2009 Cal Football: Hype vs. Reality
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 3:45 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintI know people are depressed with 72-6 the past two weeks, but despite the one-sided scores, there's much to be encouraged about. Like I said in yesterday's post, people seem to look at the final scores and see Cal getting destroyed in both games. I firmly disagree; the Bears adjusted and played miles better versus SC, especially along the lines. One big deficiency (quarterback) ended up submarining all of those hopes on Saturday, but it's a long season and easier opponents await. Don't forget that.
So now that the last two weeks have totally ripped away the gloss on our season, let's start separating the hype from the reality of our team. ESPN and the mainstream media did their dirty work early in the preseason, again falling in love with talented skill players without looking deep into the Bears and exploring weaknesses that only hardcore football enthusiasts delve into.
Now we'll get plenty of hype this week, only it'll be of the negative side. Just like the positive hype, most of it will be wrong. Let's take a look at some aspects of it. Add your own hype vs. reality discussions of the Bears in the comments.
Hype: California was returning 17 starters, most in the Pac-10. Perception? The Bears have a deep, experienced, unit.
Reality: California was returning 17 players with starting experience. Okay, let's break this down, because none of us really analyzed this well, me included.
- Our starting QB got the call in the first four games last season, was pulled in the fourth game, didn't return until late in the sixth game, was knocked out in the eighth game, came back in relief in the ninth game, then was out for the bowl game. To say that Kevin Riley had a "typical returning starter" experience short-sells the situation.
- As for the offensive line, Chris Guarnero is a returning starter despite playing only a third of the season and playing at a different position than center; Justin Cheadle was playing out of position much of last season, as was Mitchell Schwartz. These shifts don't mean the experience they received is worthless, but there is something to playing the same position week. And of course Mike Tepper is the furthest thing from returning starter--he hasn't played competitive football in a year, and it's clear he isn't close to his 2007 form.
- There's also the receiver roulette, where it's hard to say Verran Tucker and Nyan Boateng had anything close to typical starting years, especially considering one only emerged as the starter after Michael Calvin got injured, and the other kept on dropping catches both this season and last. It's hard to say our receiving corps is playing up to form.
- Mike Mohamed did start most of last season, but his role is drastically different from last year. Although he's played okay, we might've gone overboard with our effusive praise for his abilities. The Prophet was clearly effective at being the most productive linebacker last season because he was the last resort guy. Stepping into Follett's shoes has not been easy for him; he does not have great rushing abilities on the edge and the coverage suffers without him back there. So he's been sort of switched back and forth between outside and inside the past two weeks, with little result.
Thus, the only starters with typical "starting" experience were Best, the defensive linemen, and the defensive backs. Maybe Mohamed and Riley. That's about eight to ten starts with strong, stable starting experience.
Moreover, our losses were definitely crucial. Subtract our two best blockers from our offense, our best pass rusher from our defense, and half of our coverage players...and, well, we're going to have our woes. Hopefully the worst is over in that regard.
More examples after the jump. What are your thoughts on the hyped Bears versus the real Bears, both positive and negative?
I covered this yesterday, but I'll add it in here.
Hype: We have one of the most talented players in the country and we can go far if we ride him all the way.
Reality: He is only as good as the rest of our offense.
Jahvid has his weaknesses, there's no doubt--his pass protection and blitz pickup abilities need plenty of work. However, in terms of running ability, he needs his blockers to open gaps for him and a stable passing game that plays in tandem with his abilities. He got neither in Oregon and only average run blocking against the Trojans. And even if he had Alex Mack and Will Ta'ufo'ou, they too would have had their difficulties against eight to nine Trojans in the box in that first quarter when it was a relatively close one.
Besides, how can Best step up if his counterpart in the backfield steps down?
I should also note something about the malevolent influence of ESPN. When given so much to cover, they focus on what's most likely to intrigue the entire nation--Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, Tim Tebow's heart, Notre Dame, Tim Tebow's leadership, USC's daily drama, Tim Tebow's NFL Draft prospects... Their previews are painfully weak, usually looking back to last year's results for almost complete, blind guidance as to pick who will be back (and we see virtually the same teams that made last year's BCS getting picked again by the 'experts'!).
So obviously when Jahvid is our most prominent representative of the university, and he puts up almost a thousand yards of offense in the final four games of 2008...he's going to get pub. When he bursts for a 70 yard touchdown on Cal's first scoring drive or when he puts up all five scores in Minneapolis, it only gets worse.
This is a dangerous example of hyping a player to a level he cannot perform at, no matter the quality of the opponent. We always have to be prepared to lower our expectations in an age where media is dynamic in spinning messages that have no basis in reality (this is true in all worlds, entertainment, political or sports). Be careful how much you buy into the ESPN hype machine. They spin nothing but misinformation and lies, especially in college sports, when they tend to know only the barest of what's going on.
Listen to fools and be prepared to get fooled.
Now we turn it around the other way and blow up dumb hype.
Hype (of the negative sort): Our players showed no fire and heart this weekend. Holmoe era teams showed better spirit.
Reality: Are you joking? Did you watch the game? After the opening touchdown Cal's defense had three red zone situations where they could've caved and let USC blow the doors off. They gave up three points on each possession and kept it within a three score game late into the fourth. They even gave us a turnover that led to the Bears only points. If that's not heart for a team that didn't really have a prayer of winning in the second half, I don't know what it is.
The offensive line tried their best against eight/nine man fronts when it was clear Riley wasn't going to have his best game, even getting that bizarro Wildcat formation going for a full drive and chugging something out of it. You could tell Jahvid was trying all he could playing against overstacked run defense. There was occasional chippiness late, including a brief trash talking session with a Trojan on the Bears sideline.
The feeling I get is that fans are looking at the players glum, downcast expressions on the TV, and playing their best version of Dr. Melfi sans restraint. The team happens to be losing the biggest game of the season. Do you want them all to be doing push-ups on the sidelines and headhunting Trojan receivers to get themselves going?
Our guys played hard all the way to the end. It just happened that the more talented and focused team won. In football that tends to happen.
Hype: Jeff Tedford's stoic sideline nature is the reason we're falling behind the rest of the Pac-10.
Reality: People who believe this are the reason Roe v. Wade should never be overturned.
I'm usually nice to bitter, tired Cal fans. I don't mind people who glumly predict Tedford won't get us to the next level, because, well, it's normal for fans to feel that way after disappointing defeats. Especially when it happens in games we could've won if things had gone right here and here and here...
But I'm not tolerating stupidity, and this particular aspect below truly riles me:
There is this popular, annoying theory that what we need is not better recruiting classes, or even better playcalling, or we need USC to go on probation. No, what we need is firebrand leadership.
On whether he should yell at the team
We need to work hard. I’m never going to scream and yell at the guys. I’m never going to do that. They don’t deserve that. They play hard. I get e-mails saying you should chew them out. I’m not going to do that. I’m going tom motivate them and we’re going to work hard to get better and create a positive environment to get some confidence going.
In other words, what some Cal fans want is Tedford to go off on Riley and rip him for bad passes. Which, you might remember he did, last year against Colorado St. before inserting Longshore for the rest of the 2nd half. Moreover, they want Tedford going up to Best and ripping into him for not finding nonexistent holes, rip into Holley for not being Will Ta'ufo'ou, rip into the receivers for not catching uncatchable pases, rip into the defense for giving up 16 points through three quarters.
You know why? Because look at all the other 'great coaches' in the conference! Sarkisian RALLIED THE TROOPS and had everyone believing they can beat the mighty Trojans (it has carried onto the next two games, where the Huskies have won their next two by a combined total of negative 27 points). You've got Harbaugh getting mad and pissed at everyone, and clearly the Furd are a transcendent team. They beat UW, UCLA and Wazzu, who won a combined 6 games last year, by a combined 54 points. You've got Neuheisel chewing out Kevin Craft before sending him back out to the fire to throw another horrid interception. And of course you have Petie, who's a bigger cheerleader for his team than the Song Girls.
The solution, clearly, is to hire Rope Guy for Coach. He seems to get everyone fired up.
Look. We have no idea how Tedford handles his team behind closed doors. The pregame stuff is off-limits, and we know he's ripped into his team during halftime after unsatisfactory first half performances. What does a coach ripping players in public accomplish other than to satisfy the libidos of idiot Cal fans?
Probably about the same as Pete Carroll at the Sanchez press conference: It makes you look like a dick.
Let's be thankful we don't have a coach who doesn't treat his players like shit when they decide not to return (see Aaron Rodgers his junior year, Marshawn and Desean after their junior campaigns, and probably the same for Best this season) and never, ever throws them under the bus. In the long-run, karma will pay us back for showing respect to someone who has put up with our and the media's slightly unreasonable expectations.
Unless the angry fringe Cal fans become the majority of Cal fans, that is. It's not a situation I'm interested in courting, so let's roar through the rest of the season to silence hype of all sorts, alright guys?
194 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hype: Jeff Tedford’s stoic sideline nature is the reason we’re falling behind the rest of the Pac-10.
Reality: People who believe this are the reason Roe v. Wade should never be overturned.
Completely agreed. Furthermore, people claiming to know an easy solution to solve all of Cal’s possible psychological problems are naive, stupid, and degrading to all those that hold a degree from Cal. How many people are on the football team? We have somewhere between 85-100, to say that all of them will respond the same way is naive and stupid. To say they all share the same psychological problems is stupid. Seniors might be worried these losses will impact their draft status, a freshman might begin to question whether he is good enough to play college ball, a back-up sophomore might believe it is his moment to play hero and begin playing without discipline. Some players respond to an ass-chewing, others begin to sulk and lose confidence. Some players need perpetual positive reinforcement to stay motivated, others need to be reminded of the little things. And still others, when the game becomes tough, and the stress unbearable, just need to look over to the sideline to see their coach: calm, collected, and confident moving the next chess piece.
Seconded
Think about the most..shall we say…exuberant coach Pete Carroll ever had: Ed Orgeron. If I’m understanding correctly, that’s the type of personality some fans think we are lacking.
What happened when he went to Ol Miss as a head coach? He got great recruits and promptly went to ‘0’ bowl games, including one year where he was defeated in the SEC. Yes, 0-8.
Let Tosh, Gould, Simmons, or any of the other assistant coaches be the ones to go batshit crazy and fire up the team. The Head Coach has to be more mature, specifically more wise than that. Does Urban Meyer look like the type to rip his shirt off and challenge his players to a fight? No, obviously not.
Don’t forget when Joe Paterno ran those people over with the golf cart. That is the leadership we’re lacking!!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
That's right!
I think we should hire the tOSU tuba player who took on ESPN’s camera! He don’t give a f***!
Coaches
1. At high levels of performance, I don’t think you can will people to perform superman results. Rather, competition comes down to executing all the training you have put in the tank. Motivation is important – both to push the athlete during training and to make the full effort during competition. But, as others have said, there are lots of different ways to motivate people. Moreover, I worry more about psycho coaches getting players so amped up that they defeat themselves by blowing assignments, trying to do to much, and committing stupid penalties. In violent contests like football, it is important to be focused and fearless, but you can only be as good as you have prepared yourself to be. So, as much as leadership style, it seems thinks like management, preparation, recruiting, and making in-game adjustments are key attributes to winning coaches.
2. More broadly, I have been trying to think of the best way to evaluate a coach, keeping in mind that this is a University. My own perspective is that I am glad I didn’t go to a football factory instead of a serious and interesting academic institution (but it would have been nice to win more games all the same).
First, regarding members of the team, are they:
- reaching and expanding their potential as athletes?
- learning technicalities and nuance of the sport?
- learning lessons that will prepare them for life after college?
- Is there cheating or unjustified physically injury of the players?
- For the 1% who may go pro – are they prepared for the next level?
Wins and losses, players drafted, graduation rates, and NCAA investigations are good metrics, but like all metrics they come with limitations.
Second, for the other student-athletes and the student body at large, I wonder if the coach shouldn’t be evaluated like one program within an academic department. That is
- Is there cross pollination with other departments and disciplines, such as is the coach bringing in in outside influences that others can learn from? (I suppose you could ask for cutting edge research, too…)
- Are the facilities being shared (or even better, improved?) [This was a sore point back in the day – club sports had to pay monthly fee to access the weight room in the stadium prior to the RSF days.]
- Is the coach hogging resources or creating additional ones?
- Is the coach bringing positive attention to the University, helping all to raise their game?
- Is the coach and the program contributing to the student experience, enhancing the education/cultural/learing environment by providing useful new perspectives and experiences?
- Is the coach enhancing or degrading the reputation the reputation of the school?
- Is the coach helping generating funds, or wasting them?
jh
This is more questionable
Hype: Cal is building an empire.
Reality: The Cal football program had nothing in 2001. No Coaches, few players, no administrative support, little fan support. In 2009 Cal has great coaches, great players, administrative support (in the form of facilities), and moderate fan support.
It was noted here, that the fan support vrs Eastern Washington was pathetic. I’ve seen large numbers of seats uninhabited on TV every week and every year (vrs SC exempted). Most great college football programs play in regions of the country where they dominate the local media. Austin has no competition, Alabama has no competition, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Penn St, Gainesville, and USC has no competition. Notre Dame has minor competition, as does Ohio St. These programs dominate the local media spotlight, Cal does not. The Bay area is a pro sports town. Furthermore, the Bay area is a pro sports town with a larger than normal population of residents who look down upon sports. Cal will never complete their empire because they will never have the local fanbase to support them.
by chowder on Oct 5, 2009 4:55 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
This.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 5, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
This is a really good point, and something I’d love to discuss later in the week.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
The L.A. Coliseum was a very empty place during the Paul Hackett era. If you win, they will come. And that has largely been the case for Cal. But to fill the stadium consistently, even against the likes of Eastern Washington, will require winning a championship, not just competing (or appearing to comepete) for one. Championships create fan support, not the other way around.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 5, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I highly doubt winning a championship will change even that; too many social and economic factors to figure out. Reducing the stadium size will go a long way toward filling the stadium up.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
USC has no competition?
C’mon. In fact what’s unique about USC is that it’s a big city school that’s been very succesful in a sport dominated by small college towns. Miami is the only other one that can think of.
by 54 wasn't THAT long ago on Oct 5, 2009 5:24 AM PDT reply actions
Riley is dead to me
4th year in the program and he is what he is which is “not a good college QB”. He’s not Joe Ayoob bad but he’s not any good either. If anyone showed a lack of heart out there it was Riley. It wasn’t a lack of effort, anyone who saw him scrambling at various points of the game and taking hits to gain an extra yard would agree. No, it’s his head. That INT in the end zone on the first drive was game over for him mentally and his play showed it the rest of the game. A QB MUST have unshakeable confidence in themselves or their ability in order to be a consistently quality QB at the college level. Riley doesn’t have it.
I hope no one in the stands was hurt by one of his errant passes hitting them in the head.
Joe Starkey...Scholar, Humanitarian, Cal legend, worst radio play by play man of all time.
Unmasked!
FIRE JOE STARKEY IS REALLY THE BEAR WILL NOT QUIT!
Link: http://thebearwillnotquit.blogspot.com/2009/10/some-initial-thoughts.html
Hype: Cal will challenge for a BCS title this year
Reality: We’re really just not that good.
And there it is. Sadly, the hype wasn’t something that only the most delusional/optimistic/rabid Cal fans believed – the media bought into it too. And the first three games only helped others start believing it as well. Oregon brought the reality back in a big way when they tossed us aside like a used condom.
But there’s more:
Hype: Cal is a pretender and will be lucky to win 5 games.
Reality: Cal could win 8 games and end up 3rd in the conference.
I know, more blue colored glasses. But think about the fact that we’ve played the two strongest teams in the Pac-10, and suddenly going at least 8-4 isn’t impossible. In fact, this team could very well finish the rest of the season undefeated and wind up 10-2. Yeah, I know, it’s a longshot, but this bye week comes at just the right time, and a strong win at Ucla would do wonders to prop up a savaged team psyche and start a roll. And, objectively looking at the schedule, it’s not like any of the teams we have yet to face are as good as SC or Oregon. Not that we are much better than any of them, but we could win out.
In any case, I’m starting to enjoy a bit of the room now that the bandwagoners are starting to leap off.
As I said before, Forget about it, Jake. It’s Cal.
On ATQ I'm known as JSoCal Oski
It's spelled J-etc
by SoCal Oski on Oct 5, 2009 8:50 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
+1
I was hearing it from everyone about two huge losses and that we were done and I was thinking the exact same thing, I believe we have played two of our toughest opponents and we could end up 10 – 2 or forbid 9 – 3 this season. We have no idea how Oregon or USC will do the rest of the season – we still have a lot of season to play, and we should play it out supporting the team.
by CaliforniaCMB on Oct 5, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal could easily end up going 10-2. As of right now, Oregon and USC are the class of the Pac-10, and are the two most talented teams that Cal will play this season. Both presented matchup issues on both sides of the ball, and I don’t think any other Pac-10 team will be able to do that. Cal is still a good team. As long as the team doesn’t just give up, things should end up OK.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Right now, you guys may be the only thing standing between the Evil Ones and continued World Domination. Help us, AtQ, you’re our only hope.
I can’t wait until November, when we find out that Washington is Oregon’s sister.
by sec119 on Oct 5, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Better now than later
its never fun to lose..
but it’s better to lose now then to roll on the hype machine then get crushed at the end.
also with a string of solid wins perhaps we could build confidence towards the end of the year now that the most difficult games are behind us.
get off me bandwagoners!
http://blog.cleancutmedia.com
by cleancutmedia on Oct 5, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
They always say, in college football, if you are going to lose, lose early.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
i thought that theory was debunked. If you lose late you usually don’t fall as far in the standings, hence you don’t need to make up as much ground.
Here’s the thing, so many of these bitter fans expect us to be a football powerhouse. Name me one program with no tradition, terrible facilities, and a weak fan base that has been able to turn themselves into a football powerhouse. Seriously, it doesn’t happen. What has happened is we’ve been turned into a consistent winner and we get a taste of the good life now and again, and damn does it taste good. But face it, we aren’t there yet and we really shouldn’t be, yet.
As for this season, we lost badly to the two best teams in our conference. And, we pretty much know the reason why, teams can easily load up the box to stop Jahvid because we can’t throw the ball. I really think it all boils down to that. USC was a winnable game and they failed to capitalize on numerous opportunities.
In the end, a season that includes a road win at LA, a Big Game victory, and a bowl game is a good one. Period.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
by BeastMode on Oct 5, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Well, we better get those wins, then!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
For the season to be deemed successful, yeah, probably. Do you think it would be successful with just two out of three or, worse yet, one out of three?
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Agree With Most of What You Said
But what about Boise St.? They seemed to have sprung from nowhere and have what looks like a pretty small fanbase. Yes, they play in a shitty conference, but have taken care of business in the BCS.
They play in an extremely weak conference. That is a HUGE difference. Also, their all-time record, before this season, is 340-144-2. That isn’t exactly out of nowhere. And, I’d argue that they have a MUCH better fan base.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
MUCH better fan base is a little off point
They are in Boise, Idaho…
Let me restate that… Boise…. IDAHO!!!!!
Potatoes and high-plains come to mind…
What would you do on a saturday in Idaho?
Also, if we had a 40,000 person stadium and filtered out all the quiet folks and left just the most supportive Cal fans every saturday, I bet our fan base would be more comparable…
Regardless, UCLA will be the real measuring stick for me… Obviously we were over-rated, obviously Riley has yet to re-create an Armed Forces Bowl performance, and obviously, UO and U$C are that good, they OrSt’d it up a bit at first, but they have begun to roll and I would not be surprised to see them tying for 1st in the Pac-10 again… If we can manage a win at UCLA (our defense should finally have a leg up on the competition), 9-3 (or even 10-2) is a definite possibility…
Like my mom once told me after a Cal v. U$C victory in the 90's, "See son I told you, Trojans always pop under pressure"
Real Bears Trust Durex!!!
I have a feeling Boise could sellout a bigger stadium too.
As for Riley, please, everyone, the Armed Forces Bowl was against Air Force, that doesn’t mean anything. I’d say the UCLA game is pretty important for Riley and potentially his last as a started if he can’t turn it around.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
I meant an Armed Forces Bowl-like performance…
Playing with fire and desired intent… Hitting receivers in stride, not under throwing them by 20 ft… I understand Air Force had a weaker secondary, but he still came in with one intention, put Cal back in this and pull out a W… It worked…
If he HAD put 50% of his missed passes on target this Saturday, we may not have had a win, but 30-17 would have been a definite possibility…
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
It isn’t just overthrowing it is not seeing open receivers at all. If he sees those guys and hits a couple of those overthrows, it’s a tight game.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
I don’t remember if it was the 3rd or 4th quarter, but I can recall a play where he had plenty of time, he was scanning the field, and Tucker (I think it was Tucker) was sitting on the 1 yard line, standing there jumping up and down waving his arms, and Riley proceeded to throw into triple coverage in the endzone. I had been pretty reserved up until that point, but I ended up throwing my hat, and cursing profusely.
Let’s be fair though, he was playing with one of the best receiving corps in Cal history in their final game. One NFL pro, another with NFL caliber talent, and a four year starter.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Takes away I’m guessing. He looked better than he actually was, since his receivers had the ability to adjust and catch some of his more errant throws. Plus Riley could probably be more confident in these guy’s ability to catch the ball.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
*guys'
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
They don’t have Pete Carroll in their conference. Hell they don’t even have a Mike Stoops in their conference
In other words, Go Bears!
They’ve got Chris Petersen. I’ve got a lot of time for him as a coach, he gets results from teams that generally look well prepared, and gets the most of out recruiting from players that the Pac 10 “powers” might not be interested in.
Yea but he’s coaching the team I’m talking about. Peterson doesn’t have folks like Carroll working against him
In other words, Go Bears!
I agree, hat their consistency is impressive, but in no way is it on par of what Carroll has done in a major conference.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Well, no, but considering their likely budget, recruiting pool, and so on, it’s not bad. I know that they get on tv almost as a novelty act, and that beating Oklahoma in a bowl game doesn’t make Boise State stand out that much, but they’ve been putting themselves in the conversation about good teams for some years and – to be fair – through a coaching change from Hawkins to Petersen that was supposed to take several years to sort out.
Oh sure, of course it’s not bad. I just think that Boise has been doing this for a long time now, it’s just that recently they have been given the respect their program has long deserved. That said, it is easier to build a winner our of nowhere in a conference like the WAC thank it is in the Pac-10.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
They stopped having these kind of questions on the SAT the same year I had to take them
I.e the first year where the score was out of 2400 instead of 1600
In other words, Go Bears!
it’s out of 2400 now? holy shit i’m old
by BerkeleyChris on Oct 5, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I want to say Virginia Tech, what Beamer has done there is remarkable. I think if Tedford stays with the program we will be in the position to be a Virginia Tech, always challenging for the top of the PAC-10.
What you don’t want to happen is what happened to Rutgers, Louisville, or WVU. A high profile coach leaves after building a winning program, and the program starts to slide.
Rutgers really hasn’t done that much. We have had 7 straight winning seasons, they had a couple years. That isn’t a sustained turnaround.
Va Tech was not a loser before Beemer, their previous coach was 64-37-1. And, look at Beamer’s record, it took him almost a decade to get his first 10 win season at Va tech. My point is, to turn a non-traditional power into a power takes a long time.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
by BeastMode on Oct 5, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
a season that includes a road win at LA, a Big Game victory, and a bowl game is a good one.
After the last 2 weeks, I’m not going to take any of those three things for granted. I’ll believe them and count them when they actually happen.
by atomsareenough on Oct 5, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Open Question
Because I don’t want to start ragging on QBs just yet (it hasn’t worked for us in the past), I pose a simple question to you all…
About mid-way through the 4th on Saturday, after watching errant throw after errant throw, I started wondering, when do we consider putting in Beau or Brock for some learned experience purposes if anything?
If the game is all but over, and Riley hasn’t shown confidence since his first drive, when do you throw someone else out there to at least give it a go?
I understand we don’t want to damage Riley’s fragile self-confidence, but to me, a fresh arm and a fresh brain that hasn’t been Taylor Maysed for 3 hrs. might have a been a nice change of scenery…
Any thoughts?
(Keep in mind I’m not saying bench him for the season here, just let someone else give it a go for the remainder of the game)
Like my mom once told me after a Cal v. U$C victory in the 90's, "See son I told you, Trojans always pop under pressure"
Real Bears Trust Durex!!!
I think the confidence issue is the only reason he wasn’t pulled. Tedford doesn’t want Riley to constantly look over his shoulder, afraid that any one mistake could pull him for a game. I’m not saying that’s the right thing to do, but that’s what’s going on. One thing is for sure, Brock and Beau could not have been much worse than Riley.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
That's what I'm saying...
It can;t get worse… Pat him on the shoulder and say “hey buddy you gave it your best, we want to build some game experience for the guys that will come after you, grab yourself a gatorade and give Ludwig a call”
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
Hype: Riley’s a BCS QB.
Reality: Should have gone to the Mtn West/WAC.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Thank You
Posts like this are the reason I prefer to come here instead of Bear Insider or Scout. Anytime we lose, they both devolve into cesspools of self-hate and loathing. Not that anyone is happy about the last two weeks, but at least you guys can have a good sense of humor.
by suessbear on Oct 5, 2009 10:06 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Yay!
I just don’t think they heard, we’re going undefeated the rest of the season, CAL BEARS FTW!
by CaliforniaCMB on Oct 5, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
Thank you for being a voice of reason. I seriously don’t know what some of the other Cal “fans” are thinking on some of the other sites.. do they even know anything about sports?
It’s typical message board behavior after a big loss. I don’t read much into it, I just wish both sites were better moderated so it didn’t always look like the final scene from Lord of the Flies.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
MOI SPECS
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
Thank you
Comments like thsi are the reason I prefer to come here instead of Bear Insider or Scout. Anytime we lose, they both tend not to complement CGB as much. Not that anyone is happy about the last two weeks, but at least you can continue to compliment us.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Hype: carp is a good BBQer.
Reality: No he’s not. Those frozen peeled/deveined shrimp he got at Costco tasted like Saltines.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
One note…about the line at the end of “probably the same for Best this season.”
I think the perhaps one good that has come out of the last two games is that I really can’t see him going out early. With his injury history, and the fairly accurate perception that he doesn’t play well in big games, I just can’t see it. Even prior to the Oregon game he was not projected as a first rounder.
Doesn’t play well? I think it is far more a function of the other team able to stack the box with 9 guys and Cal not being able to throw the ball to keep them honest.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
TiG, I’d really like that to happen, but I doubt he’s coming back. The NFL rookie salary cup is readjusting after next year’s draft, and it’s likely it’ll be drastically reduced. It’s not like his draft stock would jump a huge deal if he stayed an extra season.
I’d be pleasantly surprised, but let’s not bank on it.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
True, there likely will be financial incentives for first-round selections this year. But that assumes that he would be a first round selection, and I don’t think that is as certain as people believe. You may be correct though that the difference would be so great that it would be worth the risk of falling to Round 2.
Can we PLEASE stop with this ‘Best doesn’t play well in big games’ crap??
THE CALIFORNIA GOLDEN BEARS FOOTBALL TEAM does not play well in big games. Best can’t do shit if the passing game is a cold fish and his o-line is a freakin’ sieve. It’s not his fault.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Oct 5, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also noted: your calling the perception ‘fairly accurate.’
That makes it sound like you agree, which I don’t think you should.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I agree with them that it is worthy a discussion point, but I don’t necessarily believe the conclusion that it means there is something wrong with Best. The real issue though is that if we give too much credit to the running game, even when they are bad, everyone end’s up blaming Riley for the lack of a running game. Sorry, that just doesn’t seem right to me. Blame needs to go around a little bit.
Our running game has been so good now for 8 years, that there really is reason that people feel the running game is above criticism. But the last couple weeks, it has been quite terrible. That of course, is not just Best’s fault, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that it is any less his fault than it is Riley’s fault.
Statistically, the bottom line is that Best does exceptionally well against weak competition, and considerably less well against stronger competition. There is no shame in that – obviously, good defense is one of the reasons why they are stronger competition.
Is that agreeing … well, I am not sure
I see what you’re saying. You’re right, Best does have direct control over what he does after he runs past the offensive line, so if his tackle-breaking suffers against better opponents, that’s totally on him.
I also agree that Riley shoudn’t get all the blame for the running game’s woes – the run can help open up the pass, and vice versa, so Riley is not totally to blame, you’re definitely right on that point.
I think the main problem with the running game against better opponents (at least this year) is the offensive line, which (coincidentally enough) is also a problem for the passing game. We’re just not getting the push or protection we need from them, and that’s something to note. Just like you say that Riley shouldn’t get all the blame, I don’t think Best should get all the blame either. I think we can blame all aspects of the team for the problems right now – and that’s what I meant earlier – it’s not Best’s fault, it’s not totally Riley’s fault – it’s just the team as a whole, for some strange reason. Or maybe the reason’s not that strange – maybe we’re just a better-than-average team, but no more than that.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
It’s true Best isn’t as effective a back as Marshawn or Forsett in getting to the second level and working inside and is more of an open field back, but again the holes have closed in too tightly the past two weeks. Still, you’re being a little too hard on him. Cal’s running game is a function of their offensive line executing their blocks (which they didn’t against Oregon) and having a solid passing game (which was not there in either game, allowing defenses to stack the box on Jahvid).
Let’s also not forget there are probably four or five future pros on that Trojan front seven; that defense has been the best in the country by miles the past two seasons. And really, Riley has to do something, ANYTHING to make things easier for Best to get going.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 6, 2009 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with both of you on this. The o-line has been pretty bad the last two weeks (perhaps justifiably bad against USC). Really, in the Tedford Era, I am not sure that the line has ever been dominated in the way it has been in the last two weeks. I am sure it is partly personnel, but must be partly the loss of Michalczik too – up until this year we have simply substituted new guys for the guys we have lost, with no real issues.
I don’t think that Best should receive most of the blame or even a substantial part of the blame. But I think as a running back, he is a pretty major part of the running game – and the running game has been really bad the last two weeks.
I am also a little skeptical of the claim that USC was just putting 9 in the box on every play – if that was the case, why were our receivers never really open. Are our WRs just that bad?
They clearly haven’t been very good at getting open the past week.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 6, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Hype: Sweeney and Mansion are interesting prospects.
Reality: Who the eff knows? All they’ve gotten to do is hand the ball off.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Oct 5, 2009 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agree, but I am interested to see Sweeney. Reports are that he surpassed Mansion on the depth chart, that has to be promising, right?
yes…but how could they be BCS-quality QBs and not surpass Riley already? If Riley thrives in practice, that’s even worse than if he’s the typical 50% in practice.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
They don't need to be BCS quality...
We aren’t going to the BCS this year…
And like I had said, its not the right time to bench Riley just yet, but we apparently have talent waiting in the wings and it needs to be developed if we want Riley’s successor to come in and do well…
And if Riley is doing well in practice and falling short in games, maybe those that aren’t doing as well in practice will do just as well (as practice) in real games, which in turn is better than Riley in games… who obviously drops off against tough secondaries and defensive pressure (if that sentence wasn’t confusing enough)
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
by BCS quality I mean quality one finds in good teams from the 6 BCS conferences.
After all, has Riley had a great game against a good BCS team? His game vs. Air Force stands out as his best game. Maryland is not a good BCS team.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Riley seemingly knows where the break downs will be in practice and can therefore find the open guy… But in every game I’ve watched this year I’ve seen frustrated WRs with arms up in there and a ball getting thrown poorly to the other side of the field…
And who knows, maybe we have an Allan Iverson waiting in the wings?
I mean its just practice…
(that last part was not serious, don’t worry)
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
I won’t defend Mansion, because I have no idea what his development is like. I will speculate on Sweeney: perhaps he doesn’t know the offense yet, know how to go through progressions, know how to recognize coverages and blitzes, know when to audible. There is a lot of ‘other’ information that quarterbacks need to know. Perhaps once Sweeney understands these other elements of quarterbacking they will give him a shot. Or perhaps he simply needs to prove he can consistently perform these other tasks.
Why didn’t we put Brown on trial!? Ugh.
by CaliforniaCMB on Oct 5, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
He made a couple calls to a couple select judges and proposed jurors… According to “them” we weren’t the best choice for the lawsuit…
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
Glass half full?
Yes perhaps there are some silver linings and reasons to have hope and so forth, but I don’t want to hear them because I’m despondent and we suck and blah blah blah!
[/BearInsider]
Seriously, though, the analysis in the OP is well-stated. Even so, I still can’t help but feel that while they are reasons for why we lost the last two games, they don’t explain why Cal was uncompetitive and completely blown out both times. Okay, so Oregon and USC are better. Are they 39 and 27 points better?
I’m just saying, it’s possible to recognize that we were overhyped coming into the season and that the personnel issues that always existed are now just becoming obvious, but to also think that there is a problem going on with the way these players are being coached/prepared for the biggest conference games. Maybe getting into psychoanalysis with little inside info at hand is silly, but results are results — it doesn’t take a licensed therapist to see that something is wrong here.
But the real question is...
Does it take a licensed therapist to help Kevin Riley see open receivers?
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
Couldn't hurt...
At least the lights on those glasses(?) scanned ALL of his surroundings…
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
agreed sycasey—i don’t want to be one of those the op was complaining about, so I won’t say much more. I love Tedford and I’m sure he has plans to fix the attitude and confidence of the team. But it’s a little harsh to call out those who question our team’s fire and drive when we get blanked two games in a row. Even the commentators (I have to watch on TV since moving from the bay area) noticed that the sideline was dead early into the first quarter.
And because I’ve raised this issue in the past—getting fired up is NOT ripping into your players. I don’t think Tedford should change his Oski-like stoicism or teddybear encouragement. But we do seem to be missing vocal senior leadership this year, which might explain why our offense seems to get rattled easily.
That first interception was a killer. You can’t give points like that away to USC and expect to come back unless they also shoot themselves in the foot.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
The O-line and gameplan were bad against Oregon, the pass coverage was exploited in both games (not obliterated, but it definitely set up USC scoring drives), and the QB play veered from bad to worse in this game.
I don’t like blaming one position for a loss, but it’s a much different game if Riley completes like ten of those twenty-five incompletions.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, but again this raises questions about coaching and preparation. Why is Riley regressing in his play? He wasn’t inaccurate when he started (and I’m not just talking about Air Force; he was largely on-target against Oregon State and Michigan State as well, and those were not exactly poor defenses), so what happened? From my vantage point, it looks like we have had three consecutive starting quarterbacks (leaving out Steve Levy’s two games) who only got worse the longer they played for Cal. That doesn’t speak very well for a head coach who was once known for developing QBs.
Again, why does our pass defense stink with a veteran secondary and D-line? Should we still be laying it on the players, despite the fact that they played much better against the same teams last year?
This is what I mean by there being questions about the coaching. It’s on a macro level (preparing and developing talent) rather than on a micro level (playcalling in this specific game). The team doesn’t have to be dominant, but given the talent at hand, they should not be blown out like this.
yep, blowouts shouldn't be
I agree sycasey. Gregory has had a respectable run… prior to this year. It’s not just on players when blowouts like this occur two weeks in a row. Although I haven’t watched tape, gut reaction from watching live is there are problems with the soft zone scheme and with linebacker delayed responses to short passes: both of these are coaching issues.
We’re discounting our lack of depth in the linebacking corps. Kendricks, Mohamed and Bishop are probably our best performers so far, and I can only give them maybe average grades. Holt, Young, Hurrell, and whoever else I’m forgetting…they’re still trying to adjust into their roles. It might take a little longer.
In other words, losing our senior linebackers hurt more than even I expected.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah avinash. That makes sense. I was also looking at your old site Bears Necessity and see you had good posts there. You shut that one down?
I hope I don’t sound as disgusted as I felt after Saturday but my underlying feeling, without seeing film, is the college game doesn’t move at NFL speed and the current crop of juniors and seniors, maybe even Josh Hill, should be able to execute short pass protection in a 3-4. Coach ‘em up, Gregory. Secondly, when it wasn’t working, I didn’t see any adaptations? If the strategy is failing, utilize free safety involvement, especially during coverage blitzes. Adapt, at least attempt to adapt, in some way.
Hopefully Gregory will work on himself and will treat the remainder of this year with a sense of urgency as if it’s his first year. Something is wrong.
I write for CGB now; seems silly to write for two sites on the same topic, no?
It’ll be interesting to see how they play, but I’m guessing right now the inability to cover the middle patch of the field is the reason the defenders are not ball hawking as much as they did last year. Our linebackers were good in coverage last season, they’re not so good this season, and that forces more work on the d-backs to cover and monitor more of the field. So they can’t play closer to the receivers in their zones.
And in the NFL, lots of defense is zone now; receivers are too tall or physically skilled to be covered man-to-man, especially in the open field. Gregory is actively playing a scheme which favors pro development.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
hmmm...
Cool stuff, Avinash; good conversation.
Appears we’re writing about two different concepts, both important for success. The long view, and in-game tweaks. (A third element is practice, a fourth is recruiting, etc). We agree that Gregory probably has a handle on the former, in terms of schemes. We agree that the defense has not done well. So what is the cause of 72 points allowed in 2 games?
If I understand you correctly, your opinion seems to be the current linebacker crew is so incompetent that they can’t support an otherwise workable plan from Gregory, and that they are therefore responsible for the 72 points allowed in the last two games. For you, it’s apparently on the players. I would agree that’s certainly a possibility, but I haven’t noticed the kind of drop-off in athleticism or intelligence in the linebackers this year that 72 points suggests.
Watching them, my impression is the athletes have the ability, but not the skillset to react to the pass. Who is responsible in such a circumstance? Apparently Gregory/Simmons are having a problem coaching the new 3-4 defense, are allowing a letdown in intensity, or some other coaching responsibility such as prep. Additionally, although we agree the 3-4 is a good choice for short pass coverage at the college level, I observe Gregory apparently failing to make defensive adjustments during games when it’s not working smoothly. If you and I would watch tape together I think I could show you again and again where passes are thrown to the same location without Gregory adjusting the sets or support for those zones. The entire game. Who is responsible for that? I’m not asking for Gregory’s head, but if I were Tedford, I’d be having discussions with him more than linebackers.
The point about whether the zone has become more common in the NFL is one I won’t take up here.
We’re just speculating for fun and I’m pleased we want the Bears to succeed. Here’s to improvements during the bye. Gotta watch GB v. MINN. Cheers.
If I understand you correctly, your opinion seems to be the current linebacker crew is so incompetent that they can’t support an otherwise workable plan from Gregory, and that they are therefore responsible for the 72 points allowed in the last two games. For you, it’s apparently on the players. I would agree that’s certainly a possibility, but I haven’t noticed the kind of drop-off in athleticism or intelligence in the linebackers this year that 72 points suggests.
That is not what I’m saying. They’re inexperienced, not incompetent. Gregory has admitted putting them in the wrong place against Oregon. They were in better places for USC and only allowed 23 points. Their tackling form might not have been the greatest, but they improved greatly from the Autzen debacle.
Watching them, my impression is the athletes have the ability, but not the skillset to react to the pass. Who is responsible in such a circumstance? Apparently Gregory/Simmons are having a problem coaching the new 3-4 defense, are allowing a letdown in intensity, or some other coaching responsibility such as prep. Additionally, although we agree the 3-4 is a good choice for short pass coverage at the college level, I observe Gregory apparently failing to make defensive adjustments during games when it’s not working smoothly. If you and I would watch tape together I think I could show you again and again where passes are thrown to the same location without Gregory adjusting the sets or support for those zones. The entire game. Who is responsible for that? I’m not asking for Gregory’s head, but if I were Tedford, I’d be having discussions with him more than linebackers.
Fact is the zone scheme is a read and react defense. Occasionally good quarterbacks will penetrate it and have success, or even good OCs will gameplan against it. Every unit has to take up their role, and right now only two of them are playing at optimal form while the other one is struggling.
But for the most part, this prevents offenses from rolling the points up on us. The Oregon game was a debacle, but I do feel we stopped the Trojan offense plenty.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey Avinash. This is a day late but I wanted to at least follow-up to your response. Great blog.
That is not what I’m saying. They’re inexperienced, not incompetent.
Fair enough, I’m glad I misunderstood because I don’t see problems with linebacker talent. Experience is a brutal and uncertain alternative for learning the portion of fundamentals which should be supplied in practice. It’s reasonably clear that the coaching portion remains unproven for this form of defense. If you don’t agree, I think you’d at least agree that it’s a reasonable position given the significant points allowed.
Gregory has admitted putting them in the wrong place against Oregon. They were in better places for USC and only allowed 23 points. Their tackling form might not have been the greatest, but they improved greatly from the Autzen
debacle.
The coaching point is the one I attempted to make previously, and we seem to also agree the linebackers aren’t bad athletes. “Improved greatly” I’’ll just pass over without comment.
Fact is the zone scheme is a read and react defense. Occasionally good quarterbacks will penetrate it and have success, or even good OCs will gameplan against it.
Sure, a 3-4 zone blitz is an acceptable choice for Cal. Going back to my initial post, my concern isn’t Gregory’s game planning or scheme selection, 3-4 or otherwise. If a 3-4 is chosen, and in Cal’s case it was, the 3-4 requires significant linebacker coaching which appears to be lacking. Then, I don’t see adjustments made until the next game, a week behind. My focus here has been linebacker pass defense.
Every unit has to take up their role, and right now only two of them are playing at optimal form while the other one is struggling.Maybe. The question remains, “why?” What I see is that Cal’s linebackers don’t appear to have fundamental training for short pass reaction. They have to pivot and move immediately to positions or Cal is going to continue to be killed on short passes. Surely Gregory knows this; what’s being done?
But for the most part, this prevents offenses from rolling the points up on us.Really? Perhaps if one discounts points allowed in the last two games. It would be nice if these are glitches as your comment seems to imply. That said, I’m at the point of asking questions.
The Oregon game was a debacle, but I do feel we stopped the Trojan offense plenty.The Trojans were stopped plenty in the short pass department? Here’s to the power of positive thinking, but it just seems an unlikely position that you honestly have no questions for Gregory/Simmons after 72 points allowed in two games. Things that make the Bears better are good things. Sometimes that means asking questions about leadership, but it’s all for the hope Gregory will take notice and get Cal back on a strong defensive track. Go Bears.
Aaron Rodgers . . .
. . . tonight will make everything better and heal all wounds!
Coaching - Defense
Bears have some different Offensive help this year from Ludwig, too short a time to compare with him against Cignetti. The more interesting question is Gregory. In eight years at Cal, Gregory has done well with points allowed. He’s overseen the development of a lot of defensive players who move on to NFL careers, and he schemes well, but this year he seems unproven. Why? Could it be Gregory lacks adaptibility? Coaching staffs are constantly upgrading and adapting to trends. An older coaching method of sticking with a scheme that doesn’t work is going to lose games. During the Oregon and USC blowouts, Gregory appeared to stick with his scheme throughout. That is, Gregory doesn’t appear to adapt coverage to make LB’s move to cover under passes. He’s been a good coach from a scheming era. If Gregory cannot keep up with changes, the Bears might benefit from a coordinator who can adapt coverages as games go forward. Alternatively, if Cal is going to move forward just sticking with soft zones throughout a game, LB’s need to be coached much more completely with how to turn and REACT (not think) to TE’s and move to pass locations once they read pass. Defense cannot rely only on athleticism to prevent points, they need proper coaching support, and that means support that does not become complacent with a scheme. Hard to watch, currently.
Didn’t Gregory switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 last season to adapt?
I’m not going to say Gregory has done a great job, but let’s be fair to him, other offenses are exploiting our weakness on D (coverage linebackers) fairly well.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s a strategic adaptation, and it’s good. What’s lacking are in-game adaptations. If I can say, watching live, that the strategic scheme isn’t working over a period of a quarter and it shows no hope of working for obvious reasons that linebackers aren’t reacting quickly enough to move to reception points, then some attempt to adjust seems beneficial. Well, except in Gregory’s apparent opinion, though the scoreboard might differ with his opinion. I feel badly for the Bears right now. On the positive tip, we’ll see what changes might be instituted during the bye week (hopefully).There are games left to restore the Bears’ season if adjustments are made.
We might see those adjustments over the bye. We’ll see if other Pac-10 offenses can exploit them.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Before the season in interviews, Tedford EXCLAIMED that this was the MOST complete team he has had at Cal…..so if you want to go into hype, please also point the finger at JT..cause either he was a liar or a poor evaluator of his talent…. and I’m NOT a "fire Tedford " guy…but he was a co-conspirator….whew…ok, I think my blood alcohol level is finally below .08
That is true, but hey, if they win their next seven, maybe he wasn’t too far off the mark!
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Sobering thought:
Cal scored less points and allowed more points (playing AT HOME) than doormat Washington St. did playing the Trojans in LA.
Meaningless stat. Wazzu scored a garbage touchdown with 14 seconds left in the game against the second unit Trojans.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Reality: We are 0-2 in the Pac-10. We’ve been outscored 72-6 in the past two weeks. The ABC announcers described our team as “fragile” during the broadcast. We’ve had quarterback problems since 2005.
At this point, you either think Tedford can someday win the Pac-10, or you think that will never ever happen. From the comments I’ve read here and on the forums, there really isn’t any room for discussion between those two camps, which means any conversation is likely going to turn into an argument. I know where I stand, which is why I won’t be commenting here until basketball season.
These things
We’ve been outscored 72-6 in the past two weeks. The ABC announcers described our team as "fragile" during the broadcast.
Are hype. We’ve played a lot better than 72-6, especially last week.
As for ‘fragile’…maybe our quarterback, but I doubt that holds for the rest of our team.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Um, by definition the fact that we have been outscored 72-6 in the last two weeks is not hype; it is very much reality.
dboneisloose
I’m saying everyone will look at 72-6 and immediately infer things like “Team quit, no heart, no coaching backbone”, when in fact the issues are more subtle than that.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Headcases
I don’t want to start an all new fan post by itself, so I pose my question here. What has happened to our QB’s over the years? Riley is (possibly) a headcase, Longshore was a headcase, Ayoob was an epic headcase. Why do our quarterbacks continue to epic fail with the quarterback guru? Perhaps, the quarterback coaching duties are the one specific thing Tedford should hang onto instead of delegating it to someone else? Boller progressed, Robertson played consistently when called upon, and Rodgers, well, I don’t need to talk about Rodgers because I’ll start to cry because I really miss him. I’m just curious and would love to hear thoughts from people with infinitely more football knowledge than me.
I really don’t know. I wish I did. It’s becoming a disturbing trend, and you could argue (quite persuasively) it’s been the only thing standing between us and Pac-10 titles.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
The disturbing thing is that each of these quarterbacks seems to have only gotten worse the longer they have played.
Remember how great Longshore looked early in 2006? Sure, he bombed against Tennessee (along with the rest of the team), but after that he was good-to-great in every game until Arizona. Then he bounced back nicely in the bowl game and we looked ready to roll for 2007. But though he started the next season decently (though there were some distressing brainfarts), Nate just plain fell apart after his ankle injury. Couldn’t go two games without a backbreaking interception after that.
Riley looked like the next great Cal QB in his first three games in which he got major minutes (Oregon State, Air Force, Michigan State). He was accurate and seemed poised in pressure situations. Now he is a mess who overthrows receivers by 10 yards and seems to fall to pieces when he gets behind.
Even Ayoob looked serviceable through the first 6 games of 2005, but then came the Oregon State debacle and that was it — he was a turnover machine from there on out.
It’s a very disturbing development for a Tedford-coached team. After all, the man made his reputation on developing quarterbacks. Now he can’t seem to buy a decent one.
Actually I saw these issues in Riley early on, even in Oregon St./Michigan St. He always started slow out of the box, overthrowing receivers and missing them by miles before settling down when Cal either had a comfortable lead or was trailing by eons.
That being said, he never played as bad as he did last week.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Longshore got worse the longer he played...
Because he got injured. That’s your answer.
As for Riley… that’s a different issue.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
To some extent, I can buy that (certainly for 2007). Though you’d expect he would have been healthier in 2008, and he wasn’t any better then either. I suppose it’s possible the injury just screwed him up irretrievably.
There’s a decent case to be made that Longshore’s injury issues were the major driving factor behind all of Cal’s QB problems from 2005-2009. Pressing Ayoob into service before he was ready. Causing a major drop-off in the second half of 2007. Creating a QB controversy in 2008 that may have sapped Riley’s confidence and hindered his development. You can’t blame Nate for getting hurt, but his injuries appear to have been the catalyst for a lot of problems (still ongoing).
Ayoob...
was not a head case. Tedford tried to turn him into a drop-back passer, while in JC Ayoob was a pure shotgun QB.
It worked for a little bit, but then fell flat and we know the end result (thank god for Steve Levy).
For Riley, I don’t think he is a head case. We have been trying to establish the offense with the pass on first down and it does not work. We need to establish the offense with the run, leaving our receivers open and the o-line not as pressured. Why we threw for forty times against USC is Ludwig’s fault, and why he called those plays is anyone’s guess.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
I am going to assume that he called that many pass plays due to the presence of so many defenders keying in on the run.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
What Twist said. There were eight-nine guys in the box and not enough blockers for Best to go into the holes untouched. The passing game has to bail you out if you want the run to work, and Ludwig seemed to anticipate the Trojans defense would be keying in on that.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions
How does the fact that a 20 year old has difficulty throwing an oblong ball into a 5 foot moving spatial radius and a millisecond timeframe while a 300 lb monster is actively trying to physically destroy him, in front of 72,000 yelling people, make him a “headcase?”
If you think that I seriously think you’re the headcase.
He’s a fucking quarterback, he had a bad game, he needs to practice and get better, GET OVER IT MY GOD MAN.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
Spazz, suessbear was bringing up reasonable points about tough QB play, even if the headcase thing might have been a little extreme. Please refrain from attacking other commenters.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Calling someone insane because they can’t complete a pass is not exactly reasonable in my book.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
You probably took him a little too literally. He didn’t call him insane. He said that Riley had mental issues that influenced his performance, whether with bad decisions or bad mechanics. These are reasonable points to make.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
No, a reasonable point would be “Riley makes bad decisions or Riley has bad mechanics.” Not “Riley has mental issues and is a headcase therefore he makes bad decisions and has bad mechanics.”
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
Hmm, you better talk with BWNQ too, since he also points to mental issues.
I have no idea what goes through Riley’s head, but twice now, we’ve seen Riley’s quality of play drop off dramatically from where it has been at other times. In both instances, the drop off occurred after he struggled with wide open passes and pressure early in the game.
This tells me something: he has trouble shaking off mistakes. I am not criticizing him. It’s hard enough to be a Pac 10 starting QB, but to have to suck up mistakes and frustration in the middle of a game against a defense like SC is just plain hard. Most people couldn’t do it.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
And, no it’s not an unreasonable point. A LOT of quarterbacks have struggled with decison-making in the past, and not all of it has to do with physical mechanics. The mental framework is equally, if not more important.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I included “makes bad decisions.” Does that necessarily make a QB a “headcase”? I think not…
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
It’s a reasonable response. Perhaps headcase was a bit extreme. I wasn’t trying to focus on Riley specifically, but I’m looking at things like on that 4th and 2 pass where Jahvid is sitting there a few yards away with no one defending him, and Riley still overthrew it. I’m not an athlete, and I probably would have effed it up myself, but in the scope of all his throws that day, that seems pretty bad and a mental error rather than one of mechanics or lack of athletic ability. I never said he was insane, maybe “the yips” is a better word. Either way, chill out, dude. I’m not calling for Tedford’s head and I’m not saying Riley sucks and needs to be benched, I’m just asking a question.
Sorry man, I’ve just gotten really annoyed with all this Psych 135 analysis of Schwartz’s run blocking and Tedford’s sideline demeanor.
I played soccer for 18 years, and I missed LOTS of goals. I scored lots of goals, too, but when I missed them, it wasn’t because I had mental problems (that’s another story entirely), it was because…well, I just wasn’t that great at soccer!
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
So, do you think Riley’s inabilty to complete routine throws we have all seen him make before because he’s not a good QB or is it a mechanical problem? I agree with you, though. If I hear one more person discuss a lack of “Fire in the belly” one more time, I feel I’m going to punch my computer screen.
Seriously. For that four yard pass a little more fire in the belly BECAUSE SWING PASSES SHOULD BE THROWN EIGHT MILLION MILES PER HOUR GAAARRRGH
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
Riley will do well in the space leagues.
by Yes We Cannon on Oct 5, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Because no one can hear the crowd scream…
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
Kevin Riley would’ve killed the alien???
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 5, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Hype: Cal can still go 10-2
Reality: Trying to be somewhat objective, I think Cal will probably lose at least 2 more games and maybe as many as 5.
The only real gimme is WSU. I think we probably beat UA at home.
I have a hard time seeing us beating UCLA or ASU at this point. Both are good defenses that can shut down our run game and both are on the road. Bad combo. Yes, Gerhart had success against UCLA (on 30 carries), but Luck was extremely efficient. ASU held Quizz under 100 yds.
The rest could go either way.
OSU is always tricky, Furd is much improved, UW somewhat, and both are on the road.
GOLD OUT MOZAMBIQUE!
by OskiMonsta on Oct 5, 2009 2:35 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Cal can go 10-2
Will they???? Meh… I don’t know…
I’d like to believe that… But I refuse to look past the next game… It scares me too much at this point…
With preparation I believe a W in Pasadena is a realistic possibility, I can not and will not look any further in fear of my sanity
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
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.
