Nevada 52, California 31: Pistol Whipped
(To discuss today's games, scroll down to the open thread or click here. This post is to discuss the Golden Bears. Don't forget to fill out report cards.)
It's hard to blame a defeat on a measly toe unless it's something like poor DeSean Jackson straddling the sideline in Tucson. You never want to point toward one player on a football team having that big an impact on the field, and being the difference between losing and winning.
But I'll go ahead and make that leap of faith tonight. We missed our defensive quarterback a lot.
Jonathan Okanes stated that Mike Mohamed's presence would've done very little, but I disagree. The inside linebacking position is the most important part of defending the Pistol, because those are the guys who make the majority of the tackles while the outside linebacker slows down the quarterback. D.J. Holt was probably our best defender tonight with sixteen tackles and nearly a forced fumble. Mohamed's replacements, J.P. Hurrell, Robert Mullins and Steven Fanua had only ten combined.
Just as important, Mohamed coaches the team on the field. He would have recognized the tendencies, he could've played and coordinated what type of plays Nevada would have ran, he would've been the steady hand for a Golden Bear defense not prepared for the gimmicky pistol attack. It was clear that no one else could handle that responsibility, as it took nearly one half for the Bears to finally contain the Pistol.
I could see some of the warnings ahead: Reports filtering out of practice indicating that Cal's defense was struggling with the Cal scout offense. Brock Mansion was literally torching them with the zone read at every point, making you wonder how different the trajectory of Mansion's career (who was recruited as a spread quarterback) at Cal would've been if we had stuck with Mike Dunbar's spread attack. With no Mohamed in practice, it was clear Cal was getting outsmarted by a second unit that had never run the Pistol there.
Without him in the game, for the entire first half against the true Nevada pistol, we were lost on defense. Totally, irrevocably lost.
It started with Keith Browner. Browner continually bit on the running back zone read, over and over and over. You could literally see the glee in Colin Kaepernick's eyes when he saw Browner go inside to attack Vai Taua, like a frat boy who thinks he's about to score. Kaepernick brought the ball back almost every time and veered to the outside for a huge gain.
But it wasn't just Browner. Defensive end Ernest Owusu was lined up on the same side. So was Mullins. ALL OF THEM bit on Kaepernick's play fakes, leaving one side of the field virtually unguarded for the first two drives. Almost every one of Kaepernick's big runs came on the side opposite of Holt. On the goal-line, both Josh Hill and Bryant Nnabuife came in, put a lot of pressure on the middle ... and let Kaepernick run right by them for two more scores. This became frustrating to see after awhile, because if I could see that, and every one of our commenters could see it, then I KNOW Clancy Pendergast could see it.
After all those plays, I'm starting to think our new defensive coordinator intended for our unblocked defender to attack the running back or quarterback rather than holding his gap. Why? Because this happened over and over without much adjustment by the Golden Bears defense. There was no disciplined approach or adjustment, just a lot of rushing to the inside over and over and leaving the outside gaps unattended (yes Nevada had some success inside, but only after Kaepernick had gashed the Bears on the outside). Too often Browner thought the handoff was coming and he bit inside and found himself looking foolish afterwards. The support behind him bit too, leading to more disaster on the edges as Kaepernick veered over and over.
Pendergast seemed to be willing to risk giving up the big play to try and get the big stop, starkly in contrast to Bob Gregory, who was willing to give up the small plays to prevent even bigger mishaps. Sometimes Pendergast's strategy works well, as it did in the first two games when the opponent had no idea what to do. But when it fails, it fails spectacularly. Like it did in the first half. The over-aggressiveness by Cal was easily combated by a smart and able quarterback, who showed the perils of being too passionate and attacking before it's prudent to do so.
More mental errors and bad flukes cost the Bears defensively. Cal nearly recovered a huge fumble on their side of the field to start the 3rd quarter, but an offside by Aaron Tipoti (who jumped the center) negated that play (to add insult to injury, Kendrick Payne jumped on the next play and gave Nevada an automatic first down). Then Marc Anthony played very tight coverage, didn’t give up after Kaepernick threw a perfect post pattern to Rishard Matthews, stripped the football into the end zone which was nearly recovered by a Golden Bear ... but Matthews reached out and grabbed the ball just as it was nudging the end zone. Instead of a touchback in the end zone, it was a two score game late in the third. It was little things like that.
When Cal's offense couldn't punch it in late, the Golden Bear defense caved in, giving up two huge runs to Taua and Kaepernick to complete the rout. Other than Cameron Jordan, the Cal defensive line got rocked at the line of scrimmage, as Nevada's linemen really made sure there was no real pressure on Kaepernick or penetration into the backfield--Jordan had five tackles, the rest of the front three/four only five or six combined. Nevada rushed for 316 yards, their second best output of the season.
We should give credit to Kaepernick's arm as well, because he threw some VERY important, solid passes. On the first drive, he nailed Tray Session on a dig route with Darian Hagan breathing down his neck. He found Session again for the first touchdown of the game on a simple vertical to the sideline on play action. Hagan didn't play for much of the rest of the first half, and Kaepernick picked on second-stringer Bryant Nnabuife on at least one drive. He was able to use his feet to evade pressure, step up and deliver throws on comeback routes or broken plays. Kaepernick was just super good and super efficient: 10 for 15, 182 yards, two touchdowns, no picks. And that was only the second most efficient part of his game.
An important note should be made about the Reno elevation, because it seemed to visibly affect the defense as the game wore on--there were a few visible shots of everyone on the D-line, including Jordan, sucking air. It shouldn't really be an excuse, but the high elevation did seem to force guys to rotate a lot more. Thus we played our second unit guys who definitely have even less experience with the Pistol. Kaepernick took advantage of this by upping the tempo of the offense and not allowing defenders to substitute in, and Nevada just kept Cal off-guard for most of the first half (Shane Vereen also struggled with this problem after huge gallops, forcing the not-as-effective Isi Sofele to take at least one or two of the next few carries. Marvin Jones looked exhausted by the end as well.)
For a brief flurry midway through the game, Cal's defense did gave the offense a chance to come back. Browner did redeem himself by reaching out and forcing a fumble on another near missed tackle, setting up a late critical score by the Cal offense before halftime. Nevada had some curious clock management issues at the end of the first half that left them only six seconds on third down with at least one timeout left, forcing them to settle for the field goal. It also led to a hilarious display of the usually reserved Jeff Tedford calling all three of his unused timeouts to try and ice kicker Anthony Martinez, leading to a chorus of boos from the Nevada faithful--Martinez booted it in unfazed. It was only 24-14 going into halftime, which left the door plenty open for the Bears to come back.
On the other side of the ball, Vereen and Jones were more than willing to carry the load offensviely. All worries about the run blocking and lack of power in our run game dissipated when Vereen responded by taking a toss play downfield and crossing back up diagonally for a 59 yard touchdown run to tie the game. He would score another 50 yard touchdown in the third quarter after Riley read defensive end Dontay Moch and handed it off to Vereen, giving Cal a numerical advantage up front. Vereen got a big downfield assist from Mitchell Schwartz before making the cutback and broke a few Wolf Pack tackles to cut the lead down to 24-21. He managed another 35 yard gain to help drive the Bears down the field and make it 31-24. Vereen was the truck that kept the Bears in the game in the middle quarters, with 198 yards on 19 carries. Nice bounceback game from the Cal offensive line, who struggled on the first few drives, but held their own the rest of the game.
