California Golden Blogs: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Backing the Pack for NC State Fans!


Pre-Camp Expectations Roundtable

TwistNHook:  Hydro thought it might be prudent to take a look at pre-camp expectations.  But he's too shy to start the conversation and I'm a loud mouthed ogre!  A lot can change over the course of the camp (like injuries and the ilk).  But what are our expectations for the 2008 football season as of late July?  Are we thinking Rose Bowl Bound Bears?  Are we hoping to make a bowl at all?

Ragnarok: Well, I think, at a minimum, we expect another winning season.  Yes, there are questions about the receivers, and we've yet to see whether Jahvid Best is the every-down back we all hope he is, but there's a lot of talent waiting in the wings, and with a rather favorable schedule, I think even 7-5 would be a disappointment.

Also, we expect to get the Axe back.  There aren't a lot of things that could make me turn against Tedford, but losing to the 'Furd for the second straight year would be one of them.

Yellow Fever:  I'm expecting at least 8-4 and a Sun Bowl berth.  That's third in the Pac-10, right?  I don't know if there are any legitimate reasons for high expectations, but I just get the feeling that the team is definitely better than how it played at the end of last year.  Even with all of the receivers gone and the quarterback controversy over the team, each game seems eminently winnable, even USC.  That one might be a bit of a stretch, but there's always some question anytime there's a new quarterback coming in.  So I can see our Bears winning every game.  But that might be because I've got rose colored glasses at all times.

Rose_colored_glasses_medium

via www.nowandfutures.com

The California Golden Blogs Official Rose Colored Glasses From 2007.

Star-divide

TwistNHook:  I like your rose colo(u)red glasses.  But I have to wonder what Hydro has to say about this.

HydroTech:  Hydro is busy right now.  He'll respond later tonight.

TwistNHook:  Damn.  Talking about oneself in the 3rd person.  Selfishly refusing to take part in the team effort.  Sounds like we got a big of a diva on our hands here, don't we?

CBKWit:  One might say he's "Longshoring" this roundtable with his selfish, me first attitude.  We should rename him MeDroTech.  (NAILED IT!)

As the second, third, or fourth most qualified person to discuss football (Twist, you're the most qualified to discuss...well, I'm sure there's something), I'm very excited for our pass defense.  Judging by the number of balls our DBs intercepted (much less batted down or otherwise defensed) this spring, new secondary coach Al Simmons is as good as advertised.  Coupled with Syd's evolution into a possible all-league corner, I think our pass defense will surprise most Cal fans.  And after watching the DLine provide substantial, consistent pressure throughout the spring (I know how strange that sounds, you'll just have to trust me), I'm optimistic that our defense will be formidable against the pass.  I think it will be one of the strengths of the team.

Unfortunately, I think our run defense could be suspect because of the nose tackle position.  Derrick Hill is a talent, but he hasn't played much yet, and Mika Kane has been unspectacular.  If either of these guys step up (and if we avoid injuries to our top players), our defense could be really good.

HydroTech:  Oh no you didn't.  You did not just call me a "diva."  (Z snap).

TwistNHook:  Well, I just checked the transcript of this Roundtable and I am pretty sure he did call you a diva.

Diva_medium

via www.vintage-diva.com

Artist's rendering of HydroTech. 

HydroTech:  I thought it'd be a good idea to sort of get a discussion going on what we expect of our team next year since fall camp is rolling around soon.  So our good friend Ken Crawford predicts 9 wins, YellowFever says at least 8 wins (fyi for the readers, we're talking regular season and not counting the bowl game), and Rags thinks 7 wins would be a bit of a disappointment.  Twist doesn't think since he has a rock for a brain, and CBKWit is dead to me. 

Well, as I've stated earlier, I'm expecting somewhere between 10-6 wins.  I like giving a range of predicted wins instead of a number because inevitably a team will win one they probably weren't supposed to and lose a few they weren't supposed to lose.  I think if the dice rolls our way we could be a 10 win darkhorse BCS bowl candidate (if we don't win the Pac-10 outright), or another Armed Forces Bowl team if the dice rolls the other way. 

If I had to put my money down on our win total, I'd say 8 wins is probably par but a very very safe par.  I think our team is also very capable of winning 9 games.  Frankly, I'm torn between deciding whether we'll take 9 Ws or 8 Ws next year.  Maybe I should say 8.5.  Anyways, if Lady Luck doesn't put on a strap-on and mount us for a game or two, if we avoid major injuries, if our new shiny 3-4 defense works better than last year's defense, and if our offense does it's usual thing of putting around 30-40 points a game (which is what I think we should come to expect from a Tedford offense) then I think we should expect to win all but 2-3 games on our schedule.  Our course, things don't always go our way that's why I'm saying 8 wins. 

Anyways, are all of our expectations reasonable?

Ah, and there's that key word.  "Reasonable" expectations.  What are reasonable expectations? 

TwistNHook:  Nate Longshore wins the Heisman?

HydroTech:  Do we have a mute button here?  Either way, I've heard some Cal fans say we should make the Rose Bowl this year and if we don't that perhaps Tedford isn't the one.  But is calling the Rose Bowl par for the season really reasonable?  I think some people forget that there is a difference between goals and expectations.  Every year, our goal for the team should be National Championship, Rose Bowl, or another BCS bowl (in that order).  But our expectations have to be tempered to the realities of the team's situation.  As Rags and Yellow point out, we have fresh WRs and a bit of a QB controversy.  We're not sure if Best will be healthy or that every down back we need (although Tedford claims Best is an every down back).  On defense we're not sure if we have that dominant NT (for that matter a dominant DL) to keep the OL off our LBs.  We're not sure who will be starting opposite of Syd.  It looks to be Conte who played pretty well for a freshman but still had his moments of getting beat.

We certainly have some ?s regarding next season which I think make a 8-9 win season a pretty reasonable expectation, with small chances at a 10 win season.  Of course, there is always the possibility we get hit with injuries or a critical call doesn't go our way and we stumble to a 6-7 win season.  Anyways, I've talked long enough.  What say you, fellow CGB writers?  Are our expectations reasonable given the circumstances of our team?

CBKWit:  "Reasonable."  I like that, Hydro.  I like you.  I really do! 

When you write things like "But is calling the Rose Bowl par for the season really reasonable?  I think some people forget that there is a difference between goals and expectations.  Every year, our goal for the team should be National Championship, Rose Bowl, or another BCS bowl (in that order).  But our expectations have to be tempered to the realities of the team's situation.", I get all tingly inside. 

Aside from SC, there are no teams in the pac-10 (and very few in the country) that can "expect" to compete for the national title every year.  Tedford has done a remarkable job to put Cal in a position to compete for the national title (2004) and the rose bowl (2006), but our recruiting and depth are not yet sufficient to expect this on a yearly basis.  What is a more relevant question, perhaps, is whether or not this year's potential is satisfactory within a larger context.  A year after losing a school record number of players to the NFL draft, we probably shouldn't expect to win the Pac-10.  But are satisfied with the prospect of winning 6-10 games in a "down" year?  Should we consider 7 wins or less a disappointment, considering all of the question marks regarding our personnel?

I'm expecting 8 wins this year.  This will probably change once we see the team in fall camp, but right now there are too many questions for me to expect more wins and too much talent to expect less.  Furthermore, I would be satisfied with an 8 win campaign in what appears to be a down year.  Once the SAHPC is built (oh happy day!), I will expect more every year, but for this season, in the context of what Tedford has accomplished, 8 wins seems a reasonable and satisfactory expectation.

Ragnarok:  So, it sounds like 8 wins is the consensus expectations, though none of us would be surprised to see another 10-win season.  That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Is this a 'down' year?  I tend not to think so.  8 wins -- our minimum expectation -- would be an improvement over last year.  Sure, there are question marks going into fall camp, as we struggle to fill in for departed seniors, but what team doesn't have those?  Even USC has question marks, it's just that they have 5-star recruits vying for a chance to fill those spots.  Cal doesn't have that luxury, but there's still plenty of talent on our roster.

To me, the question mark this year -- the difference between 8 wins, a middle of the Pac finish, and 10 or 11 wins, challenging USC for conference supremacy -- is the team leadership, both from the coaches and from the players themselves.  Moreso than Nate's ankle, that was truly our team's downfall last year, and it's something that is going to have to get fixed.

To get back to the 'expectations' theme of this post, I would say that I expect our coaches to produce a more disciplined team this year, one more capable of weathering the ups and downs of the season, and I expect some of our juniors and seniors to step up and become leaders for this team, helping the coaches achieve this goal.  I can live with our team getting beat by a more talented team.  I can even live with less talented teams out-scheming our team (as unlikely as that is to happen as long as Tedford is our coach).  What I can't stand (and I don't think I'm alone here) is our team getting beat by less talented teams that are more focused and disciplined than ours.  I expect last year's problems to be resolved, and if that happens and Cal still get beat by 4 teams that are more talented, have better schemes, or are just plain luckier than ours, 8-4 will still leave me quite satisfied.

Yellow Fever:  Hey, did anybody see what Hydro put in his SBN rider?  I have to bring him chilled water every hour on the hour.  And we have to decorate with only white lilacs.  What a diva!
Poll
How many wins do you expect Cal will have this year?
Less than 6
9 votes
6
4 votes
7
23 votes
8
75 votes
9
85 votes
10
48 votes
More than 10
35 votes

279 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 93 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I think Cal will win 10 games.
Oh, Longshore might start. My bad.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 2:48 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

didn’t cal win 10 games with longshore starting in 2006? just saying.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 29, 2008 4:25 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How many games did they win with Longshore starting in 2007? Recent trends support Olsonist.

When you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get.

by GoBeers on Jul 29, 2008 4:26 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

see, though, i don't think that's a very strong supporting statement

are you saying that Longshore is trending downward, that even sans injuries, he is now a significantly worse player than he was two years ago? if true, that would be a worrisome trend, but not only are you going to have trouble proving it in any case (b/c of the extenuating circumstances of Nate’s injuries), but i would be skeptical of any result that concluded thus, simply because young athletes almost never just get worse. they get out-of-shape, they get in their coaches’ doghouse, the get injured, but there’s almost always a reason. athletes at his age are always getting better.

or, you could be saying that, regardless of his health, the team has been trending downwards with Nate under center. this might be true, but it wouldn’t be an indictment of Nate so much as it would be of the team as a whole. and if THAT were true, we would be forced to conclude that there wasn’t a very strong correlation between whether Nate starts and whether Cal wins. we would instead have to blame the team as a whole, which means blaming the coaches who are running the whole show. in which case, it shouldn’t really matter too much who started at quarterback.

i’m not saying LONGSHORE 4 LIFE or anything like that. what i am saying is that you can’t blame him for ‘07 while ignoring his performance in ‘06. either he’s an important piece of the team or he’s not; you can’t have it both ways.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 29, 2008 6:21 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Technically, Longshore started the Armed Forces Bowl…

by sec119 on Jul 29, 2008 6:49 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

9 wins

The home schedule is just way too favorable. In even years, under Tedford, our Bears are 27-10. That averages to about 9-3 and includes Tedford’s first season where we went 7-5.

As for positional questions, we broke in an entirely fresh group of receivers in 05 along with a sophomore backup running back. We went 8-4 with Ayoob at the helm.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 3:04 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But what was that sophmore backup running backs name?

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 29, 2008 3:08 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Riley.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 3:47 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

HOW DARE YOU BESMIRCH THE GOOD NAME OF MARSHAWN! I CAST YE OUT!

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 29, 2008 3:48 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Don’t lean on the caps key you pro-Longshore surrender monkey.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 3:51 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hmmm, that casting out appears not to have worked. What did I do wrong there? Can I get some help, guys?

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 29, 2008 4:00 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Get a room you two

The sexual tension is killing me. You’re the Mulder and Scully of this blog.

I’d say this team is as talented as 2005 and the “reasonable expectation” is that they win 8 games. But, if there’s strong leadership, moxy, drive, teamwork, gusto and so forth, they win 10.

The way too early expectation that I (and I think a lot of other fans have) for 2009 is at least 10 wins and BCS.

by CalBandGreat on Jul 29, 2008 4:08 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Between Maharg and Olsonist, I can’t figure out who Twist is more into. Unless both of them are Dumpster Muffin, he’s got some ‘splaining to do.

When you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get.

by GoBeers on Jul 29, 2008 4:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Is that the help you were looking for, from a fellow Band member no less. I didn’t notice that you were talking about 05 and took the opportunity to showcase Riley’s mobility. CBG is on point with expectations. I’d say 8 should be expected and 10 is possible. For a rebuilding year, the team is loaded.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 4:14 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No, I was hoping one of the other 4 Marshawnthusiasts could teach me how the “casting out” button works. I apparently keep fucking it up. So dumb!

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 29, 2008 4:21 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Who is this Marshawn you speak of?

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 4:23 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In this case, ignorance is clearly not bliss.

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 29, 2008 4:25 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Oh, Marshawn Lynch! I heard he doesn’t like snitches.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 4:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For a rebuilding year, the team is loaded and the schedule is muy-favorable.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 4:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lynch.

That said, Jahvid was just as heavily recruited as Marshawn, though a totally different back in style.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 4:21 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Jahvid is really really really fast in NCAA 09… i love him.

by Itchy25 on Jul 29, 2008 4:28 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Are you playing on PS3 or 360? I ask because I have been debating whether to get a new system and that game kind of drives the decision.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 4:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

get a PC. Seriously. And then when you have time get a Wii or PS3. A 360 is useless as a PC can handle all games the 360 can better than the 360 (and all 360 “exclusives” come to the PC). Also the whole $2000 PC shit is blown out of proportion. You can build a PC that plays Crysis well for $600-$800 depending on what you want

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Jul 29, 2008 4:52 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i will say one thing EA nailed in this years game is the “dusk” lighting. its gorgeous….

by Itchy25 on Jul 29, 2008 4:56 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

There are serious problems with the game (AI) but its still pretty fun to just play a few games with a friend.

http://mymindgrapes.wordpress.com

by 408 on Jul 29, 2008 4:57 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why would anyone want to play on a cpu monitor at a desk when they can sit on a couch and play on an HDTV that is 42” (or more)? And a cpu that you build is still $500 more expensive, takes a shit load of time to build, and is likely to be unreliable.

Sorry, I’ll take my 360, and the exclusives that it does have over a cpu any day.

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

by Vandalus on Jul 30, 2008 12:02 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

With a relatively light nonconference schedule and a 7-home-game season, I expect us to win 9. I’m betting on a loss to USC, a loss to either ASU or Oregon, and an upset by one of the bottom-5 teams in the conference. This all assumes our defense isn’t plagued by injuries again.

by Berkelium97 on Jul 29, 2008 3:16 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

6-1 (ASU) at home, 3-2 (USC, miscellaneous loss) on the road. Book it.

http://mymindgrapes.wordpress.com

by 408 on Jul 29, 2008 4:17 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If Riley starts, that miscellaneous loss won’t be in Corvalis.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 4:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If I had to put up a 3rd loss on there it would be in Tucson.

http://mymindgrapes.wordpress.com

by 408 on Jul 29, 2008 4:21 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That would be bad. I bought tix and I’m taking my AZ cousins.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 4:32 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Or Riley will use the gametime experience that he has now to show how great of a quarterback he truly is. And there won’t be a last defender, because their spirits will be broken by our awesome Sophomore QB

When you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get.

by GoBeers on Jul 29, 2008 4:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think Riley just wants it a lot more than Longshore. Levy had that same characteristic. Riley will take the OSU loss as a personal motivating factor. Longshore, on the otherhand, has always been the fair haired golden boy. As the losses mounted, I never got a sense that Longshore suffered.
Oh darn. Aw shucks. Even in 2007 he was talking about going pro this summer. Ayoob suffered. There was a Facebook group, Fuck Joe Ayoob. He joined it and he’s still a member.

I would draw the parallel between Eddie Martel and Longshore again, but Twisted would ban me.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 4:59 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That’s hilarious that Joe Ayoob joined that facebook group.

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 29, 2008 5:06 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Talk about a guy who knew how to handle losing a starting job. I remember someone telling me he was at a couple games last year. Seems like a good teammate.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 5:09 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I remember reading an article after his first game (Sac St) wher ehe went like 0-10 or whatever. He threw his jacket onto the couch, but missed. And his dad joked “0 and 11” That was HILARIOUS

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 29, 2008 5:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

When you say he joined, you mean Joe Ayoob joined a group called Fuck Joe Ayoob.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 5:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yep. You can look it up.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 5:08 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I know, I did.

It wasn’t clear whether Nate or Joe joined the group.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 5:08 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

maybe he's like Freddie Mitchell

and loves his hands.

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

by yellow fever on Jul 30, 2008 8:33 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A question for Olsonist

If Levy had wanted it so much more than Longshore, then why did he fight with the coaches and openly disregard things that Tedford told him in practice for most of the season when Ayoob was QB?

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

by Maharg on Jul 30, 2008 3:54 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well I was certainly less than clear.

There was a spark in Levy, a fuck it, we’ll get this done with him, a certain je ne sais quoi. Some people call it heart. Some people call it the X-factor. Competitiveness. Levy had it. Riley has it. Ayoob did not have it. Longshore does not have it. In Longshore’s favor, Tedford says he has an amazing grasp of the offense, which is a strength.

But when the play breaks down, Riley wants it more. In the OSU game that bit him. Longshore in the same situation would have used his pocket passer mental countdown clock and grounded it. Riley needs (needed?) to learn that skill.

About Levy, I remember him being interviewed after subbing for Ayoob and doing quite well. He was a loyal soldier and thanked Tedford for the opportunity and was just happy to be ready and help the team.

why did he fight with the coaches and openly disregard things that Tedford told him in practice for most of the season when Ayoob was QB?

I’ve never heard that. Levy did have the bad boy in him, hence the bar fight and the handoff in the Holiday Bowl. But I never heard anything about him being disobedient in practice. After the bar fight he went from perhaps contending for playing time to damn lucky he was still on the team.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 30, 2008 4:40 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nasty Nate killed the beavs in '06

Riley lost in ‘07.

Just saying.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Jul 29, 2008 5:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nasty (in an entirely different way) Nate went down by 21 points against Air Force

Riley killed ‘em.

Just saying.

When you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get.

by GoBeers on Jul 31, 2008 8:27 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Right, but...

the argument here was that we’ll lose if Nate starts, win if Riley does. Just because you hate Longshore doesn’t mean you get to overlook his strong performances (one of which was against the Beavs in 06).

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Jul 31, 2008 12:00 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nate had nothing to do with Air Force’s offense scoring 21 points.

Vote Brock Mansion for QB in 2008!

by HydroTech on Jul 31, 2008 6:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nothing?

If you control the ball, make your 1st downs and score, the other team doesn’t have the ball as much. Instead the 1st quarter TOPs weren’t that different, Cal 7:09 vs AF 7:51, and Cal had the much better team.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 31, 2008 7:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Pretty much nothing.

True. But that’s a very small responsibility. It’s almost an indirect responsibility. Who has more responsibility for AF scoring 21 points? Longshore or the Cal defense?

I realize what you’re saying. I know that argument because I’ve thought of it myself too and mentioned it in my Armed Forces Bowl analysis (I’m not sure if you read it or not). I said nothing because since it was early in the game it pretty much amounts to nothing. Obviously, had Longshore thrown bad passes late in the game when the defense needed a rest perhaps I’d say “moderate” or “significant.” But this was early in the game so it’s pretty much nothing.

What I’m saying is that Longshore’s fault for AF scoring 21 points is a whole lot less than the Cal defense’s fault for giving up 21 points. I’m just trying to get people to place the fault properly. Longshore is about 1-2% at fault for AF scoring 21 points in the 1st quarter. That’s pretty meaningless when the other 99-98% falls on the shoulders of the defense and possibly coaches too.

The point here is this. It’s much more accurate to say that Longshore is responsible for the Cal offense scoring 0 points when he was playing than something along the lines of "Longshore went down by 21 points against AF." The latter puts much more responsibility on Longshore’s shoulders for the defense giving up 21 points when Longshore is only slightly 1-2% responsible. Basically it’s placing fault on Longshore’s shoulders when he isn’t at all the main contributor. The former is much more accurate because Longshore has more direct control over the Cal offense scoring points rather than the Cal defense not giving up points. The former is much more accurate because Longshore is a moderate contributor.

That’s all I’m trying to say. I’m just trying to people to realize that QB’s aren’t really responsible (in most instances) for the other team’s offense scoring points.

Vote Brock Mansion for QB in 2008!

by HydroTech on Jul 31, 2008 11:30 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I read just about everything you write, HT. You’re half of the reason I read this blog. The other half is annoying the hell out of Twisted. It’s just too much fun.

I’m a little more forgiving of the defense than you are and not surprisingly a little tougher on Longshore. I thought AF was going to score a little until the defense adapted and adjusted to their well run option system. After that, it was lights out but instead they lost their QB which meant game over. But I always thought Cal would put up a ton of points on the board even with my dead grandmother over center.

Coming off a losing streak, Cal was stalled and I think that Riley provided the necessary spark to jump start the entire team. I don’t think he was the beneficiary of the effect; I think he was the cause.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Aug 2, 2008 3:26 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Cal also received the kickoff.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 31, 2008 8:09 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I made a fanpost about this a while back

And I said 10 there but I’m reducing it to 9. That seems like a safe bet IF THERE ARE NO INJURIES/ETC.

- a loss against USC
- probably loss to ASU
- another loss to Oregon/UCLA/trap game

Definites:
- winning against the Furd
- Colorado State
- Wazzu

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Jul 29, 2008 4:29 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I did the same thing, I added one more that I totally don’t expect (though I don’t think a home loss to ASU is “probably”).

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 4:31 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The only reason I would say that it is, is because its been shown that the primary way to beat ASU is via pressuring the quarterback, something that Cal hasn’t proven it can do consistently.

http://mymindgrapes.wordpress.com

by 408 on Jul 29, 2008 4:35 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

from all that i have read about our talented linebacker corp it would be a shame if the defense couldn’t figure out some schemes to pressure the opposing qb’s this season.

by Itchy25 on Jul 29, 2008 4:37 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

eh, i guess the d-line being a ? is a huge part of the lack of qb pressure.

by Itchy25 on Jul 29, 2008 4:38 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If Rulon is healthy, it’s a guarantee there will be pressure. Look at how they got to Rudy in the first quarter and a half against ASU last year.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 4:39 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yeah, i haven’t seen him play much, but looking at his history he looks to be pretty injury prone… hopefully he can remain healthy this season, because he is obviously HUGE for that line.

by Itchy25 on Jul 29, 2008 4:44 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But they did let him go pretty clean in the second half, and that was an o-line that gave up more than 4 sacks a game.

http://mymindgrapes.wordpress.com

by 408 on Jul 29, 2008 4:47 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Davis left the game in the first half.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 4:52 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If Rulon is healthy,
And that is the problem!

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Jul 29, 2008 4:53 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why is everyone saying that there’s a probable loss to ASU? We hung in there pretty well even though the slump was well under way and it was an away game. Don’t forget the magic of ol’ Memorial, and the fact that Keegan Herring is gone. If Davis and Follett are in that game, I fully expect for Rudy to get banged up like last time.

by WilltheBear on Jul 29, 2008 6:43 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i think everyone’s hanging their hat on ‘Dennis Erickson—Year 2’. that and the fact that this isn’t a complete rebuilding job. you’ll remember, he did take Oregon State to a Fiesta Bowl victory and a top-5 ranking in his second year there. the man just wins (at the college level, at least).

that said, i thought ASU’s gaudy win total last year was padded by one of the softest schedules west of Kansas. they’ll be good, but if the Bears live up to their potential, i think we can take ‘em.

also, our schedule this year is pretty kind, so if you’re predicting 3-4 losses, it’s hard to peg 4 games as losses and not pick ASU as one of those 4.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 29, 2008 7:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well now that I see that we face them right after Georgia, they’ll definitely come up to Strawberry Canyon with something to prove.
That being said, I think our schedule doesn’t allow for more than three losses.

by WilltheBear on Jul 29, 2008 8:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nine Wins.

I’m almost sure that we’ll lose to U$C, and lose 2 of the following: ASU, MSU, UCLA, OSU, Arizona. If we can sweep or only lose one of that group, the Rose Bowl should be very likely (assuming ASU loses to Georgia, U$C, & one other team).

by RollOnYouBears667 on Jul 29, 2008 9:11 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well, the Rose Bowl is determined by conference record, so under your scenario, ASU would have only 2 conference losses. Of course, you may be working under the assumption that SC gets into the NCG and the Pac-10 would get an at-large (something that as of yet hasn’t been that likely).

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 29, 2008 9:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

7 wins

I voted seven, although I will be very disappointed if this happens. We certainly have the schedule and talent to win 10 games, but that was true last year, even with a beat-up and thin defense. The wild card is team morale. Tedford keeps saying team morale is great, blah, blah.. But what I gather is that Coach’s treatment of a certain player, esp after said player lost an adult male family member, has been a source of dissension, which really spun out of control last year after the injury to our starting QB. Seven month’s later, I am resigned to the fact that there is no chance that we have a new starting QB (based on the sum total of Tedford’s public comments about the QB situation starting with the Bancroft recruiting event up to today’s comments where Tedford stated that he doubted Riley was a better runner than Nate-yikes!), and if the team and the QB struggle, morale goes into the pits, and we lose games a unified team would win. 7 could be a stretch.

by dmgobears on Jul 29, 2008 9:59 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

do you have inside information?

But what I gather is that Coach’s treatment of a certain player, esp after said player lost an adult male family member, has been a source of dissension

to whom does this refer? (if you actually have inside information, i totally understand not answering my question)

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jul 29, 2008 10:12 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ragnorok,

The ref is to Nate, and it is from inside sources, but I think many have gleaned the essence of the conflict from various sources/speculation. Most Cal fans I have spoken to simply cannot understand how Tedford could stick with Nate even after serious injury, unless something was going on behind the scenes.

The only new thing that I have is that the perceived favoritism has existed for several years and actually led to several players meeting with Coach regarding K Reed’s treatment. This is not to say JT hasn’t made the correct decisions re NL vs Reed or Riley, but rather that the roots of last year’s morale problems may not be totally behind us.

by dmgobears on Jul 29, 2008 10:48 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

dmgobears, I still don’t understand how Cal fans cannot understand how Tedford could stick with Nate even after serious injury. Tedford explained himself many times. He said he and the coaches felt Longshore gave the team a better chance at winning. Perhaps this was a lie. Perhaps not. Perhaps some Cal fans prefer to think that Tedford just plays favorites instead of believing Coach when he says X player gives us a better chance to win than Y player.

Vote Brock Mansion for QB in 2008!

by HydroTech on Jul 29, 2008 11:03 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

hydro,

I don’t see an inconsistency in Tedford believing nate was the better option even after his injury, and that some of the team believing Tedford treats nate quite differently than other players. In no way am I suggesting that Tedford is lying. But I also believe Dan Hawkins at Colorado also is convinced his son is his best QB, and that some Buffs may wonder if Cody being his progeny plays into that decision. And BTW Dan is probably correct, but I am sure it’s a situation that has to be handled.

So Hydro, I don’t think JT lies or is a dishonorable man. I just note that perhaps one of the reasons for the teams 2nd half collapse was a morale issue which may not be totally solved.

by dmgobears on Jul 29, 2008 11:54 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What’s up with addressing everyone by their handle? I mean, you clicked reply, I think we know who you’re replying to.

As for your inside information on team disharmony re: Reed, then those players need to sit down. The coach makes the decision and he decided Riley was better prepared to be the backup and even with one less year than Reed, Riley had a better grasp of the offense.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 30, 2008 12:14 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Beastmode,

When it comes to professionalism and class, this blog needs all the help it can get!

Very Truly Yours,
TwistNHook

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 30, 2008 6:48 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

OH SNAP

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

by yellow fever on Jul 30, 2008 8:35 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is the first I’ve heard of players on the team meeting with JT regarding Kyle Reed. Furthermore, I haven’t really heard anything at all about Tedford possibly playing favorites just because Longshore lost his father. Perhaps they are both true. But I have a really hard time believing that Tedford stuck with Longshore throughout last season because Tedford felt sorry for Longshore after Longshore’s father died. That just seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Vote Brock Mansion for QB in 2008!

by HydroTech on Jul 30, 2008 7:55 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Given the intrusive nature of the media and the mega-high stakes involved in winning… I just cannot see Coach showing overt favoritism… perhaps it can be perceived by the players as favoritism, but I doubt that it was intentional in any way.

There is a problem with morale… the Coach himself and players have said as much. The recent transfers say as much… But as to Nate’s relationship with Coach as being the sole cause of it seems highly unlikely to me.

by danzig on Jul 30, 2008 3:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Longshore’s father passed away just a few years ago, I believe.

"We believe this project is now dead." - Stephan Volker

by PolarBear on Jul 29, 2008 10:17 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I had nothing to do with this.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 29, 2008 10:57 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Meant as reply to above topic

"We believe this project is now dead." - Stephan Volker

by PolarBear on Jul 30, 2008 12:22 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, cause otherwise, damn, kinda cold to bring it up out of the blue, even for Olsonist.

http://sportingcontrarian.wordpress.com/

by BeastMode on Jul 30, 2008 12:27 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yeah, even for Olsonist.

You know those half time human interest stories about little Johnny who delivered papers on his bike to help pay for his mother’s diabetes medication and she passed away right before the game and he’s dedicating the game to her? They’re always narrated by Brent Musberger even when the game is on FOX? You know the ones. Well, I’m usually ralphing 15s into them if I can watch them at all. Maudlin.

The human interest story I’m interested in is how these guys struggle to survive at the elite public university that Berkeley is. I’m interested in GPAs and graduation rates. Really. Jackie Lee graduated in Architecture in 3 years with honors. Freakish. That guy Ayoob and Levy handed off to in the Holiday Bowl? Medical school.

Donovan Edwards? The tea leaves I’m reading says he’ll graduate. From Cal.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 30, 2008 7:17 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Olsonist,

I never knew you were a tea-leaf reader. I’m graduate, U of Tea-Leaf, class of 96!

Truce?

Very Truly Yours,
TwistNHook

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 30, 2008 7:24 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A truce? Ccccccerrrrrrrrtainly. You have my wwworrrrrd of honor.

Stanfurd Delendum Est.

by Olsonist on Jul 30, 2008 7:59 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I expect

14 – 18 wins with an outside shot at the NCAA . .. wait, this isn’t basketball?

Oh. 8 wins – losing to SC, ASU and one other Pac X school. If they brought me in the play tight end, though I’m thinkin BCS. Who is going to stop me going through the middle? Spencer Hawes? Luc Richard? Luke Walton? Don’t make me laugh. I could be the new Tony Gonzalez. Saving lives. Rebounding. Running skinny posts through the middle and making linebackers eat dirt.

by LeonPowe on Jul 29, 2008 10:56 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

All Spencer Hawes has to do is stand in the way and he can stop a lot of things.

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

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Jul 30, 2008 7:25 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Spencer Hawes

He can’t stop me, Leon Powe.

by LeonPowe on Jul 30, 2008 8:54 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think we are much more likely to lose to OSU (Corvallis ownage aside) than ASU at home.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 30, 2008 10:27 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

8 wins

Losses to USC, ASU (unless Georgia snaps their QB in half), and Oregon.
I have doubts about winning the Oregon State game. They have been trending upwards and we are going the other way. If Riley plays, we win that game – if ShortBeach plays then its a loss. But lets count OSU as a win because I’m sick of losing to the Beavs and thats what my gut says.
I believe we will lose one other game we should win. CAL never (yes, NEVER) wins all the games we are supposed to win. Perhaps one ridiculous loss in that Non-conf schedule which hopefully prompts the QB change we all desire in our hearts.

Thats 4 loses. 8-4.

PS. Can we finish third in the Pac-10 and go to the Las Vegas bowl anyway? I don’t want to go to El Paso and I don’t want to see Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl either (please excuse the magical high finishes in the Pac after 3 or 4 loses)

by YleeXOtee on Jul 30, 2008 11:54 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"Completely, totally, in every way worse than the Daily Cal." - Daily Cal Editors on the 3rd Best Sports-Oriented Cal Blog on the net, the California Golden Blogs.

GoldenBlogs' FAQ
Start posting about the Golden Bears »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Pain_train_small
Cal basketball, a look ahead. Part one.
Title_and_case_small
NBA Off-Season Thread
Jackblack_small
Your California: Monterey
Chowder2_small
Pac-10 v. SEC Bowl

Recent FanPosts

Fairy_penguin_2x2icon_small
DBD 7.03.09 Day Without A DBD
Small
Vote for Natalie Coughlin and Dana Vollmer in the ESPYs!
Small
DBD 7/02/09: Beers, Bears, and Beards!
P4572527reg_small
Yahoo! NFL Fantasy Football and CBS Sports College Fantasy Football Signup Info
P4572527reg_small
Fantasy Football!
Pain_train_small
DBD 7.01.09 Happy Canada Day!
Pain_train_small
DBD 6.30.09 Rollonubears appreciation!

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

SPONSORS


Marshawnthusiasts!

Bear_small ragnarok

Script_cal_small HydroTech

Cal_football_2005_09_16_roll_07_012_small CBKWit

P1_marshawn_small TwistNHook

P4572527reg_small yellow fever

Jahvidtician

Syd_small Avinash

Official Partner of CBS Sports