makes reasoned criticism of Nate Longshore look “apologist” in comparison.

And, it appears that this poisonous atmosphere is going to be sticking around into 2008, too. I can only hope that people will remember that Nate Longshore gives 100% while out there. If your concern is that the team was losing while Longshore was at QB, then perhaps your focus should be on the coaching staff. Let’s leave personal invective out of this.

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 21, 2008 10:28 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

I was reasonable until the Big Game.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 21, 2008 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Nate definitely had some poor performances last year

but I would not blame him for Big Game. The pass protection was ATROCIOUS in this game, especially from the left tackle position, where Chet Teofilo was filling in for an injured (concussion) Mike Gibson. This was Teofilo’s first real action, and Tedford later admitted that it took Teofilo until around halfway through the AF Bowl (he played for Gibson in this game as well) to get his feet under himself.

Big game was a travesty all around, but I would rate Nasty Nate’s performance as superior to the offensive line, special teams (how many personal foul calls on punts??) and receivers. Remember, Hawkins (my favorite player from last year’s team, by the way) dropped two perfectly thrown touchdowns in a row that would have tied the game at the end. Nate was certainly not great, but with the OLine allowing significant pressure on nearly every pass play and receivers dropping touchdowns, few QBs would have been.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Jul 21, 2008 11:57 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

My thoughts exactly
We are merely trying to foster an atmosphere of reasoned criticism of Nate Longshore as compared to the rampant and, IMHO, highly unreasonable criticism of Nate Longshore. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of late 2007 was so poisonous that it makes reasoned criticism of Nate Longshore look "apologist" in comparison.

Vote Brock Mansion for QB in 2008!

by HydroTech on Jul 22, 2008 12:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I thoroughly approve of your new signature

Your true motives are revealed.

I kissed Dumpster Muffin and I liked it. The taste of her hippie chapped lips.

by Maharg on Jul 22, 2008 10:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Let work on the Brock Mansion statue commence immediately!

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 22, 2008 10:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So many statues

When are you guys starting a statue of Ayr? He’s the real MVP here.

I kissed Dumpster Muffin and I liked it. The taste of her hippie chapped lips.

by Maharg on Jul 22, 2008 10:52 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Dumpster Muffin comes first!

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 22, 2008 10:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Where's the ball?

Looks like the arm is completing a throwing motion. Did he throw it away? Or?

by zoonews on Jul 23, 2008 1:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Great post.

It’s great to see you hanging out around here, TIG. You make great points and make my life easier. I couldn’t agree with you more about Riley being the spark that turned the game around. Too often certain members of the staff around here conjure up obscure, seemingly unfathomable excuses for Longshore. You’ve exposed this in a very urbane manner. Thanks again.

by CaliSeth on Jul 21, 2008 10:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wha

I wasn’t aware injuries were obscure.

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Jul 21, 2008 10:23 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If he was so injured why was he playing in the first place? Oh yeah, because he gave the Bears the greatest chance to win, right?

by CaliSeth on Jul 21, 2008 10:33 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Don't ask me

Ask Tedford. Or did you not read my previous post? This argument is really getting tired. Can we just shelve this discussion until the games actually start?

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Jul 21, 2008 10:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Shelve a discussion on the internet? Not beat a dead horse? Yellow Fever, I don’t even know you anymore.

I kissed Dumpster Muffin and I liked it. The taste of her hippie chapped lips.

by Maharg on Jul 21, 2008 10:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t even know you to begin with!

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Jul 21, 2008 11:07 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

All right you two, don’t make me come back there.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 21, 2008 11:30 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs