113th Big Game Recap: Golden Bears Lose To Better Team
(To see the basketball recap, scroll down or click here.)
The Stanford Cardinal dominated the California Golden Bears, taking back the Axe with a final score of 48-14. By the time Andrew Luck flattened Sean Cattouse on a scramble that'll be replayed for ages down at the Farm, I pretty much resigned myself to the fact there would be no upset. The crowd, so energetic a week ago, was flat for most of the game. The secret of Big Game week is Cal crowds are full but rarely boisterous. It's filled with old types from alumni reunions dating back to the 30s and 40s who never make noise unless Cal is ahead or scores. Since the Bears didn't score, we could've played this game at the War Memorial Opera House and there'd have been more noise generated from the alumni. The only thing I heard for most of the game was "All Right Now", which is thankfully so forgettable that I've already forgotten what it sounds like. Props to the students and the Cal Band for staying until the end of a tough one. Wish I could say the same for the so-called Cal fans on the other side of the stadium.
There was one thing I didn't forget. I wasn't kidding when I said this 2010 Cardinal unit reminds us of our beloved 2004 Cal squad: They play smashmouth football in the trenches, dominating guys with a bruising power attack. They make enough plays with a skilled and significantly talented unit on defense to give the ball back to their bruising offense. They don't back down from their opponents and they rampage them until the job is done. They have a Heisman-contending quarterback who is almost a given to be playing on Sundays for the next ten to fifteen years. They have a savvy head coach who took advantage of the national recruiting base the Cardinal have to offer, and now after four years they're reaping the benefits.
Sometimes the perfect storm comes together, and today it didn't drop rain on our heads, but just the worst Big Game of the Jeff Tedford era. Our players didn't stop playing; they just got outplayed. This is the best Cardinal team of the past fifty to sixty years, and after the way they lost last season they were revved up to give it their best effort today. Stanford has a team that is Rose Bowl-deserving, whether they end up going or not (and as a Cal fan, it's my humble and partisan opinion that I could care less whether they go or not). They will likely sink back into the abyss when Luck and Jim Harbaugh both make their respective leaps, but for now let them enjoy the Axe on its brief one year lease to Palo Alto.
I'm not stressing too much about this game, because this one was lost early and lost quickly. The Cardinal were clearly a bad matchup for us, If it wasn't the Big Game we'd be treating this one like USC 2005--we lost, but at least we knew we lost to someone better than us. Just like we've crushed on the Furd when they had crappy teams and we had great ones, we need to recognize that the tables can be turned and a Big Game like this was possible. I know it sucks because it's THEM, but divorce yourself from the name of the team and you'll see Cal would've had a lot of trouble winning this one. They're a better version of the Oregon State and USC teams that DISMANTLED US, and it would've been tough pulling this one out unless the elements aided us. Seriously, 90% chance of rain? More like 90% chance of thirty seconds of God tinkling on us.
As for Cal? They're a team that's going to need a lot of fixing this offseason, especially if they plan on reaching those heights anytime soon. If there's any silver lining, losing a Big Game by this margin will ensure the necessary changes will be made to steer this program back on the right track. Jeff Tedford has skirted the past two years with decent support from the fanbase, but it's probably eroding at an alarming rate after losing a Big Game like this. While I feel the criticism is probably extreme for this one game (they're the 6th ranked team in the country for a reason, and there's a reason we're 5-6), the blowouts are adding up. You can't keep on losing by four touchdowns or more and expect not to be called out for it. Hopefully these are the lowest of the lows, because if they get any lower the changes will sadly probably start at the top.
It's starting to sound like a broken record, but on offense it begins at the quarterback position. Brock Mansion was a total mess. He fumbled two snaps from his center Chris Guarnero--whether that was on Guarnero or Mansion is up for debate, but that can't happen twice on the first three plays (UPDATE: Tedford told Starkey after the game that Mansion delayed his count to clear the player in-motion, but the center didn't wait; fault seems to exist on both sides here). Stanford took advantage by recovering the second fumble and making it 3-0.
He did recover to drive the Bears into the red zone with throws to Jarrett Sparks and Keenan Allen. And then after missing Shane Vereen on a route to the outside, he tried to make a play to the end zone and threw it right into the hands of Richard Sherman; the Cardinal then drove for their first touchdown of the game. Maybe he thought Giorgio Tavecchio couldn't handle a 42 yard field goal into the wind, but you've got to at least make him try. Mansion threw another interception at midfield to Michael Thomas when he threw across his body (a huge no-no) that set up another Cardinal touchdown to make it 31-0. He doesn't commit those three turnovers...and it's still probably 31-0 because of our defensive issues, but whatever.
That wasn't all Mansion had trouble with. He fumbled the ball again on a scramble that Alex Lagemann recovered. He had several opportunities to scramble for first down yardage, but proceeded to throw the ball on the run (is Andy Ludwig coaching this tendency out of him?). He didn't recognize a blitz that killed one drive. He didn't realize that a receiver was lined up in the backfield for an illegal formation penalty on two occasions. And some of his throws he should've just aimed at the Tree, because he sure wasn't hitting any receivers with those plays.
I felt a little sad for him, because either the coaches don't trust him or he doesn't quite trust himself...or a little of both. Even guys like Kevin Riley or Nate Longshore had pretty good self-confidence for most of their Cal careers here and made pretty good decisions out of the box. Mansion seems overwhelmed by the offense and can rarely get it going for more than a play or two. Mansion will hopefully get at least a few more games to improve upon his first three performances as Golden Bear starting quarterback, but it's not looking promising. He has all the looks of a quarterback who isn't well-prepared, or just can't handle the gameplan.
Quibble with Andy Ludwig's playcalling all you wish, but his biggest issue seems to be his inability to properly prepare his quarterbacks for gametime. Mansion doesn't look prepared to throw anything but checkdowns or safety valves, and he never makes good decisions with the ball. Tedford should seriously reconsider taking back control of the quarterback coaching duties that he gave up in 2007 and let Ludwig handle the playcalling exclusively; for all his other foibles he is very good at getting the most out of his quarterbacks. At least when Tedford was in control, we had the semblance of a passing attack year-in, year-out. He certainly can't return Ludwig back to his current position without placing himself at serious risk.
(It figures that the best pass of the game was thrown by Allen on a Wildcat direct snap where he evaded three Cardinal defenders and threw a touchdown to Marvin Jones. The dude's got natural awareness of the field. I'd suggest starting him at quarterback if I wasn't afraid Ludwig would ruin everything about his game.)
Shane Vereen, last year's Big Game hero, managed only 63 rushing yards on 15 carries and 24 receiving yards on three catches. He was not a factor in this one and the Cal run game never got going. I would've liked to see Cal throw out the usual playbook and try running the ball right back at the Cardinal, but instead we stubbornly stayed true to the same old gameplan of run-pass balance even though Vereen and Keenan Allen proved they could pick up yards with their feet.
Steve Marshall's offensive line didn't give up any huge sacks or big defensive plays, but Chris Guarnero was off his game--he had a high snap or two, was involved in those two botched exchanges with Mansion, and false started to force Cal back into 2nd and 20 early on. Cal benched Guarnero for a series...but oddly also benched Brian Schwenke and Matt Summers-Gavin with Richard Fisher and Justin Cheadle, who promptly managed to spring Vereen for two net yards on three carries. There was a lot of mixing and matching for most of the game on the O-line, and other than giving up a blind side sack to Mansion (which Mansion should've read), they didn't play too badly. Which is a kind way of saying they played bad. Ludwig, Marshall, and wide receivers coach Kevin Daft all have to be seriously evaluated for the offensive woes. It's too bad Tedford is a classy guy because I'd just line them up on Tightwad Hill, shoot them out of the cannon, and onto the next freighter bound for somewhere far away, like Fiji.
As for the defense? I emphasized over and over that Cal would not match up with the Furd as well as they did with the Ducks. Those big bruisers weren't going to let the three defensive linemen, even those of Cameron Jordan and Derrick Hill's caliber disrupt them. When the Cardinal proved they could run the ball and get into manageable second and third down situations, they went to the play-action game. Jordan and Hill were barely mentioned in the game as the Cardinal linemen focused their efforts on shutting them down.
Cal didn't have Marc Anthony or Darian Hagan available after the Oregon game (you know, thanks to those illegal picks that Ducks fans keep on claiming aren't dirty plays), which put us at a disadvantage from the start. This forced Bryant Nnabuife and Steve Williams into corner coverage with Josh Hill moving into the nickel back slot while Sean Cattouse slid over to starting safety. The result was a disaster. Luck picked on Nnabuife and Hill relentlessly (at least once or twice on scores) and did a little bit of work on Cattouse; the Cal secondary got penalized for pass interference twice, setting up two scores and a big early lead for the Cardinal. Safeties were trying to play man coverage on Cardinal wide receivers, and Doug Baldwin, Ryan Whalen and Zach Ertz all got their chances to feast on the mismatches thanks to perfect throws by Luck.
Sorry, but despite what you saw last week, Cal's defense isn't a deep squad--they maximized their abilities against Oregon and quickly caved in once the Cardinal punched them in the mouth early. The dropoff from the starters to the backups at this stage of the season is precipitous. It showed as Luck found the mismatches and exploited them expertly. He attacked the short flats with screens when Cal played to stop the run. He stepped up into the pocket when pressure came and delivered his throws. When the coverage was blanketed, Luck took off for that epic gain. Whenever the defense made a play to slow down the Cardinal attack, Luck had an answer.
Going to the 3-4 might be a long-term viable recruiting strategy, but in the short-term the results have been deadly. Cal has been weak at linebacker the past two years and strong down the defensive line, and I feel this defense could have been a lot more consistent this season with a four defensive linemen look. D.J. Holt and Mike Mohamed have to keep on playing snap after snap after snap with no legitimate backups behind them. Should it be a surprise they get fatigued when the offense they're playing starts rolling? There's a good chance our recruiting classes over the next few seasons will ensure we're never in this type of situation again, but we've had to ride through some rough patches in waiting for a justification of this defensive alignment. We might not get our answer for a few more years...
On special teams, Bryan Anger's punts were beautiful, which could mean his Heisman campaign is back on track. Allen was a decent kick returner, although I'll probably be happier when the young burners like Tevin Carter and Kaelin Clay can claim those spots rather than risking a clear future #1 receiving option like Allen.
Football might be about passion and energy and enthusiasm and all that other stuff, but sometimes it comes down to matchups and personnel; in both cases the Cardinal have the advantage thanks to their national recruiting base, a skillful coach in Harbaugh, and one of the best college quarterbacks of the decade in Luck. And in the 113th Big Game, it was a colossal mismatch of a physical offensive front meeting a not-so-deep defensive unit, and a disciplined defense meeting a lost quarterback. It should be clear that we matched up poorly against this team though (for those wondering why the Furd is a worse matchup than Oregon, the Ducks are small and athletic, our defense is small and athlete, but the Furd's offense is bruising), and it was very unlikely we were coming out of this one with the W. So let's just recognize that the other team was better (as it turns out, by a wide margin) and move onto the next opponent. And get ready to take the Axe back next year.
GO BEARS!
245 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I woke up optimistic...
Luck to NFL
Harbaugh to Michigan
Stanfurd to Alamo Bowl
All that talent, all those wins…no BCS. Nyah hah!
We still suck though…
Michigan is not likely to fire RichRod, even if they lose out the season and lose their bowl game.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
With another loss by the 9ers today, we are one step closer to the end of the Sing
era and the beginning of the Harbaugh era. The Niners might even get the Harbaugh/Luck package if they keep losing.
... or pessimistic
Harbaugh to the Niners
twitchy Cal boosters force out Tedford, who promptly takes the vacated Stanford job
Luck stays one more year to get tutored by Tedford and win the Heisman and National Championship.
Not that would be painful
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Hahahahaha, not gonna happen.
Well, maybe the Harbaugh-to-the-Niners part might :)
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
The crowd?
Getting really tired of the lazy shots at the crowd, particularly the alumni. From where I was sitting, we started out as loud as the Oregon game, even after the fumbled snap led to the field goal. But once your team is down 17-0 and shooting itself in the foot repeatedly against a team that has completely outclassed you, it’s awfully hard to keep up the noise and enthusiasm.
Cal laid an egg. Stanford is really good. I doubt there’s any place to rank the noise of the crowd and the enthusiasm of the old alumni in the second half in that hierarchy, but if you must, perhaps a bit lower down than the FIRST PARAGRAPH. Really? The story of the game is that the alumni weren’t loud and left early? Talk about a complete lack of perspective.
I have news for you: Those “so-called” Cal fans on the other side of the stadium were going before you started and will be going long after you’re gone. They were going when the team didn’t go to a bowl game every year. If you want to pour your frustration at Cal getting blown out by Stanford into something, I suggest you find a target that’s a little more appropriate than the people who come every year and pay through the nose to fund the football program and upgrade all of its facilities.
by jsnell on Nov 21, 2010 7:59 AM PST reply actions 13 recs
I have to agree vis-a-vis perspective. At times, this site falls prey to the myopia inherent in a main group of posters who began to follow the team over the past 8-10 years. Some of us others have suffered through Cal football’s ups and downs going on 30 years or more (my first Big Game was 1980). We truly know what futility is…for myself, it’s why the 1986 Big Game holds a more special place in my heart than the 1982 game (which I was at), even though I had to listen to the ‘86 game on the radio down here in Long Beach. That team had even less of a chance of winning their game than this year’s squad did. It’s why I still wince in pain remembering how quiet Memorial got when the kick was blocked to end the 1988 game.
(To digress a bit, it’s why, in the long view, I can appreciate Tedford’s contribution’s to Cal history, even with the all too human struggles of the past 4 seasons. He’s still 7-2 in Big Game (while Bruce Snyder never won one) match-ups…)
But yeah, the alumni aren’t the noisiest people in the world at times. And they weren’t 30 years ago. I think a post from yesterday summed it up when it noted that perhaps the team was too amped up coming in, and failed to play and stay focused. (Stanfurd, to their credit, did, even after they had a player ejected.)
And, in the interest of full disclosure, I wound up turning off the TV. I didn’t watch it to the end, because I couldn’t bear to see the motherfuckers walk away with our Axe. So blame me as an Old Blue for not believing when the point spread reached -30. But I’m not going to blame the other Old Blues for losing yesterday’s game. Uh Uh. Brock Mansion, on the other hand…
Otherwise, I liked what you had to say, but in retrospect, the Old Blues are too easy of a target. I should have noticed it when I first read your post, but I hadn’t added the necessary tequila to my coffee.
Let’s not eat our own, OK?
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
I agree about the amped up. All the penalties in the first quarter (which really killed Cal’s chances in this game) I think were due to a lack of focus. Many of them were on minor things (like illegal shifts) that could have been easily remedied. I am reminded of the offsides that gave Stanford new life on 3rd and 5. Then, Luck has that insane run and Stanford just started rolling.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I was one of those making no noise
how quiet Memorial got when the kick was blocked to end the 1988 game
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
We kept looking at each other asking “what the hell happens now?” and then the Stanfurd side erupted in noise. We had our answer. :o(
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
1990 was definitely worse. But 1988 was really, really bad. The worst part of 1988 is that even though it was a tie, THEY got the Axe. That really sucked.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the Farm, after they've seen Berkeley?
yeah
I was there too. The tie sucked more, I think we had more hope at the time. Two years later that had evaporated. Also, the tie really sucked (although I prefer that to the stupid overtimes they have now).
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
The students weren't exactly great either
To add to Jason’s point, by the 2nd half, plenty of students were leaving (remember, we can see the other side better than you can see your own) and they weren’t nearly as loud as they had been early in the game. It’s just a normal reality, on both sides of them stadium.
The alumni were as loud as ever until the game got out of control… that’s all one can ask.
Students, alumni, and other fans were quite enthusiastic considering the insulting performance by the coaches and players.
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
I was actually impressed at so many people were left in the stands after a 31-0 halftime score.
Cal fans are legit. They’re too smart for the fake rah-rah stuff when their team doesn’t show up. However, they do stay in less-than-desirable outdoor elements when the on-field product is poor.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
However, as usual, they arrived late. It would be nice if, at least for Big Game, the student section could be full at kick-off.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the Farm, after they've seen Berkeley?
To be fair, the line to get in was absolutely insane. It was probably not the fault of the students. Did you see how far it stretched down the stadium and towards I-House? Having all those students enter from solely one entrance is frustrating.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
No, I did not realize there was a terrible line. I enter on the northwest side of the stadium, so I don’t see the student line. So perhaps I have been too harsh on the students for always getting there late. If this is what is going on, then Cal clearly needs to get a better system.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the Farm, after they've seen Berkeley?
I’m with you. Cal shouldn’t have the students enter from one entrance. I believe it is because they have to have special scanners to scan their student ID cards. I believe that the Cal student tickets are now part of their ID card as comapred to the paper tickets that us oldies get.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
The line situation for students is actually really bad. I arrived at the stadium at about 12:20 and did not get in until half way through the second quarter. All students are funneled through three lines, where they are frisked, some randomly breathalysed, and get their IDs scanned. Now, at the same entrance are three more lines for non-students, which by the start of the game are almost empty with the exception of the few stragglers. So by the time we got to the entrance, we could see that only half of the lines were being used and that literally 10 “security guards” were standing around literally doing nothing and could have easily helped speed things along while the line for students was just as long as ever. I asked several people who looked in charge about this and the ones who didn’t threaten to have me arrested for provocation (talk about power trips with those guys up there!) told me they were bound by the powers above. Granted, I should have gotten to the game earlier, but ish happens and I shouldn’t have to miss more than a quarter of the game because of ineptitude. There is obviously a disconnect here between the administration and the needs of the team – I wonder what Tedford would think if he knew the students were not being allowed in?
by LeConteisMyHome on Nov 22, 2010 7:57 AM PST up reply actions
I wonder what Tedford would think if he knew the students were not being allowed in?
“The security guards did good. They did good. The executed their gameplan well. Our guys just weren’t prepared. We’re preparing for next week. We just have to execute and gameplan to be prepared for the executing and gameplanning that we’re doing to exegameplancute gamecution planexeprep offense.”
oregon fan: ALL teams have faked injuries against us!!!
cal fan: and you’ve blown all of those teams out?
oregon fan: yes.
cal fan: but you didn’t blow cal out?
oregon fan: no.
cal fan: but the faked injuries were our secret ingredient?
oregon fan: yes.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 22, 2010 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Faithful students
I’ll also point out that at the ASU game, which followed our shellacking at USC and included the threat of rain, the student section was so empty they didn’t even try to do the card stunt. One bad loss on the road and the threat of rain, and you don’t show up? Pathetic.
See, I can play that game too. It’s not fair to either side to play it.
by jsnell on Nov 21, 2010 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
They usually don’t do card stunts every game.
oregon fan: ALL teams have faked injuries against us!!!
cal fan: and you’ve blown all of those teams out?
oregon fan: yes.
cal fan: but you didn’t blow cal out?
oregon fan: no.
cal fan: but the faked injuries were our secret ingredient?
oregon fan: yes.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 22, 2010 12:50 AM PST up reply actions
but you aren’t an enrolled student anymore.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I like Hydro’s thoughts on the matter: “well if the students aren’t going to fill it up, then I see no problem with us taking their places.”
oregon fan: ALL teams have faked injuries against us!!!
cal fan: and you’ve blown all of those teams out?
oregon fan: yes.
cal fan: but you didn’t blow cal out?
oregon fan: no.
cal fan: but the faked injuries were our secret ingredient?
oregon fan: yes.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 22, 2010 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
/reported to StaffPro
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
I was in said student section and even after the miserable halftime I cheered. Only when it was like 5 mins left in the 4th did I move all the way up to the rim of the stadium (but still in the student section) so that I could leave as soon as it hit 0:00 without seeing Furd rush the field.
In other words, Go Bears!
Avi, I’ve been to 30 straight Big Games, and this was one of the most quiet student sections I’ve ever witnessed for a big game. Before the game, I was even mentioning this to the person I was sitting next to. I don’t necessarily blame the students; its probably mostly the mic-mens fault and the fact that our students don’t really have the pure hatred for Stanford anymore because (until yesterday) we’ve been beating their asses. But during our 0-8 streak in the 90’s/early 00’s, the student sections were way more loud and amped, because they wanted just one single big game victory before they graduated.
The point being, to blame the alumni is a joke.
I was in the SS and it was loud. Not as much as vs Oregon but it was loud. The old alumni are a joke.
During the Oregon game on 4th and 3rd downs when the SS was yelling we were motioning the alumni to stand up and I could see a lot of folks standing up. This time? No one. Not even when it was 0-0.
And yes the mic men SUCK. The student section took it upon ourselves to start the “Hey Alumni GO!” chant because the mic-men ignored it. Of course you alumni didn’t respond.
In other words, Go Bears!
rec'd, mos def!
Thank you jsnell! Love this sentence:
Those "so-called" Cal fans on the other side of the stadium were going before you started and will be going long after you’re gone.
I’m so tired of the young fans turning this into an “us vs. them” mentality, always blaming older alumns for either leaving early or not making enough noise.
Most old blues have been coming to Cal games for 20+, 30+, even 50+ years, and have stayed through thick and thin. Some old blues make a ton of noise (usually those, say, 50 years old and younger) and some just can’t (let’s see how your voice and body feel when you’re 65, 75, or 85 years old). Many old blues stay for the entire game, but again, some can’t. Some of those really hot days or really cold days take a physical toll on the older blues, and they need to leave early, it’s not that they care any less or have given up.
Also, the Big Game in particular draws a lot of non-football fans. These might be people who are Cal alumns but never really cared for football, but come to the Big Game just for tradition’s sake and/or to catch up with old friends.
Sitting on the 10 yard line of the alumni side of the stadium for the last 4 years, I can tell you that the vast majority of people in our section make a ton of noise and stay for the entire game. It’s completely disingenuous to portray old blues otherwise. And as jsnell points out, how do you think the football program pays for itself, the facilities, and part of Tedford’s salary? Old blues are a vital part of the Cal football program.
by SonofCalifornia on Nov 21, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I can’t imagine cheering for an entire game at 40+. My voice is basically gone from the football and basketball games yesterday.
Once I crossed into my 30s from my 20s, I could tell that decade from 20 to 30 really made a difference. Now that I’m ticking closer to my 40s, I can start to tell I’m not the same guy I was at 30. It’s just a physical fact of life that I hope young blues can be more cognizant of.
Man, I couldn’t produce nearly as much noise yesterday since, apparently, my voice box was still recovering from the Oregon game. I love the wisdom and perspective that comes with aging, but damn I hate the physical changes that come with it.
by SonofCalifornia on Nov 21, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions
This
I normally enjoy Avi’s recaps, and find that his insight often provides more clarity to a game. But like you, I’m kind of getting tired of this alumni bashing, and quite frankly, it’s lazy and an easy target.
Perhaps the reason the alumni side was more quiet was because they were able to clearly see what was happening. The first series and the fumble were excusable to nerves and high energy. The rest of the game was not. And to imply that somehow the alumni were not supporting the team, or in any way had some effect in the way the team played is not only ludicrous, but frankly inexcusable and the sign of a spoiled child whiging that it’s someone else’s fault that things went bad.
Perhaps Avi didn’t mean any of that at all, but as an alum who made the roadie to watch this game, his analysis was basically an insult.
I will support the bears no matter what. I will never boo our kids. And I will always cheer for them to do well. But I simply refuse to listen to someone who says I’m less a fan or supporter because in his eyes I didn’t cheer hard enough.
I'm faking an injury right now! Or ... am I?
by SoCal Oski on Nov 21, 2010 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Amen on the no booing. Some douche was yelling “We want Sweeney!” after Brock’s 1st pick. I calmly told around and told him to shut the eff up and support his team. It worked.
Avinash?
Anyone notice that Avinash has posted 25 times in this thread, but hasn’t said a word up here in the part that criticizes what he wrote?
I’m not sure what it means. Does he stand by it? Does he think we’re a bunch of lazy old men who ruined the game, and don’t deserve a reply? Did an enemy agent insert that paragraph against his will, and is now holding him hostage? Did he lose a bet? Did a gray-haired Old Blue say something mean to him?
Or maybe he just doesn’t care. Whatever.
One last thing I’d like to point out about the student section (and I know I’m going to get a lot of disagreement on this). But just to contrast this generation’s student section with past years; student sections from the past would never have allowed stanford students to rush the field. I forget what year it was, sometime in the 90’s i believe, but stanford won a pretty competitive big game, and the stanford students, band, tree, began rushing the field. Seeing this, all at once, the entire Cal student section emptied and basically rushed the on-coming stanford students. obviously, seeing the entire cal student section coming at them, the stanford students freaked and retreated back to their seats. during the melee, several Cal students tackled the tree and tore it apart. The tree was dismembered and you could see pieces of it flying amongst the crowd. While I don’t necessarily condone such actions, it certainly brought a smile to my face after having to witness a big game loss.
My point being, the student section ain’t quite what it used to be. whether that’s because Cal students are just softer now, too nerdy now, or just don’t quite hate stanford enough, there is definitely a huge difference. That’s why I always find it funny when someone (usually of the younger generation) rips on the alumni section.
how so? back in the day, there were police with full on riot gear. what happened to the poor little stanford students last saturday when they were “roughed up” by the police is NOTHING compared to what used to happen.
There was one year (again I forget what year, i think sometime in the 90’s), where the Cal students were trying to rush the field at Stanford. Now this was the old stanford stadium, when they still had the fence around the perimeter of the stadium. So the riot police blocked the fences and wouldn’t allow any of the Cal students to get thru. So inevitably, all the Cal students were literally getting crushed because the fences were blocked, and everyone was pushing forward nonetheless. This is just one example of some of the hairy crap that I’ve experienced in my big game history. So its going to be difficult to convince me that the “consequences are much more severe these days.”
My fondest memory is when we lost a Big game, stormed their field anyways, took down their goal posts and then dumped it over the side of the stadium. You telling me that the current student body would have the balls to do that?
Yup. Our students just care less about football.
oregon fan: ALL teams have faked injuries against us!!!
cal fan: and you’ve blown all of those teams out?
oregon fan: yes.
cal fan: but you didn’t blow cal out?
oregon fan: no.
cal fan: but the faked injuries were our secret ingredient?
oregon fan: yes.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 22, 2010 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
Big Game?
What Big Game? I only see Washington.
Lawrence Ross
by alpha1906 on Nov 21, 2010 8:03 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
that's the spirit
Let’s see if Cal can stop those huskies. Appears winnable.
by crackpipe on Nov 21, 2010 8:20 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Did you see what U-Dub wore yesterday?
We should wear black jerseys…because it’s in our color scheme, right?
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
didn't see u-dub yesterday
But Bears should crave redemption all week; black scheme OK w/me.
by crackpipe on Nov 21, 2010 8:45 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Maybe black unis for mourning the passing of the axe?
by SonofCalifornia on Nov 21, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
It's really too bad
that the pre-game scrum and the threat of thunderstorms forced cancellation of the contest. I hear they rescheduled it for November 2011.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 8:22 AM PST up reply actions
Avi, great write up, but I have to disagree regarding the paragraph on the crowd. I thought that the entire crowd was amped up. Yes, it sucked that people left, but I didn’t necessarily see a large difference between the people who left in any section of the stadium. Even in my section, which is generally filled with young alums, many of them left, too.
Frustrating. Not sure if it is specific to Cal, I am sure other fanbases would have had similar reactions.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
one crowd note
Noting your disappointment with crowd.Recurring theme is horrible managed mic-man. Mic-men are obviously behind the team. There is no lack of spirit but they don’t know when to lead the crowd or many cheers. That position is the leader of 12th man timing and intensity. Some spontaneous crowd effects are expected, but mic man needs to fire up the crowd, win or lose, consistently throughout the game, and at the right times. Needs solid training, so they can still maintain current jester attitude, but can lead the crowd. Mic-man seems like a detail, but it’s a significant position and Cal doesn’t have it working in their favor.
by crackpipe on Nov 21, 2010 8:15 AM PST via mobile reply actions
We need Damon Moore to come back and work with those kids. He was a legend, still bleeds Blue and Gold, and someone ought to ask him…
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
here's to Moore
Appears no lack of spirit in mic-men; moore would have some dedicated students. Apparently, they need to at least practice their cheer leading with old game tapes during the week. Also provide post-game feedback and suggestions after each live game. Let’s get going!
by crackpipe on Nov 21, 2010 8:32 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
no doubt
In what appear to be losses, sometimes a loud, timely crowd can assist a team to the point where the tide is turned. Even without that fact, mic man needs to be solid through entire games, win or lose. The roar communicates our support to players during a game and we want to do it to the greatest benefit.
by crackpipe on Nov 21, 2010 9:29 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
They’re all godawful.
oregon fan: ALL teams have faked injuries against us!!!
cal fan: and you’ve blown all of those teams out?
oregon fan: yes.
cal fan: but you didn’t blow cal out?
oregon fan: no.
cal fan: but the faked injuries were our secret ingredient?
oregon fan: yes.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 21, 2010 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Especially since we already have a Cal-specific, “DE-fense, Bears, DE-fense!” chant
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
Is it baseball season yet?
I miss the good old days when we could all move on with our lives after a less-than-stellar Cal squad got throttled in the Big Game to close out the year.
I don’t really want to watch this team play another down of football in 2010, and I’d rather let my raw emotions heal in time for the dreams and speculations of spring and summer. But now part of my Thanksgiving holiday will be diverted worrying about these Bears, only to be followed (perhaps) by an absolutely pointless bowl game. I won’t be folding the tent early on this team, because I just can’t. But I wish I could.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 8:17 AM PST reply actions
Unlike my feelings toward Cal football right now, I’m actually optimistic that Cal baseball will be saved.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
I haven't heard about any transfers out yet
I take that as a good sign… maybe the players think the program will be saved too.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
Good perspective
Well written and thought out. Sad that Anger was the best part of the game. Luck is unreal. His receivers won every 50/50 ball.
Luck is unreal. His receivers won every 50/50 ball.
I noted that, too. Even when he threw into double coverage, the Furd WR would pull it down.
Im particularly reminded of one long bomb pass into double coverage where both Cal players jumped at the same time as the WR yet somehow the WR came down with it. That happened right in front of me. :(!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
This was the play I was referring to. When the receiver caught this one, it felt like somebody stole the my trick or treat candy, slammed the door on my face, and turned the porchlight off.
Hahah
Yeah, when I saw that, my reaction was similar. I was home alone, but I think I even said out loud to nobody, “Come on….REALLY?!??! Give me a fucking break.”
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
Luck seems to be exceptionally good at timing and anticipationg where his receivers can be
Something we’ve lacked since Longshore. These guys look like they practice these type of difficult throws.
I wasn’t quite sure whether Luck was a number one NFL draft pick. I’m sold now.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
So…. who gets him? Carolina? …Buffalo? :)
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
Looks like Carolina has the inside track.
Of course, the Bills end up winning today. Even when they win they lose.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
The problem on that throw was Cattouse was trying to intercept the ball instead of playing defense. He could have easily just knocked the ball down, but he was trying to catch it. At that point, he’s just got to make sure that the receiver doesn’t come down with the ball first rather than try and be a hero.
baldwin got the ball
…on that play. I didn’t expect much from cattouse, but Nnabuife, also covering on that play, disappointed. Maybe he thought cattouse had it. Nnabuife played a decent game last year against Furd. The pass to baldwin was an example of him being a litttle off yesterday.Harbaugh is frigging annoying, incidentally.
by crackpipe on Nov 21, 2010 10:00 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Safeties
Cal will not have an elite defense until they have elite safeties.
Sorry to burst people’s bubbles if they were on the Cattouse bandwagon, but he’s just an ok player that produces occasional flashes of briliance but gets beat badly at other times. He’s usually a great passing downs situations safety but he’s not an every down safety imo. The amount of times he got beat yesterday was upsetting but the way Luck made him look like a fool on that long run was flat out shameful.
Hill does not possess the speed to be an elite safety. I see a guy who plays with a lot of effort and knows his assignments but it stops there. As seen against Oregon, Hill is not a reliable man coverage defender.
Conte has been doing pretty well this year and Cal is going to miss him a lot next year.
As for the rest of the safeties on the roster, I don’t want to look right now.
sounds like the program of the past decade; they’re pretty good but always a few cards short of a full house in one facet or another.
just enough to get your hopes up before kicking you in the nuts repeatedly.
It is this phenomenon that leads me to believe that Cal’s 5ish years away from having deep enough recruiting classes to win 9-10+ per year.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Yeah it seemed to me that Cattouse was absolutely horrendous yesterday.
When can Keenan start playing defense?
All aboard the Dasarte Yarnway Battering Ram!
by rollonubears on Nov 21, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
When can Keenan start playing defense?
Also this.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
If only Keenan could play every position.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Keenan running a pistol offense.
THINK ABOUT IT.
BTW, Luck had some nice throws and all but I still say the prettiest pass in the game was KA21’s!
I am not sure about the pistol but he should be running the wildbear
he seems to be a better passer than Vereen so we could potentially throw the ball out of that formation.
His body type reminded me of Colin Kaepernick, the deceptively long strides. The image of Kapernick burning by our defense is still a clear memory :-(
Yeah the kid is just a great athlete and is a playmaker
He is one of those guys that could exceed at just about any position on the football field, baseball field, or basketball court.
Hell, I am sure he could help the U.S. Curling team win a gold metal.
Why do I have the feeling that after KA21 leaves your University of California, we’ll look back and say “huh, we didn’t maximize his talents.”
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
blaming the safeties
usually the last place to look. They are the “safety” for a reason, namely the line, linebackers and/or corners have failed.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
So based on your comment, if a safety fails to cover his assigned receiver in man coverage, we should blame the line, linebackers, and cornerbacks. Yeah, sure.
What he’s saying is that the secondary is the last line of defense. If Cal’s defense is to be elite, other guys have to step up and fill in their roles for the safeties to be successful. Guys have to rush the quarterback, force the receivers to adjust and make good throws (and I thought we did, Stanford just converted them, ALL of them).
Blaming the safeties is tough, considering these guys are on the smaller side and not especially physically gifted to play man-up against pro-style receivers. I’d have liked to see more zone in this one.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
we could also use a rush LB not named C-Mart or Pain Train. When we don’t have such a player, we should explore 4-3 or 3-3-5 alternatives.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
He is following transfer rules and will not play until next year.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:10 PM PST up reply actions
Ah yes, because he had technically enrolled here. I’d forgotten that part.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Yep. Without the weakside OLB in the 3-4, you’re pretty much guaranteed to have less to zero pass rush against good O-lines.
(Although I doubt Martin would’ve been that this year; he wasn’t dedicated enough. Little—who was dismissed—& Whiteside—who was held back—probably hurt even more than Martin’s departure. Keith Browner being our starting weakside OLB says a lot about our depth issues.)
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
right
the safeties should never have to make tackles (unless they are creeping up into the box). They shouldn’t be covering much one-on-one either. Luck ran over Cattouse because 10 other guys couldn’t get there. And the greatest safety in the world will get torched if the QB has all day to throw or the RB gets through the first 7 guys untouched.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
right
They shouldn’t be covering much one-on-one either.
Then I guess you are not a far on Pendergast’s defensive schemes and gameplans.
most safeties aren't very good at man coverage
which is how they end up at safety in the first place. I suppose that where 48 or more points are given up regularly by the defense there might be some problems.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
Blaming the safeties is tough, considering these guys are on the smaller side and not especially physically gifted to play man-up against pro-style receivers
You are basically helping me make my point – Cal needs better safeties so they can be more diverse on defense. For the record, I’m not placing all the blame for Cal’s defensive struggles on the safeties.
True, it would help. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if there’s currently anyone on our team who can be an elite safety in the Thomas DeCoud model. We have to think about playing more zone against elite QBs/WRs combos until we have those type of guys.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
it's handy as hell to have a big safety
(thinking of David Fulcher as the classic) that can creep up as an extra LB.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Conte has pretty good measurables
Michael Coley also has good size for a frosh. He might be stepping up next year.
I’m not giving up on Cattouse though. Dude had a bad game, but usually guys get it together their senior year at the safety spot.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
Even when we had Hughes and Decoud we still had bad pass defenses. To me, that indicates a coaching issue rather than our talent. In 2006, our pass defense gave up 240 yards/game, good for 103th out of 119 programs.
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
*103rd
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
I recall Mixon was supposed to start that year, but he was injured and young Syd had to start (he played okay, but he had his frosh moments). I think the issue was more with the linebackers—Follett was always out of position and wasn’t strong enough yet to be the pass rusher he would become the next two seasons. I don’t even remember who the third linebacker was (Felder? Van Hoesen?)—Bishop had to do almost all the work in intermediate pass coverage.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, it was Pimentel
Huh. I’ll have to look back at the tape.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
Yet miraculously in 2006 we only have up 19 pts/game despite giving up 366 yards/game. That was such a bizarre discrepancy.
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
LOL
tire out the offense strategy! THEY CAN"T STAND UP TO ALL THIS RUNNING UP AND DOWN THE FIELD
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
A lot of those yards were in garbage time
after our offense had built up a sizable lead and the game was in hand.
Yep, plus you throw in how good our run defense was
and once teams fell behind by 17-21 points they had to pass the ball to try to catch up.
Cal would generally go to soft zones to and give up all the easy underneath completions in order to keep the clock moving and force the opposing offense to go the length of the field.
And now that’s what teams do to us.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly! I was going to mention that as well
This is exactly what teams do to us. Score quickly, take our running game away from us (which is our strength) and wait for out QB’s to make a mistake.
This is more of my line of thinking. Not a Fulcher level and size type of player, but a safety who can provide reliably both run support and drop into coverage.
that's the entire trick though
those run support guys are usually not going to be much for man coverage. And if they are feed them a little extra and make them OLBs.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, Ronnie Lott, Chuck Cecil, Kenny Easley—all those guys had little to do with their defenses’ success.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
Ronnie Lott played on good defenses
Dwaine Board? Reynolds? Keena Turner? Haley? Fred Dean?
You can make a list of great defenses and they will all have good safeties on them. They will also have great D Line and LBs. I lived in NY when Lott played for the Jets and watched him make almost every tackle in a 4th quarter against the Raiders. The Jets did not win that game.
Offenses do not change game plans significantly because of a great safety. They have to double and triple team DL and LB and throw away from shutdown CBs. Running plays don’t diagram blocking safeties.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 21, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
It obviously takes 11 to make a good defense, but an outstanding athlete in any position can have an impact. Back in the early ’80s for UCLA, Kenny Easley was a one-man wrecking crew at free safety.
Statistically, you obviously don’t want your DBs making most of the tackles. But I think Cali49a was onto something in his first post to this subthread: when was the last great safety at Cal? They don’t come around all that often, but a great safety can be a game changer no less than a great linebacker of defensive tackle/end.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
I thought about this
But considering our starting corners were out, Nnbauife was getting lit up all game, and Hill was being pressed into straight cornerback duties, I have to give them a pass. The safeties were pressing and there was little they could do.
Frankly, I feel Luck and Barkley made them look bad because they’re elite guys and they didn’t get pressured at all. If we had a good front seven that challenged the O-line and QB we can make do with a decent secondary (see 2008).
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
Frankly, I feel Luck and Barkley made them look bad because they’re elite guys and they didn’t get pressured at all. If we had a good front seven that challenged the O-line and QB we can make do with a decent secondary (see 2008).
I agree on that. Regardless, safety vs WR matchups this year have hurt Cal at times.
Yeah, not a huge fan of the man coverage we’ve shown against the elite pass attacks of the Furd and USC. Pendergast seems like a smart guy though, so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and adjust accordingly next year.
If he’s doing the SAME things next season, then I’ll be concerned.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:37 PM PST up reply actions
Nnbauife, boy, he just got picked on over and over and over again. But it was the smart thing to do since he just couldn’t manage his coverage.
by SonofCalifornia on Nov 21, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
Riley
Good to see him off the crutches. Here’s to his full recovery!
It seems like we continue to point at Coach (insert Dunbar, Ludwig, Marshall, Daft, Gregory, Pendergast, Simmons, Alamar!) without really acknowledging that Coach Tedford hires and oversees Coach _________. This is particularly true on offense.
To me, the root of the problem is that Cal can’t hire top-notch coaches ($) or Tedford can’t evaluate coaching talent.
If it’s the latter, then perhaps we’ve seen an example of a “helluva offensive coordinator/QB coach, pretty good HC.”
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
sorry, n00b question here, but what does it mean when they say “furd has a national recruiting base”?
Some teams are good at recruiting in their local area or a specific area itself. National recruiting base would be the ability to draw recruits from all over the nation instead of being specific to a local area.
No noob Qs here, gforce. Thanks for your readership!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
they seem to attract folks from random places in the US of A, like Andrew Luck (Houston, TX) who see enamored with the idea of playing BCS-level football at a prestigious school like Stanfraud.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Stanford’s academic requirements dictate that their head coach must recruit players nationally that want to attend an elite national university. Cal doesn’t have the same stringent requirements (though probably higher than most) so we can get more local athletes that wouldn’t necessarily qualify academically at Stanford.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
On the flip side, much like Duke in basketball and Stanford in just about every sport other than football, the Cardinal’s national recruiting base is actually an asset, not a weakness. Maybe we can finally dismiss this myth that Stanford football is somehow handicapped by the school’s elite academic status. It can and should be an asset, not a liability.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
And then after missing Shane Vereen on a route to the outside
Is it just me, or do we throw it to Vereen every single time he lines up as a WR?
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 11:52 AM PST reply actions
We don’t even though it seems like it. I might do a post in the offseason that touches upon a few plays, had they been executed properly, would have changed the flow of games.
Maybe it’s just because I remember seeing that play at least 3 or 4 times over the course of the season. It was successful once (either against Colorado or Davis), but I haven’t seen it work since.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
Avi wrote: “While I feel the criticism is probably extreme for this one game (they’re the 6th ranked team in the country for a reason, and there’s a reason we’re 5-6), the blowouts are adding up. You can’t keep on losing by four touchdowns or more and expect not to be called out for it.”
So i just want to be clear. When I post on BI, am I now allowed to criticize Tedford? Or not quite yet? Or criticize, but not too much? Or criticize, but only on CGB? I’m so confused now, please Avi, let me know what I should do.
I am well aware that things have been said in the past that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Considering that Avi works really hard at generating free content which we all get to enjoy, I’d like to ask you to take the high road and let bygones be bygones.
After a loss like that, I think all of us have some level of criticism for Tedford and the coaching staff.
I have no control, say, or interest in what you say or how you say it on BI. Here at CGB, you are more than welcome to post your thoughts provided they follow community guidelines. Please understand that there may be some civil debate that ensues, particularly for extreme statements. If you’re making posts just to insult someone or to start a flame war, that clearly isn’t going to work. Rational discussions are okay, even if you’re taking an unpopular stance – we don’t expect everyone to agree with each other. However, we do expect mutual respect for each other’s right to have our particular opinions. As fellow alumni and Cal fans, we owe each other this courtesy.
This game stunk. Our players and coaches have some work to do. Our head coach has a lot of soul-searching to do this off-season. Now let’s move forward and beat UDub.
Old Toothwrangler
BTW
If you have some comments or questions particularly intended for Avi, though, feel free to email him. If you have questions on what is appropriate to post here, you’re welcome to email any of the moderators.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
I had a disturbing feeling all week we were going to get rolled
So when it came, I wasn’t too surprised. The matchups didn’t favor us—we can’t stop stud QBs and we can’t stop power attacks. That’s been our story all season long.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
Uh, yeah, we were picked to finish 7th for a reason
I think they have plenty of heart, but there’s a limit to what a few middle-of-the road recruitng classes can do, especially with a second-string QB in his 3rd start. And Harbaugh is a good coach…and also a total douche-bag. Nice to mention Cal players talking trash, and not a word about his players talking trash AND shoving. Hopefully he leaves for the NFL; I’d prefer a Stanfurd coach that is more classy, perhaps not as good, midly competitive, but loses to us every year, forever.
Agreed. I plan to go over this in further detail this offseason
But our talent isn’t as exceptional as many people think it is. We’re in the valley right now. Hopefully this is the bottom.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
I really, really hope this is the bottom of the valley and we will begin our glorious
ascent to the top of the Pac12 starting next season.
Please pump some sunshine on next year then. I can’t see my way to thinking we will be better, given our QB situation and (shiver) thinking Vareen might go
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we still have another year or two of poor recruiting classes to get through, right?
by SonofCalifornia on Nov 21, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
I am not sure when this nightmare is supposed to end
I really hope you are wrong and this is the end of this poor recruiting cycle.
Even with great recruiting, it takes a year or two of development. So I’d say we’re still walking through the valley of the shadow of depth (pun intended).
True, even if the last two classes have been great it is going to take
sometime to coach them up. Although, as Avi said, I am not sure I want Ludwig coaching any of our young QB’s, for fear he might do more harm than good.
Great write up Avi, always appreciate your work, even more so after a tough loss
because it can’t be easy to write something like this up after getting our faces beaten in by our rival.
The only issue I have is the shot you took at the old Alums. I know a lot of people have discussed this already but I would like to add my two cents.
First, I think a lot of people knew it would be difficult to pull off the upset against a very good stanfurd team, especially while starting our 2nd string QB. I believe a lot of people, like you, started to prepare for a loss in the days leading up to this game.
Secondly, throw in the fact that we have grown accustomed to blow out losses and know how they generally have played out over the last couple of years and the Bears started the game by following this script (turnovers, penalties, quick scores by the other team) in the first quarter. IMO, a lot of old Alums (as well as Cal fans of all ages, whether they want to admit it) saw the writing on the wall in first quarter and began to check out mentally. Sure they were physically there but I am sure thoughts and conversation went to what they were going to do for dinner, is this the worst Big Game they have ever been to, how their kids were doing, what they were doing for Thanksgiving dinner, etc. They probably were trying their best to distract themselves from the cluster fuck on the field.
Old Alums knew the task of beating this stanfurd team would be difficult to begin with. They knew that Cal would have to play a perfect game just to stay in this game going into the 4th quarter. Once they saw sloppy/bad Cal show up, they just decided to check out.
saw the writing on the wall in first quarter
Yeah, I’ll admit that I had the thought, “Hey, I’ve seen this movie before. I know how it ends.”
I mean, I knew there was a small chance we could come back, but it definitely had the outline of an increasingly familiar script.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, after the first three plays, I prepared myself for a blowout. No matter the quality of the D, you have to score points to win.
Yep, I feel bad for the defense as they do not have a functional offense to help them out
atleast in the past we knew our offense could sustain drives and score points to help take some of the pressure off of the defense.
Brock Mansion is...how you say....terrible?
In fact, he is perlilously close to worst category classification in sports, “sucks,” saved only by the fact he is so green.
First, let me say, I am a proud Cal Football Sunshine Pumper since I attended Cal. Let there be no mistake that I am a hater or don’t support my team (I’m a season ticket holder, despite the fact I live 3 states away). So, that being said…
Mansion is terrible. Like God-awful.
I was a big Riley defender to all my friends all of his playing years. But Riley, even on his worst day, was not this bad. Even in what would be the biggest blemish on his career, the 07 Oregon State game, Riley was a competent, although not consistently fantastic, QB. Here, I don’t even see the potential for improvement. Fumbled snaps, fumbles from carries (don’t forget the one that was returned for 7 against ASU), and interceptions. Mansion’s stats don’t even tell the full story of how bad he is. His completions are typically very short, very rare, and very dangerous. I recall at least 2 or 3 other times where Stanford could have had an easy pick, or even one time where it bounced right off a Stanford player’s chest. His turnovers basically spotted Stanford 10 points right away. Hard for a defense to give it their all when they don’t think the offense is pulling their weight.
I think Mansion has the ability to improve, I’m certain of it. But to what end? How good can he be on his best day? My money would be on a C+ QB. Right now, he’s the worst QB in the Pac-10 (aside from maybe UCLA) and I’m terrified that Tedford will keep him as the starting QB until he graduates. I don’t criticize Coach Tedford really at all, but his chief fault is that he stands by his guys perhaps a litle too much. I’d like to see Sweeney get some reps. He really can’t do any worse. Seriously.
Every year I tell myself that we will be great next year, and, indeed, there was always some sort of objective basis for ultimately misplaced belief. A more polished Longshore maybe? A more settled Riley, perhaps? But this is the first time where I’ve been truly pessimistic about our future. Why? Because Mansion is really, really bad, that’s why.
The worst case scenario is that Mansion improves just enough to keep the starting spot, but not enough to consistently win games. Man, I really really hope I am wrong about this.
by Glanko on Nov 21, 2010 5:45 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'm hanging my hopes on the Zach Maynard bandwagon
He has more starting and playing experience than any current QB on the roster, including Mansion. Not to mention, Maynard hasn’t been polluted by Ludwig and was coached up by Turner Gill, who I really respect.
I can only imagine that Maynard and KA21 will have good timing/chemistry.
Yeah, Mansion has me seriously worried. Joe Ayoob, for instance, was no great shakes, but I would have trusted him more in a situation like yesterday. (and I realize I would have been in the minority, but it’s my two cents, FWIW)
It was like watching Kerry McGonigal in the 1993 Cal vs. U-Dub game after Barr broke his collarbone. You could see the futility oozing out of every corner of the stadium as Washington crept back in the game because McGonigal couldn’t sustain a drive.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
It's a tough situation
Mansion got thrown out there. We can’t hope for him to beat two of the top six teams in the country in his second and third games. I think he can perform better against UDub when there’s less pressure and he’s facing a middling opponent. If not, don’t expect him to be starting in 2011.
However, the QB contest will be very interesting. Bridgford before the injured shoulder was very talented, Austin Hinder has some definite upside, and of course Maynard will be in the equation. I don’t expect Sweeney to compete and Mansion will probably have a tough road to reclaim his spot.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
Ayoob >>>>> Mansion. Damn, we have hit rock bottom.
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
Don’t know about that. I’d say they’re on equal levels at worst.
But both of them were in unenviable situations—they got thrown into the fire as backup QBs when better starters ahead of them got injured. Not truly fair to them.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but Ayoob was thrown into the ring in his first year on campus. And he followed AR which made expectations ridiculously high. Ayoob did have a better O-line, but that 2005 team was way more competitive on a weekly basis than this year’s team.
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 7:38 PM PST up reply actions
Ayoob was a JC transfer
He wasn’t exactly a bright-eyed farmboy. Mansion and Ayoob were both technically juniors when they started as Golden Bears.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
Dude, you’ve got to give QBs more than one summer training camp to learn JT’s overly burdensome offense. Mansion is in his 4th year because he did redshirt.
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
Just because you’ve been on the bench for four years doesn’t mean you have a vast array of experience. Limited practice hours entail starting quarterbacks get the majority of the reps in practice and in summer camp, which means backups don’t get the necessary reps they need to be up to game speed and comfortable within the confines of the offense.
Whenever a starting QB goes down and a new QB comes in to play his first significant PT, there’s going to be a significant dropoff in production, whether it be Ayoob or Mansion.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 8:31 PM PST up reply actions
Granted, the backup QB doesn’t get the same amount of attention, but a backup QB needs to be prepared to play or that is a serious fault of the coaches.
Until our offense returns to form, I will maintain my nostalgia for Ayoob as QB. Remember that comeback against Wazzu?
Recruiting updates on Twitter
by CaliforniaEternal on Nov 21, 2010 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Really, though? I mean, I look around at other established programs across CFB, and I see backups stepping in and more or less succeeding, or else young QBs performing well. Tate Forcier and Denard Robinson are both sophomores and doing well. Senior Jerrod Johnson was supplanted at A&M by a junior Ryan Tannehill who had fewer than 10 pass attempts going into the year. And lest we forget, Oregon didn’t know who their starter was going to be going into this year, and Thomas is a sophomore (though I guess you can say their system is easier, so it matters less). And we know that Barkley, Luck, Tuel, and Katz have all performed pretty well early on in their careers.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 9:12 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not sure what black magic is going on at A&M. I’m going to presume poor Big 12 defense (a common trend these days) until I see him play a good team outside the conference.
Other than that, all those teams you listed can move the football on the ground. People forget that our run game (at least compared to previous years) has been pretty weak the past two seasons. If we had a better O-line that could assist our tailbacks and protect the pocket, we could reasonably assess the value of our QBs. If Mansion keeps on getting stuck in 2nd/3rd and long situations, he’s going to struggle.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 10:08 PM PST up reply actions
That “poor big 12 defense” just resulted in a 9-6 game between A&M and Nebraska in which Tannehill played pretty well…
I do agree that O-line is important, and maybe it’s hard to tell for sure, but does it really seem like “good QB play hamstrung by bad O-line” or more like “bad QB play made even worse by bad O-line”?
I also don’t think it’s that we can’t “move the ball on the ground”. If anything, our run game has been the only thing we can do well with relative consistency. But when there’s no passing game to defend against, opposing teams can stack the box. So, again, it goes back to the QB, the receivers, and the protection.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 10:45 PM PST up reply actions
Well Nebraska is the exception that proves the rule. :)
I do feel Mansion isn’t going to be Troy Taylor for us, but he could be serviceable if the line could block and get the run going. For all this talk of balance, Cal was at its best when they were run first to set up the pass, not the other way around.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 10:55 PM PST up reply actions
My issue isn’t necessarily about Mansion in the specific. I hope and feel that he probably will improve with more experience, as players tend to do…
I guess what I’m trying to get at is that whole issue of why it is that our young/new QBs can’t seem to step in right away. Though, maybe that’s not exactly right. I mean, Longshore had success right away until he was injured, and Riley was progressing well until The Scramble, after which he seemed to become more inconsistent. And now Mansion isn’t doing very well. So, really, I guess we’re talking about Ayoob/Levy, and now Mansion, right? Though, Ayoob and Levy weren’t very highly touted or anything, IIRC.
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 11:03 PM PST up reply actions
And Tedford never played Mansweeney in hella contests in ‘09-’10. It’s not just garbage time either. Dude(s) could have thrown some real passes.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Real passes? Sure.
Meaningful passes against EWU, Wazzu and Maryland’s scrubs? No.
Andrew Luck has been involved in a bunch of blowouts this season. His backups have thrown seven passes. I don’t see anyone complaining, although the Furd passing game is probably going to drop off a cliff when he departs. Guys in a pro-style offense need at least a year as the starter to be totally up-to-speed. Even Barkley and Katz throw out clunkers every now and then.
This “getting quarterbacks reps in garbage time” issue is a non-issue.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 10:15 PM PST up reply actions
Wasn’t Barkley’s backup, Mitch Mustain, also a former All-America-everything?
He’s gotten plenty of garbage time snaps and then some. Hasn’t made a difference.
Last year, Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford’s backups didn’t look “game ready” despite getting garbage time during blow-outs.
Shrug.
Guys need time to develop.
Old Toothwrangler
yeah I don’t think the in game snaps would make mansion look like an all-conference QB right now, but I think it’s fair to say that the live reps would help him not be the worst QB in the Pac10. Some of these growing pains should have already occured.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Well, there’s not looking “game ready” and there’s fumbling 2/3 snaps, missing snap counts, technique (that should be learned in peewee) interceptions. And I think we just got called for another illegal formation penalty…
oregon fan: ALL teams have faked injuries against us!!!
cal fan: and you’ve blown all of those teams out?
oregon fan: yes.
cal fan: but you didn’t blow cal out?
oregon fan: no.
cal fan: but the faked injuries were our secret ingredient?
oregon fan: yes.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 22, 2010 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t see anyone complaining, although the Furd passing game is probably going to drop off a cliff when he departs.
My thoughts exactly. Wait ’till next year unless, somehow, they have andy luck 2.0 waiting in the wings.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
This "getting quarterbacks reps in garbage time" issue is a non-issue.
that becomes an issue when your QB has the confidence and awkward clusterfuckness about him that Brock Mansion’s displaying. He needed to get his cherry popped before starting as Cal’s QB. It’s not a hard concept to grasp.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
What does losing ones’ virginity have to do with football?
oregon fan: ALL teams have faked injuries against us!!!
cal fan: and you’ve blown all of those teams out?
oregon fan: yes.
cal fan: but you didn’t blow cal out?
oregon fan: no.
cal fan: but the faked injuries were our secret ingredient?
oregon fan: yes.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 22, 2010 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
Nah... Ayoob = Mansion
Both were thrown into similar situations, but Mansion had a shorter season, also, Ayoob had a better all-around team.
With Mansion the suckitude is amplified!
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
Do you have any insight as to why Sweeney hasn’t really progressed at all?
by atomsareenough on Nov 21, 2010 7:13 PM PST up reply actions
I haven’t seen him enough to really make any judgment. Perhaps it’s a lack of snaps (which I’m not counting as a strike against Tedford, the starter—Riley, Mansion—deserves the lion’s share of snaps in limited practice time). Perhaps he’s not physically talented enough. But from when I’ve seen him in games, he doesn’t look comfortable throwing the ball (Mansion will at least let it loose, even if half the time you have no idea where it’ll go). Not a good sign.
It’s always been well-known Sweeney is the weakest of the quarterbacks Tedford ever recruited though, so I don’t really hold it against him.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions
It’s always been well-known Sweeney is the weakest of the quarterbacks Tedford ever recruited though, so I don’t really hold it against him.
This is why I like him. Mike Pawlawski was famously described as the “worst recruit in the Pac-10” the year Bruce Snyder scooped him up, and we had very little optimism that he’d be able to replace Troy Taylor in 1990.
And what little we saw of Sweeney against UC-Davis wasn’t really that bad. He obviously was not comfortable hanging in the pocket to find his second or third option. But when he tucked and ran, it was decisive and productive, and he did end the day completing 75% of his passes. I’d really like him to get another shot and see how quickly the game “slows down” for him.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 7:42 PM PST up reply actions
He completed 75% of his passes, at an average of a pretty weak 3.6 YPA. He went to the safety valve almost exclusively against a reeling FCS defense.
Sweeney will get his shot in the spring, but I think Tedford is ready to move onto the new group of kids after what he’s seen from him and Mansion.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 7:45 PM PST up reply actions
Of course, I’d love for Sweeney to prove me wrong. Should be a fun and competitive spring.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 21, 2010 7:47 PM PST up reply actions
I remember Joe Starkey’s interview with Mike Pawlawski after Mike won the Citrus Bowl, led Cal to a #7 national ranking in the final season poll, and was named Pac-10 Player of the Year. First question by Starkey (very tongue-in-cheek, of course): “So Mike, were you the worst quarterback recruited in the Pac-10?”
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the Farm, after they've seen Berkeley?
wasn’t there a scathing Scout report (subsequently shot down by tCGB mods) that said they should have taken David Carr’s little bro/cousin who really wanted to be offered by Cal instead of Sweeney?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’m curious about this, too. Based on rumor and his rise up the depth chart, Sweeney seemed to be progressing as fast as anyone in the pipeline. Then just a matter of weeks ago, he’s demoted, and has now become an afterthought, not even warranting playing time in a blow out while the starter racks up unimpressive performance after unimpressive performance.
I’ve long had my hopes set on Sweeney, if for no other reason than his understated bio sounds closest to Mike Pawlawski, who remains my favorite Cal QB of the post-Roth era, Aaron Rodgers included.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 7:29 PM PST up reply actions
I agreed with most of your post but I disagree with this:
Riley was a competent, although not consistently fantastic, QB
I don’t think you can call someone ‘competent’ after watching happy feet, awkward rollouts into sacks, and throws all over the place.
Longshore was closer to ‘competent’, even in his post-injury form. His problems were the epic pick 6’s in the 4th Q.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Longshore pre-injury was much better than “competent”. His 1.5 years in 2006 and pre-OSU 2007 are the great exception (alongside several nice performances by Riley) in what has otherwise been a six-year drought at the Cal QB position following the deluge that was Aaron Rodgers.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 21, 2010 10:34 PM PST up reply actions
Truth or cougar: With Steve Levy at the helm for your 2010 Golden Bears, Cal would have 3-5 less losses (Nevada, Zona, Oregon and maybe 1 or 2 of OSU/Stanfraid).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Truth or cougar: With Steve Levy’s receivers and Oline, Cal would have 3-5 less losses.
Old Toothwrangler
Truth or cougar: With Aaron Rodgers, Jahvid Best, Alex Mack, DeSean Jackson, Craig Stevens, Zach Follett, Desmond Bishop, Scott Fujita, Will Ta’ufo’ou, Syd’Quan Thompson, and Ryan Longwell, Cal would have a good team.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the Farm, after they've seen Berkeley?
I’ve been trying. He keeps laughing at me.
Old Toothwrangler
by Kodiak on Nov 22, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Cougar
Not enough OL/DL &, undoubtedly, a P to kick it 3-8 times/game.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
But nobody threw a tighter spiral on a pint glass.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 22, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
so accurate!
“As (Levy) was walking out, he picked up a pint glass and threw it at the employee,” Gittens said. “”http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/26/SPGHCJKL1U5.DTL" target="new">It hit the employee on the forehead."
Levy left the bar but was “detained by citizens” less than two blocks away, Gittens said.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I know…I can’t remember if he was that good or if he just seemed that good because he followed Ay00b.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by 



























