Jones had an incredible game, catching 12 passes for 161 yards, hauling post patterns, slant routes, and some crucial third down throws. His best catch came on a sideline fade where he hauled in a throw and dragged his foot to pick up 39 yards and set up Cal's last touchdown. Anthony Miller finally got his number called, hauling in 3 catches for 57 yards, although he did make a costly error on a second down when he let his quarterback get hit from the blind side on a Dontay Moch sack. Jeremy Ross had a few short catches and a nice receiver sweep.
All of these receives might have had even better nights against a vanilla Nevada pass defense if Kevin Riley wasn't throwing them the ball.
Oh, Kevin Riley.
(deep breath)
(clenches fists)
(tries not to facepalm)
Riley's first pass was a classic old-school Riley overthrow--a slight hesitation on a post route to Keenan Allen seemed to screw up the timing and ruin a promising Golden Bear drive. The ball went through Allen's raised hands and into the hands of Nevada cornerback Doyle Miller. While Allen could have probably caught that ball if he had made the right adjustment, he's a freshman, and I'm willing to cut him slack. I'm not willing to cut Riley slack. That's a play he should have pat down by now.
There was the inability to time things. Riley took one sack on 1st down when he should've thrown the ball away. He overthrew Keenan Allen by miles on a crucial 3rd down. There was the visible disgust Sofele showed when Riley overthrew a wheel route to him in the corner of the end zone--a play he had nearly overthrown Vereen on the week before. There was something wrong with that Jones fade route in the end zone that Miller broke up--it never looked completely right from the get-go, and Cal had to settle for a Giorgio Tavecchio field goal (this game from Riley actually made Jones's performance that much more impressive--any receiver that's had to make that many adjustments on errant throws deserves major dap). There was the delay of game penalty he incurred on the last real meaningful play of the game to turn a 4th and short into a 4th and long. These mental errors are the sort of things I expected from Riley two years ago. Except I'm still seeing them now.
And there was the pick-six, the critical play in the game. To that point Cal had been running the ball fairly well. But his audible to throw a stop pattern outside to Alex Lagemann was ill-advised, and the throw itself lacked zip and control. Marlon Johnson recognized the audible, hid a little behind Jones so that Riley wouldn't see him, jumped the route, then raced 65 yards to the house to give Nevada much-needed cushion. All the momentum the Bears had up to that point disappeared, and the game reversed back into the Wolf Pack's favor, where it would stay.
I said last week Riley would need to keep on playing the way he'd been playing for Cal to maintain its offensive prowess. He wasn't up to the task last night. With Pac-10 play opening up next week in Tucson, one thing looks certain. If he doesn't bounce back, and if Mohamed doesn't come back, Cal's season will end like every season has during the Tedford era: Dreaming of next year.
301 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Heh good game though
Do us a favor and win the PAC-10 and we’ll return the favor and beat Boise when they could be #1 in the country.
I hope your offense can sustain this success the rest of the year
It’ll make this loss look a lot better. Kaepernick really impressed me throughout. He runs the vertical routes very well and just faked out our overaggressive defense over and over.
Best of luck. Dethrone the Broncos and beat up BYU.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 3:15 AM PDT up reply actions
O we will
BYU had a hard time against Air Force run game. If we play like we did last night its going to be a long game for BYU defense.
Good game last night. Now honestly, does Kaepernick look that flawless all the time? Or was he playing above his pay grade? His reads and his arm were really incredible.
Kaepernick definitely played great last night: fantastic athlete and flawless execution. But the Bears didn’t exactly make it very difficult for him. His option reads were far too easy to make, and he had lots of time to find the open receiver when asked to drop back and pass.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 18, 2010 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I really think Nevada will give BSU a run for their money, especially with the game being at Reno.
Do that and you’ve got a chance for a real special season.
www.bearswithfangs.com
by bearswithfangs on Sep 18, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I will preface this by saying that I missed the first part of the game. When I tuned in, they were showing replays of Vereen’s long TD run. It was all downhill from there.
But to suggest that we ever contained their O is pretty hilarious. In almost a full half, I did not see a single stop, not one punt and maybe 1-2 3rd downs. That was one of the worst defensive performances I have seen, well since Oregon last year. I agree with your diagnosis, there was just no contain whatsoever. The guy just waltzed around the end over and over.
Not trying to take anything from Nevada, but it is getting so frustrating seeing this team come out clearly unprepared to play and getting smoked. We are picking up right where we left off last year. We have a major leadership problem IMHO. Not trying to be a negabear, but that is how is see it.
GOLD OUT MOZAMBIQUE!
I’ll give Kaepernick a lot of credit for this one. He was incredibly good at selling those fakes. I’m not surprised Browner bit on so many of them. I just wish the containment behind him (particularly from the safeties and the rotating ILBs was better). Again, Mohamed’s absence hurt, because he really could’ve kept Kaepernick from getting that outside veer going. Mullins ran into blocks a lot and Hurrell missed the critical tackle at the end zone.
I think the mantra of coaching to be aggressive really bit back here. Lots of our players just sold out to hit one lane rather than aiming to contain all sides of the defense. When we finally stopped that play we rushed down the middle and took advantage of the lanes there. We were constantly trying to patch up one wound that another few holes opened up. And boy did they make us bleed.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 3:35 AM PDT up reply actions
some typos and addendums
should be *I just wish the containment behind him (particularly from the safeties and the rotating ILBs) was better.
and *When we finally stopped that fake to the running back, veer with Kaepernick, they started rushing down the middle and took advantage of the more open lanes there. Then they brought the wide receiver around to draw out the cornerback and give Kaepernick the edge on the other side.
Lots of different ways they attacked us and busted us. We weren’t disciplined.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 3:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Now, I’m not saying that lack of discipline didn’t hurt us, but I wondered why we didn’t attack the veer the way that SEC defenses attack Florida’s option (albeit, without a lot of success when Tebow was in there). When I watch SEC against Florida, they sell out against the QB and absolutely tee-off on him. That’s why Tebow always looked like a bloody mess after the game.
Maybe their HB gets some yards, but putting Kaepernick in the ground a few times might rattle him. He barely got his jersey dirty. Plus, it would have made me happy to see his goatee messed up.
by slaphancock on Sep 18, 2010 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
My thoughts exactly. He was WAY too comfortable all night long.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 18, 2010 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
This is exactly why pro teams DON’T run the spread option. If you ran the spread option against someone like Ray Lewis, your QB would probably be carted off the field. It’s not worth risk in the pros. This Cal team just isn’t disciplined enough or mean enough to play against option type of offenses. If you want to win, you need to play it safe. Keep the opposing QB and HB in front of your defensive line. The first tackler recognizes who has the ball and tackles the feet. The second comes in either for the hit, the punch to the ball (which is basically a punch to the ball carrier’s liver in all honesty half of the time), or a strip (which is basically trying the rip the ball carrier’s arm off). Most of you would probably consider this playing dirty, but if you look at top defense’s in the pros this is exactly the kind of nastiness that typically prevails (just look at the hits every Sunday, are you seriously telling me that they need to hit the guys this hard to get them down to the ground?).
I was wondering this too. Why didn’t we at least lay some wood on Kaepernick when he decided to run? That would slow him down just a bit and make him think twice about keeping it.
by atomsareenough on Sep 18, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Definitely agree. If we’re going to guess wrong on the option play, at least guess towards the QB. Hit him often and hope the Dline plays well enough to stuff the HB run anyway. They were playing well up the middle for most of the game.
This!
I was crying for this every time. Maybe it’s because class act Tedford is in charge of our team, but our defense isn’t nasty enough. The spread option gives you an excuse to hit the QB. Take advantage of it. If you keep hitting the QB, two things happen: 1) his internal clock goes haywire and he doesn’t get into a rhythm, and 2) he’s not willing to hold onto the ball as much because he’d rather not get creamed. So many times, instead of rocking Mr. K, they stopped just short and watched the HB take off. Finish the play, even if it makes you feel like a douchebag. The result? Their QB learned that we weren’t going to hit him and just took off with it over and over. It was depressing.
I thought Conte had finally managed to bury himself on the bench, yet there he was tonight, and not doing well…
Are we really that thin in the defensive secondary, or was Conte’s presence part and parcel because of William’s injury?
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
My concern was that on two passes in the 1st half, when the Bears had put Nevada into a hole, the receiver got separation from Conte and was able to make critical catches to keep drives alive. If this is an example of how Conte is going to play in a zone, I’d rather him not be in the game…
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 18, 2010 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it had more to do with our defense scared of being burned by the option. If you look at all those plays where Nevada’s receivers got open, the DB’s covering them were staring down the QB and just lost the guys they were supposed to cover on hook/corner/post/insert-double-move-here routes. I think the most important part in stopping the spread option is to trust your linebackers and safeties and make sure you play your man. The rest of your defense is most likely in zone coverage (minus the guys that are blitzing), so smother your receivers and make it as hard as possible for the QB to find an open man.
What kills me is the apparent complete lack of a plan to stop this offense. It is possible (see nd last year). Every option offense is fundamentally defended the same way: assignment defense. At first I believed that browner and the other linebackers were just being undisciplined; but after it kept happening over and over, I now don’t know if that was the plan all along and the players executed clancys shitty scheme brilliantly. I would love to get an explanation of what the actual assignments were, but that’s never going to happen.
"The trees on the [Student Athlete High Performance Center] are not protected -- and cannot be 'saved' -- by any law."
by Vandalus on Sep 18, 2010 9:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I kept thinking....
If the DE/OLB would just take one STEP towards the RB then juke over to the QB, we could keep him guessing instead of the other way around. But these guys put their heads down once they made their decisions and never looked up. That’s a coaching issue; if I can see it then Clancy has to see it. Plain and simple. CK’s a great athlete but we made him look REALLY good yesterday.
Looks like maybe another year of stacking the box and forcing Cal to show they can throw.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I was kind of expecting something like this. I just hoped it wouldn’t be this bad. I bet you Pete Carroll is just laying back in comfort right now knowing he’ll never have to deal with another spread option offense again. Grabbing Pendergast was a great move, but scheduling Nevada in his first season as defensive coordinator was a terrible one. This guy’s experience is mostly (completely?) from the NFL, and he has limited to zero experience defending the spread option. They were probably the worst possible match-up for us, especially considering we were playing without Mike Mo.
Need a lesson on this....
…..if their entire offense is basically going through two players, the QB and the RB (yes, there were some pass plays, but passes were used only in obvious situations….well, obvious to everyone but the Cal defense, anyway), why do we send ONE player through the slot who is forced to choose one? Why don’t we send one person to maul the QB on every play whether he’s got the ball or not (unless it’s obvious he no longer has the ball, then you’ve got unnecessary roughness), and another to go after the RB. I know there’s a blocking element as well…….but simply going after the QB all the time is the only way I’ve seen teams beat good option teams. Texas at their best was able to beat Tech that way, etc.
Re: Sending more pressure.
Where are you going to send him from? If you overload one side with two defenders, Kaepernick will recognize it, call a designed handoff and get the running back going before the pressure comes. If you send pressure from both sides with two OLBs coming, again, designed handoff to the running back to get the ball moving out faster.
The key is the defensive line beating the O-line to get pressure on the QB. Yesterday Nevada’s O-line was super-impressive in beating us up front and that was the underrated factor for the Wolf Pack victory.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Zone blitzes.
I think the key is to put your corners on man coverage, have a MLB spying, and sending an OLB around the end, keeping everyone else in zone coverage. A four man rush isn’t really imposing, but the idea against a spread option is to not over-commit because you will get burned. The QB will see the OLB coming around one side, and will most like send the play to the other side. The MLB spy will go wherever he thinks the ball’s going, and we’ll have everyone else in zone ready to react to the play. The key is to stay disciplined and force the QB to throw against your man coverage with safety help. Obviously, throw in a couple blitzes with your ears pinned back to throw them off, but not what we did last night.
Yeah, except with no Mohamed, you have to make Holt the spy—he’s the only one with enough athleticism to track down Kaepernick. And that leaves you with Mullins, Fanua and/or Hurrell holding the zone behind them, a daunting task.
If Cal assigned Holt to spy Kaepernick, Nevada would pick that up and they’d run designed handoffs over and over again up the middle once they knew they could handle the front three and force the MLB to cover a large area of the field. That’d also neutralize the OLB blitz because the handoff gets the ball off very quickly and gives Nevada a bigger numerical advantage downfield.
Let’s face it, our linebacker depth issues showed big-time in this one.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 19, 2010 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions
It would not have gone worse, that's for sure
use a safety instead of a LB. That leaves some passing areas open, but they weren’t passing much.
Kaepernick’s passes were money. You leave the passing lanes open and 52 points would have seemed lovely. He throws the ball so hard and with such precision he would have SHREDDED anything we left open. As it was he made NFL level throws to the deep flats. Our CBs are NOT slouches…that was some serious shit. We just got OUTPLAYED straight up.
The only chance we had from the beginning was Riley having an A+ game. Even an A- game would not have been enough likely. But the fact that he gave a C+ game killed our chances early.
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Sep 20, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd like to know
how well Allen was covered the rest of the game after the first interception. I’d hate to think he was ignored most of the game because someone thought he should share some of the blame for the pick. How did he and Riley interact on the sideline after the play? A 12-1 distribution of catches between our starting WR’s without a shutdown corner involved is curious.
Very happy to see Anthony Miller involved. Would have liked to have seen some short passes to Sofele when he spelled Vereen instead of sending him into the line each time.
No fumbles!
Two numbers that surprised me: 2 punts for us and 28,809 in attendance. Both numbers felt way too low thinking about the game afterwards. I guess the 3 interceptions were blocked out of my memory.
AGreed on TE play. But really, it didn’t look like Riley was hurting for lack of open receivers. It was more the getting the ball somewhere in their vicinity that was the problem.
But I’m not down on Riley. I love his spirit—especially when he gets frustrated! I think we’re going to miss him next year. The way I miss Longshore now. Sigh. The only truly awful Cal QB of the decade was Booya. And we should keep that in mind.
Didn’t you guys love Riley’s head clutch of disbelief when he missed that third-down throw by miles? He was doing exactly what I was doing in my living room!
Glass half full, Glass half empty
The only truly awful Cal QB of the decade was Booya
And the only truly great Cal QB of the decade was Aaron Rodgers. Maybe it’s the rotating carousel of OCs, but I’m not convinced Tedford is a very good recruiter of QBs. I know there are a bunch of promising young guns in the pipeline, but Longshore, Riley, and Mansion were all once highly regarded, too. I’ve made this point before, but it’s striking that Tedford’s best QB get was sort of an accident: finding Rodgers while scouting a JC tight-end.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 18, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I always hate it when people point to the fact that Tedford found Rodgers by accident as a knock against Tedford. Because, so what? Rodgers received very little publicity out of highschool and during juco. Nobody knew about him. It’s the fact that Tedford did find Rodgers, and did recognize that Rodgers had talent is what is most important.
Ironic that Tedford found his best QB while scouting a TE? Yes. I agree completely. But a fault against Tedford? No, not at all when you consider Rodgers’ situation.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I have to disagree, pre-injury in the ‘07 Oregon game, Longshore was great. I think the way ’07-08 played out after he was injured has wrapped Cal fan’s estimation of his qualities.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I don’t think you are talking about the same thing I am. I’m talking about whether Tedford finding Aaron Rodgers by accident is a fault against Tedford or not. You seem to be talking about Longshore, and that doesn’t seem to be relevant to this conversation.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Longshore’s relevant because he was Tedford’s first blue-chip QB recruit who played 5 years in the program. And I actually agree with Cugel, Longshore was really close. Unfortunately, though, there was that injury, from which Nate never really recovered.
Truth be told, I just don’t like Kevin Riley very much as a player. Never have. I didn’t like the fact he got the nod over Longshore in ‘08, and I’m disappointed that Mansion, Sweeney, et al. haven’t developed more quickly to take his place. Don’t get me wrong: I wish Kevin well, and I trust the coaches’ decision that he’s the best option for the Bears this year. And any player wearing Blue and Gold will have my full support. But there is definitely a side of me anxious for the Kevin Riley era to be over.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 18, 2010 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree and disagree.
I think Longshore was a great quarterback. It was unfortunate that he was only allowed one cortisone shot before the game, leading to him playing in pain for the second half. It would’ve been better to just put in Riley for half a season until Longshore fully recovered. By putting both QB’s in and out, we just created confidence issues between a mediocre QB and an injured one.
Endorsed
I think the biggest mistake of the Tedford era was continuing to play Longshore when it was obvious he wasn’t going to heal or get any better without some shutdown time. For whatever reason, Tedford flogged that horse until it dropped dead, and I am convinced it cost us the Axe in ’07.
I think if Longshore had a chance to heal, he would have a very different ’08. And I think looking over his shoulder forever did have a material impact on Riley – and in a way, may contribute toward the impracticality of rotating another QB in now (is Riley going to look over his shoulder because Sweeney gets non-garbage-time reps?).
"Well, if that ain't a show, I'll kiss your ass." - Gov. Jim Folsom Sr. (D-AL), 1948-52
Also, I am also waiting for the Kevin Riley era to be over. I understand why Tedford always opts for seniority and generally ignores his freshmen; he thinks his schemes are too complicated and wants them to fully understand the offense before they get meaningful minutes on the field. But I just want a QB that’s accurate, they don’t have to be completely familiar with Ted’s offense. That will come with time. What’s more important is that they can make the plays, hit the open receivers streaking down the field for a TD. I really hope Sweeney/Mansion aren’t given seniority points and that Hinder and Boehm are given a real chance at starting next year.
I don’t mean this necessarily as a criticism. Obviously, finding Aaron Rodgers and successfully recruiting him and coaching him is the biggest feather in Tedford’s cap. And it’s a very big feather.
That said, for a coach who’s been at the helm for nearly a decade, it’s remarkable—isn’t it—that he hasn’t developed a more consistent group of quarterbacks. Most every year he signs an Elite 11 guy, but none have really excelled at the college level, although Longshore came close. Maybe this is actually quite common nationwide, but until Tedford finds the right guy, I’m afraid we’re looking at 7- and 8-win seasons. Not bad, and enough to keep me satisfied as an alum. But I’m still waiting for that championship season.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 18, 2010 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree, that for a man who has been a head coach for 9 years, that he hasn’t developed a more consistent group of QBs. However, the washout rate of Elite 11 QBs is about 50%, I believe. I remember doing some research on that a few years back (I haven’t done any recently), and a lot of those kids really go on to do nothing.
So while getting all these Elite 11 QBs is great publicity for JT and the program, I have never really expected more from these QBs than regular QBs.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I don’t think it’s remarkable that he hasn’t developed a more consistent group of quarterbacks. What program has over that long of a time period? There are some programs that churn out guys with big numbers (Texas Tech, Hawaii until recently, etc), but those are only in the very extreme passing offenses.
In the time Tedford has been here, he’s had 2 average college QBs (Boller and Riley), 1 very good QB (Longshore), and 1 very elite QB (Rodgers). I think that stacks up well compared to any other program off the top of my head. I think this is especially true if you only compare to schools that recruit at the level Cal does. USC probably has had more consistent high quality QB play, but they recruit higher level talent.
Yup.
Another thing to remember is that USC always has standout wide receivers that make their quarterbacks look amazing. Look at what Matt Leinart, Mark Sanchez, and John David Booty are doing now that they’re in the NFL. Nothing. Sanchez was just lucky enough to be put on a complete team.
Also, more to the point, Tedford will never get the truly elite QB recruits because Cal’s known better for its rushing attack (irony?). We get the guys at the bottom of the Elite 11 (woe is me) that are hoping that working with a QB guru like Tedford will turn them into an NFL prospect that they weren’t going into their freshman year. These are the guys that are borderline. And really, when your 2nd string running back is getting 7-800 yards a year, you know that the passing offense is going to be limited. Not really the best choice for truly elite quarterbacks.
Thin air
Maybe that thin air affected Riley’s passes.
Seemed to help Torch though. Deepest kickoffs I’ve ever seen from the Bears.
Mansion Pistol Option?
If our scout team was having such success with the pistol, why don’t we run it?
A brilliant tactical move would have been to run it against Nevada before halftime, see how they defend it, and then copy their defensive scheme. That would be mad scientist.
by slaphancock on Sep 18, 2010 7:13 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
But worth a consideration. I’d like something like that much more than the frickin’ Wildcat.
I’d like to see what Neuheisel would do if we came out with that offense against Fucla….
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 18, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
see how they defend it, and then copy their defensive scheme. That would be mad scientist.
yes, indeed mad scientist.
but, didnt Clancy, and our Defense, see tons of film the whole week, of other teams defending the real Pistol offense ran by Nevada?
It’s inexcusable.
I’m way more pissed at the offense than I am the D. I think we’ll do well against more conventional offenses and be happy with the overall aggressive attitude we have now. IT just happened to bite us in the ass this time. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
But our offense mostly stunk it up against a middling defense. Weird playcalling, Riley looking the same as ever, untimely penalties. I mean, Easter Fucking Washington almost scored as many points against them!
So you’re not pissed at a defense giving up 45 points?
Even Bob Gregory on his worst day last year never game up that many.
I didn’t say I wasn’t pissed, just not nearly as much as I was with the offense. We knew this offense was good and would score points. It’s not like we were coming into this game expecting to pitch a shut out. The lack of any real adjustments is troubling, I’ll admit. But we hired a DC to make this defense more aggressive and played that angle in this game. It was obviously the wrong game plan and we got smoked. I can live with it against this tricky offense that was executed to perfection. I think/hope Clancy learned some valuable lessons. If ASU or UCLA does this, that’s a different story. I don’t think they will.
But I was expecting us to outscore them and wear them down, given their mediocre defense and our apparent size and speed advantage. Our execution was bad. Worries me much more than the D.
I do agree the offense played like crap at times, but they had 31 points and over 500 yards of offense. A handful of miscues stalled drives and Riley’s pick 6 killed Cal.
Nevada had 497 yards of offense, scored 45 points, and held the ball for nearly 37 minutes. You just can’t look at those numbers and say "We knew this offense was good and would score points " and “I was expecting us to outscore them.” It’s unrealistic to expect a team to score 46 points to win a game.
What adjustments needed to be made aside from the outside linebackers not biting on the handoff exchanges?
A handful of miscues stalling drives and Riley’s pick six speak to a lack of execution. It’s not like we were rolling up the yards and points against Alabama. It was against one of the lesser defenses in the WAC, let alone the country. Hell, even Eastern Washington had 24 points against them.
Yes, you are right, expecting our offense to score 46 points just to win is unrealistic. I don’t think anyone here would predict we’d have to do that. I’m not saying the defense played well at all. I’m just not as disappointed in them as I am the offense. Tedford even said Nevada’s offense could play with anyone in the country. It’s very deceptive with a seasoned, senior QB at the helm. They are the #1 offense in the country for a reason.
Our seasoned, senior QB couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn. And our seasoned, experienced OL gave him very little protection for the most part.
That worries me more than the defensive performance is all I’m sayin’.
Don’t point to the 500 yards of offense as a success…150 of those came after the game was already decided and we were down by 14-21 points.
Our receivers, Jonesand maybe Miller at TE aside, were completely non-existent. Even when Riley was looking them down the whole way, they were often running poor routes, not creating any separation….Calvin should never see the field again, his route running is about as precise as my grandma’s with her walker, and Loggy, while making good music, is only good for 5 yard possession catches.
Passing fail. Route running fail. Catching fail.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal needed 950 yards to win last night. Seriously though, a lot of fans, yourself included, are going to point to the stats on paper and justify their position that the game wasn’t completely awful. It was. Aside from the running game, which aside from 2 runs by Vereeen gained less than 100 yards, it was a complete failure to execute on most phases of the game.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Do you even know why I pointed out the offensive stats?
The game was not completely awful, as a lot of fans, yourself included, point out with vague statements and by picking apart statistics.
Yes, because your statements are so much more precise and specific. You’re right, I’m wrong. Go make some more Kool-Aid.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks, I know my statements and comments are better.
And you can go back to BI where you belong and pout like a loser.
You’re so off base, I’ve never even been to BI, and you know nothing about me. Chill dude, seriously. I’ve got nothing against you.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Yo. No personal attacks. Chill bro. Dude’s not pouting at all.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Good teams and offenses will be able to match TD for TD
especially when playing a WAC team. SC was able to match score for score despite their defense giving up over 500 to Hawaii. In that Hawaii – SC game you got the feeling that not matter how many times Hawaii scored, SC would march right down the field and answer back with a TD of their own. Sometimes in college football you have to be able to win a “shoot out” but Riley is not capable of doing so.
It was a tie game if Riley didn’t overthrow 3 passes to open receivers either streaking down the field or in the endzone on 3 different drives. The worst one was where he had I think it was Allen streaking open down the right sideline and completely overthrew him. Next play? I see the audible, I’m screaming at Riley not to throw it. “No! Don’t you do it! PLEASE DON’T!” And then he throws it for a pick 6. Instead of catching up, we’re down by ANOTHER touchdown.
If our offense hadn’t stalled those drives out with their “miscues”, we would’ve held onto the ball for longer, and Nevada wouldn’t have had time to score 45 points on our D.
by atomsareenough on Sep 18, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Other Observations
Derrick Hill >>>> Kendrick Payne and Aaron Tipoti I really wish Hill was healthy. The Nevada OL could not handle him for the most part. He blasted guys into the backfield and they had a hard time getting yards up the middle when he was in there. Payne and Tipoti are not ready for prime time. When those guys were being double teamed against CU and they kept gashing us for yards up the middle, I should not have looked the other way.
Secondary: Are they improved from last year or have they finally been exposed for what they really are? 12.1 yards/pass is not a nice number to look at the next morning.
Run the freaking ball: I don’t know why Ludwig decided to pass the ball after the success of the run game in the first quarter. Yes, we had run blocking issues but we had success running the ball. Look at the first drive of the second quarter: sack, sack, qb scramble, and an Anger screw up = great field position for the Nevada.
Mohamed: He was missed. Big time. Okanes downplaying that is a joke.
Agreed on Mohamed. It would have been a completely different game had he been out there on the field.
Now credit goes to Nevada b/c yesterday they absolutely did everything to deserve that win. But I think yesterday goes to show how critical Mohamed is for our team. Our linebackers looked lost out there.
As for the secondary. I’m not sure if they had a bad game. Nevada did everything well with their passing game when they wanted to utilize it. Their QB made some pretty spot on throws and their WR made some difficult catches to keep some of their drives alive. I’m gonna give them a few more games since they’ve had some good moments so far this season.
Last night’s game reminded me of those horrible games down in San Diego in the mid-1990s. I am so glad I wasn’t in the crowd last night.
But like the Bears’ team of old, Mohamed’s loss reminded me of when we just had one stud on either side of the ball, and when he got hurt, our team suffered. Even if it someone like Okanes claimed it wouldn’t have made a difference, it likely did make one. :o(
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
The problem was more the scheme and the outside line backers
Either the line backer has to cause a mis-read on Kaepernick’s part or we have to consistenly hit the QB to make them pay for running. Neither happened. The lineback in the backfield has to be a little more subtle or bait the QB into the wrong decision. Don’t know if Mohammed would have helped.
Agree and disagree.
Pendergast’s scheme was just wrong. We need to cut the field in half for their running game and have disciplined zone coverage. We did neither and let them run their offense at will. Mohamed would’ve made a difference because he would’ve probably singlehandedly stopped at least 2-3 of their 60 yard touchdown runs with good reads that our linebackers on the field weren’t able to make.
Re: Hill vs. Payne and Tipoti. I don’t believe those guys “weren’t ready for primetime”. They have a year and a half disadvantage on Hill, who’s been around and knows all the tricks for beating double teams. It seemed like more of an experience factor against a very experienced Nevada front.
Re: Secondary: Didn’t play that badly. Nnabuife and Hagan kept their feet moving on some vertical routes and didn’t look back for the corner, but overall I was more impressed by Kaepernick’s ability to keep plays alive and throw very precise patterns. It was more of a Chris Turner in Maryland sort of random occurrence. Plus they made the majority of our tackles.
Re: Run the freaking ball: This was a little bit quizzical. I’ll look back at that in game review.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree about the DBs. They could have made more plays on balls in the air and the Dlineman could have gotten sacks when they had pressure, but sometimes you just have to give credit to the opposition. Kaepernick was very impressive last night. He was especially good at escaping pressure while keeping is eyes downfield.
But I thought the playcalling compounded Cal’s problems, specifically one sequence:
It was early in second quarter. Cal had pulled even 7-7 on Vereen’s 59-yard touchdown run, only to watch Nevada counter with a touchdown to take a 14-7 lead. On first down at the 20, the Bears come out … throwing!?!?
First down: Riley sacked.
Second down: Riley sacked.
Third down: Busted play, Riley runs for three yards.
Then Cal punted — a bad one, at that — and Nevada needed five plays to cover 47 yards and take a 21-7 lead … and the Bears were scrambling the rest of the half.
Why in the world, after Vereen had busted that big run, did the Bears come out throwing? Seems to me like they should have kept running until Nevada proved it could stop them.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/09/18/cal-football-grading-the-week-12/
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
The only good thing to come out of this game
Shane is a beast
My worry
Can he be a 200-yd beast 9 more times? Because that’s asking a hell of a lot. And if not, we’re going to need something more than “crazy RAC by Keenan Allen” on a regular basis…
"Well, if that ain't a show, I'll kiss your ass." - Gov. Jim Folsom Sr. (D-AL), 1948-52
Excellent write-up.
I would be very surprised if we didn’t come out next week and beat the crap out of Arizona. Seriously. Despite last night, I still think we are a very good team on both sides of the ball and we will take this loss and move forward like we did after the Tennessee and Maryland losses.
I’m not worried, not yet. As much as I thought we’d beat Nevada, I never felt good about the game (especially once I heard Mohamed was out) and, as a result, am not feeling crushed by this loss (we all know we’re going to lose 2-3 games this season, so here’s one). If we have to sustain a 21-point road game loss (please, NO more of those!), I’d rather it be a nonconference game to a notoriously “tricky” WAC team, especially this early in the season.
I’m still not convinced Arizona is the real deal, but we’ll know a lot more about that after tonight. I just wish it were next weekend already. It’s going to be a long week awaiting our chance to prove ourselves—once agin—on the field (and on the road).
Go Bears!
Yeah.
I’m really thinking Mike Mo was capable of playing today and they kept him out. In Tedford’s mind, we’re not a NC team so we don’t need to risk everything for this win. Let’s say Mike played and we won, but he aggravated his injury and we lost him for conference play. Not worth it.
Good news: Pendergast now has personal experience with a spread option offense and is preparing for Oregon. Hopefully a Super Bowl defensive coordinator can look at what we have on defense and create plan to counter a gimmick offense that’s even more finely tuned than and would burn Nevada’s.
Arizona: I think they’re the real deal. Foles is a great quarterback, Grigsby is a good running back, and they have a solid defense. The only reason Iowa was close today was because of special teams blunders that you can’t really count on happening on any given day. In addition to that, we’ve always had troubles with Arizona during the Tedford era and I don’t see that changing. That said, they’re a more typical pro style offense and Pendergast should be relieved that he’s back in his comfort zone. Our defense probably won’t get burned by Foles, but they’re not going to shut him out. The goal is to limit him and score more than they do. What I saw today was that if we have a lot of movement (sending Allen across the backfield as a running threat), we can have Riley hopefully make the right read and get a lot of long running plays. Arizona seems to be weak to the option-type plays too and we should take advantage of it.
First 3 Games
My take-away from the first 3 games: we’re not as good OR as bad as we looked. We beat up on 2 bad teams, and got killed by a gimmick offense while missing our best defensive player. I’d be shocked if we gave up 52 points to any team the rest of the season, and I think Riley will bounce back and play better next week. Sorry, guess I’m just a sunshine pumper at heart!
Good write up as usual, Avi!
I've been Honked...
I like the optimism. But I wouldn’t be shocked if Oregon ran up 52 or more on us as well. Ever since I’ve been watching Cal (2000 was my first year—and I watched every game!) we’ve been confused by option and spread offenses.
Anyone know why? Our defense is stout against pro-style (USC, etc.) but looks like the keystone kops when there’s anything out of the ordinary.
I’d be shocked if Oregon doesn’t put 52 up on us from what happened this weekend, what happened last year and how Oregon has looked this year.
i don’t agree. janky things happen to the ducks in memorial. and colin kaepernick runs about twice as fast as darron thomas. masoli has a better burst than darron thomas. i’m sure he’s a better passer though.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 19, 2010 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions
He'd about have to be a better passer
obligatory LOL MISS joke here
"Well, if that ain't a show, I'll kiss your ass." - Gov. Jim Folsom Sr. (D-AL), 1948-52
Completly agree!!
I feel better about this loss than I’ve felt about a loss maybe since I’ve been watching Cal. We all knew we would struggle to stop them, and with prophet out I had a feeling it was coming.
I’m extremly pleased with the way the bears didn’t roll over when it was 21-7, because last year it would have happened. Take away that horrible horrible pick-6 and I think it goes down to the wire.
Learning experiance across the board, and if we get Mike back next week, I’m hoping for a 6-3 PAC 10 record, I would be pleased with this and I think it’s the most likely senario.
Go Bears!!!
In communist Russia, Sanchez declares YOU!
by HOUSE66 on Sep 18, 2010 9:22 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
6-3 sounds about right
I would say our losses come against Oregon, USC, and one of the following against OSU/Furd/Washington
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
Yea Im thinking OSU/Zona. Furd will have a hard time @ memorial and UW doesn’t win on the road.
In communist Russia, Sanchez declares YOU!
by HOUSE66 on Sep 18, 2010 9:39 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
So basically, assuming this team goes bowling at the end of the season and wins it, this team will probably be, at the most, 9-4, with 8-5 also a very realistic possibility. Seems like another typical Cal season, for better or worse.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
If it’s a standard year, we lose to UO/OSU/UA. But I think we beat UA this year because our team’s pissed about the loss to Nevada and Pendergast wants redemption against an offense he’s more familiar with. So take out UA and put in UW since Locker gives us fits. I think we beat USC this year since we get them relatively early and they’re still reeling.
But what about Washington not being very good and playing us at home?
by atomsareenough on Sep 19, 2010 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Despite the flawed defensive game plan (way to aggressive), I was pleased by the way the entire team came out after half time. They made adjustments, and played with some heart to start the 3rd. Wasn’t that one of our major problems last year? Now we just need to increase the defensive discipline. I don’t think we can really work on Riley’s accuracy problems at this point but we can keep the timely second half/ fourth quarter interceptions and penalties to a minimum. If we do these things, I definitely think we can get to Holiday Bowl. I actually want to go to there this year. San Diego’s nice, and I think we a win over the BIG12/MWC/WAC school will help our reputation which has been damaged the last few years.
Agreed.
Oregon’s probably going to the Rose Bowl this year as the most complete team in the Pac-10, so what we need to do is go to a good to decent bowl game and manhandle our opponent. One thing I like about or bowl prospects this year is that we have Pendergast, the man who was in charge of motivating a defense through the NFL playoffs to the Super Bowl. If you can do that, I’m pretty sure you can prepare a defense for a bowl game as long as it’s not against a team that runs the wildcat, pistol, or spread option as more than just a gimmick. If we get put against that, then all hope is lost. Anyway, if we come out with a good win, we have a very young team that now has experience and confidence. And while nobody’s saying it, they all have even higher expectations now that Riley’s out.
I was there, and I for one feel that if Riley hadn’t thrown that pick-6, we would have won for sure. All the momentum was with us, had we taken the lead, we would have taken the crowd out of the game and energized our D.
Oh well, twas not to be.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I was there too, and I don’t know about “for sure”, but I agree with you that we were in it and could have taken the crowd out of the game right there.
That play brough me back to the UCLA game in 2007.
I saw AZ ’06
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with all of this except for the gimmick offense part. It might be a ‘gimmick’ in the sense that nobody else in the country runs the offense well and so most (all?) d coordinators are unfamiliar with how to stop it, but nothing that deadly is a gimmick in my book.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I think SC aside any offense that does really well against us is labeled a ‘gimmick.’
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
z
What about that time that North Hollywood Clown College totally beat Cal with their patented Flower Water Spray offense?
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
what about that time, indeed.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Was that a gimmick??? Or was that just a well executed offense?
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I prefer Hollywood Upstairs Medical clollege’s Dirty-Butter-Knife-Option scheme, myself.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I could see some of the warnings ahead: Reports filtering out of practice indicating that Cal’s defense was struggling with the Cal scout offense. Brock Mansion was literally torching them with the zone read at every point, making you wonder how different the trajectory of Mansion’s career (who was recruited as a spread quarterback) at Cal would’ve been if we had stuck with Mike Dunbar’s spread attack.
Where were these “reports”? I don’t remember reading anything to that effect.
by atomsareenough on Sep 18, 2010 11:06 AM PDT reply actions
Seriously, I would have liked to have read some of these prior to the game. Its easy to say it now, but for all the ‘scouting and reporting’ that goes on here on this site, you would think it would have been more prominent leading up to the game.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
These are from CGB’s own personal sources. It wasn’t reported mainstream.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess you don’t want to give away team secrets or whatever, but just saying, nobody else here had even a clue this was coming.
by atomsareenough on Sep 18, 2010 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I talk to coach Tedford every night before he goes to bed.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Sep 18, 2010 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That’s why I’ve never talked to him.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Sep 18, 2010 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
lol’d
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Brock Mansion was literally torching them with the zone read at every point
Maybe the reason our defense couldn’t stop Kaperinackyay was that our defenders were all suffering from 2nd and 3rd degree burns, after an apparently homicidial Brock Mansion “literally torched” them in practice.
I love David Cross!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ly1UTgiBXM
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Yes our defense did let us down last night but every defense will have days
like that on occasion. Even SC’s defense got lit up by Hawaii.
The only difference, SC’s offense was up for the task of going score for score with Hawaii.
If you look back to last season in our four blow out losses, our offense could not keep up and match TD for TD, just like last night. The common denominator is Kevin Rileys inability as a passer to make the necessary throws to keep us in the game. Yes we did score 31 points but how many of those scores came as a result of Riley? Not many, Vereen was doing everything in his power to keep us in that game, yet for some reason Ludwig took the ball out of Vereens hands and put it in Rileys! This was very frustrating.
Riley threw a pick six and his other two interceptions both came in Nevada territory. Not to mention his inability to get the ball in the endzone twice while at the goal line, instead we had to settle for a FG and a turnover on downs. Plus a handful of other bad passes that our WR’s couldn’t adjust to and catch. Once again and I said this in last nights post game thread, I am reminded just how good Jones is because he is able to adjust and catch most of Rileys poor throws.
People might disagree with me but I believe Riley is worse that Ayoob. Ayoob only had one year as a starter and showed very little improvement over that one season. While Riley has had three years to improve as a QB and is still making first year mistakes and poor throws.
I have lost most of my faith in briley’s ability as a qb, but no way he was as bad as ayoob. not close.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Ranking Ayoob, Longshore, Riley is immaterial to me
they have one big thing in common: they all seemed to become head cases. I see the same hesitancy, poor decision making, and general lack of confidence in Riley that I saw in Ayoob and Longshore. Quite often, Riley holds onto the ball too long, like he doesn’t know where to throw it. He didn’t see plenty of open receivers last night because he started locking onto Jones late in the game. Contrast this with Kapernack, who made split second decisions on every play and finished with 5 tds.
Frankly, it’s all the same issue to me. I find it hard to believe that we recruited three head cases in a row, especially since both Nate and Riley looked better and more confident earlier in their careers. I think it falls to Tedford. Something is not working properly.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think it’s part Tedford and staff, part fanbase, to be honest. Also, some guys are headcases regardless. I imagine it’s something really hard to change.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 19, 2010 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
It is not a good sign that Riley struggled with this Nevada defense
he will be facing much better defenses once Pac10 play starts and Vereen can’t always carry this team on his back.
I think the defense will bounce back but Riley showed me zero growth and improvement last night. He looked like the same shaky QB that we have seen for the past two seasons.
Riley will be Riley. At a certain point we can’t expect him to be any different from what he’s shown us in the past. It sucks but he’s our qb and he’ll be prone to the same mistakes that’s plagued him the past few years. Is he a liability? Maybe at times. But at a certain point it’s somewhat unfair to place a lot of the blame on him compared to the expectations we all have for him (not saying you’re blaming him for the loss but a lot of people are and do whenever we lose).
If you have a team where the qb play is the weak spot, the the rest of the team has to figure out what it’s going to take to get a W. That’s true for any other position. For me personally, I’ve already accepted Riley as the guy we say yesterday. If he shows any vast improvement, good for him. But I certainly don’t get upset as much as I did in the past when he overthrows a wide open receiver or makes other Riley-like mistakes. It’s good for my health that way.
I kept hoping that the Riley who led Cal back in that final drive against ASU last year would come out last night. I wouldn’t have been bothered by the loss so much if it wasn’t him making those mistakes. That it was him, around whom so much is dependent upon, frankly scare me going forward. I did expect a higher level of competency from him this year.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 18, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
The good news is most Pac-10 offense won’t be running a pistol or spread option offense, so we won’t have to score as much. If Vereen scores 3 TD’s a game, we win most games and he’s a Heisman candidate in a year where we don’t have high hopes in general anyway. That’s a successful season in my books. And then we can kick Riley out (read: he graduates) and we place all of our hopes in the next quarterback, just to grow tired of him by the end of the year and demand the next guy over.
And if you think it is, just stop watching.
Tired of hearing people act like we weren’t supposed to lose this game. First away game for the season against a pretty solid team. Everyone knew Nevada was dangerous. They did what a lot of people expected them to. 52 points is 52 points.
I wish we can go to the Rose Bowl but the fact is we’re not supposed to. If we do it’ll be great. But I’m looking forward to the ride. We might lose games we’re supposed to win. We might win games we’re supposed to game. This is college football.
I’m all for criticizing our team as long as it’s reasonable but some of the things people are saying is just crap. Just trying to troll and piss people off. Or very bitter Cal fans. But yea it’s getting old fast guys.
My advice is just to enjoy it yourself and don’t let the trolls get to you. I just stay away from the trolling when it gets heavy. Only 7 days ’til the next game, or as it will be known: Bubble Screen Extravaganza!
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah good point. I’m not used to it for this season yet. It’s been over a year since these idiots showed up and I guess I forgot about them. They come out of the woods after every loss and go back and hide whenever we get a good win.
I’m pretty worried about Arizona. If we don’t have a good week of practice we’re just going to be in for another defensive nightmare like yesterday.
Think about it this way, we have an extra day to prepare for Arizona than Arizona has to prepare for us ;-)
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m glad they have an extra day to refocus. Twitter comments showed maturity (imagine that!)
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I think a lot of people, myself included, were expecting much more. Having said that, if I look back at the expectations I set at the beginning of the season, I was going to be happy with an 8-4 season, accepting of a 7-5 season, and thrilled with a 9-3 season. We know we’re going to lose some games and this was one of them.
I’m gonna go back to enjoying our team and the successes we did have. Vereen looked pretty damn good last night!
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m all for criticizing our team as long as it’s reasonable but some of the things people are saying is just crap. Just trying to troll and piss people off. Or very bitter Cal fans. But yea it’s getting old fast guys.
You got that right. I’m not a sunshine pumper by any means but some of the things I have read in this comment section are not true.
I am an attractive person well respected by all my friends.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
We were not “supposed” to lose. At the very least, we definitely were not “supposed” to lose by 21 points. Nevada was dangerous and definitely a possible loss. But there’s no way we were supposed to get handled like that. Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t be acting like we lost to UC Davis, but I don’t think that’s going on here. I think there’s just a lot of frustration at the nature of our loss.
Personally, I’m particularly frustrated because I think this was actually a winnable game despite the struggles. A few better plays by a few players or a few different play calls.
(I’m not defending any actual trolling that might be going on. I haven’t read all the comments, but I most of the unhappy ones that I have read, haven’t been to the level of trolling)
by jali on Sep 18, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Personally, I’m particularly frustrated because I think this was actually a winnable game despite the struggles. A few better plays by a few players or a few different play calls.
Agreed
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
And nobody has said anything positive yet about the play call at the goalline where Riley passed to Stevens for the TD. I thought that was a great call by Ludwig, Stevens went in completely untouched. A few more plays like that here and there could have made the difference.
Without the pix six, its a 14 point game. Without the overthrown 5 yard pass on 4th and 3, Nevada doesn’t get a FG at the end of the 1st half.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I was 100% sure we were going to take the lead on that drive before the pick-6. That’s been the most surprising play of the year for me so far.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah, that was a definite gut punch
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
by CruzinBears on Sep 18, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I actually think we would have won if not for the pick 6. We had momentum. Defense was playing well in the 2nd half.
And that was a Riley audible, not a designed play, right? Or was it the same designed play that Riley overthrew on 4th and 3?
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
And a really good read by the….safety? Nobody has said yet how good the Nevada secondary was, I think they won the game for Nevada as much as their offense did. The secondary really kept our receivers in check. I’m thinking of one example towards the end of the game when Calvin went on a 10-yard in route, and was completely bumped off his route and made to look very confused.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
That safety really did bait Riley. Even if Riley threw a safer out more towards the sideline that play was doomed for a pick 6. I think he pretended to cover Jones in the slot but jumped even before the ball was out of Rileys hands to the out guy. Great play by him.
I also think it was just tough for 5’11-6’ Riley to get a good read on that play.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, if that.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Riley is shorrrrt. It’s why he has so much trouble making his reads when he gets pressured in the pocket.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
So…..Riley needs to play in high heels? Wait, what?
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s 6 feet at least. I am 5’11 and when I met him he was easily an inch taller than me. I would put him at 6 and small change. And he wasn’t in cleats (I was – but it was on the memorial stadium turf).
"The trees on the [Student Athlete High Performance Center] are not protected -- and cannot be 'saved' -- by any law."
yeah, I’ve stood next time him a few times, and I was slightly taller than him. I’m 6’1 exactly.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ve stood next to Riley and he’s about m yheight and 45 feet tall. So, I feel like he should just fall forward on every play and we’ll score a touchdown!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Now you’re just talking crazy.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
No doubt. It’s always so hard to tell from the TV angles we get if it’s mostly Cal or mostly the prowess of the opposing D. And it’s always some of both. But from what I saw, Nevada could legitimately be a Top 25 team if they execute consistently throughout the season. And, like last year, I bet they have absolutely NO problem with WACtion, besides the huge date with BSU. And they played really well against Boise for 3 quarters last year.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Invite them to join the Pac14!
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
You’ve given me a chance to reflect upon my comments, and I realized you were right, I needed more specifics….and Kool-Aid. Go Bears! ;-)
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I changed my signature. Better?
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m still a member of the TwistNHook fanclub at www.twistys.com
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess I saw the game differently. We were getting “handled” on offense but to me that was expected. It wasn’t going to be easy.
I just thought the game was a game of big plays that almost always benefited Nevada (except for the Shane runs). All the 3rd down conversions they were coming up with, the freak pick off of Allens hands (i’m not sure how many times we’re ever going to see that while he’s here), the Longshore pick 6 Riley threw (Riley doesn’t throw many picks, and rarely does he throw a pick 6), MULTIPLE fumbles we caused that they recovered rather miraculously. I think that’s what REALLY killed us. Not to mention their 3rd down conversion success that came off of pretty well executed pass plays.
It was definitely winnable but Nevada really had a lot of things going for them today. The game was still fairly close and very winnable until that backbreaker pick 6.
Frustrating? Definitely. But for me this loss doesn’t hurt as much as much as some people are making it out to be.
I think we’re actually in about the same boat here. I feel like it was winnable if all the breaks didn’t go Nevada’s way. It’s still just frustrating to lose by so much yet so little. Like I said elsewhere, I really think we would have won if not for the pick 6. That’s frustrating.
Also, my personal nature of sunshine pumping, involves believing that we’ll win every game until proven otherwise. I’m not too angry if we don’t, but it’s still disappointing to have the sunshine dreams crushed. Now, I’ll just believe we’ll win 9 straight and go to the Rose unless proven otherwise ;)
The sunshine usually shines real bright every year. Until October comes. Then the world collapses.
What’s funny is how the sun comes out shining real brightly in the offseason.
zactly
frustrating because all the stuff we’re supposed to be better at inherently from being in the pac 10 and recruiting consistently better players on a regular basis year after year under a premier coach with tons of support staff: timing, execution, penalties, game smarts, discipline, the stuff you actually learn and practice, was nowhere to be seen.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
Just a painful game. It seemed like the coaches didn’t have the team prepared for the game. Not enough discipline on defense and questionable run/pass mix on offense.
I don’t know if it was discipline or the scheme itself, but something was definitely wrong on defense. It seems like Clancy wanted Browner to crash hard — I assume he would’ve yanked him otherwise.
Tired of hearing people act like we weren’t supposed to lose this game. First away game for the season against a pretty solid team. Everyone knew Nevada was dangerous. They did what a lot of people expected them to. 52 points is 52 points.
Sorry, we weren’t supposed to lose this game. Not like that, at the very least. Everyone knew Nevada was dangerous, but we also played poorly. That’s why we are disappointed. What’s so hard to understand about that?
by atomsareenough on Sep 18, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
If we were supposed to lose, we wouldn’t have been 2.5 point favorites on the road.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
dude, the people who say we werent supposed to lose this game havent been paying attention to our season story lines the past few years.
Unsurprisingly surprising away game blowout humiliation is a storyline that we keep going to year in and year out. I think that its a little played, to be honest. A little stale. What about “Rose Bowl Championship Season”? Now, that’s something fresh and new! That’ll get the ratings!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
The team is awfully focused on the long term. They want to save up the “Rose Bowl Championship Season” so it’s even fresher, newer and more unexpected years down the road. So, for now, we’re going to see re-runs of the “Unsurprisingly surprising away game blowout humiliation” episode. But when they flip the switch, man, will we never see it coming.
Any reports on a Hagan injury? He really wasn't in there much.
Someone commented that he made an appearance in the second half, but I missed it.
Not having Williams and Hagan, two true corners, (and Hagan can definitely tackle and defeat blocks) was…well…hurtful.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
Also, Forbes didn’t play, right?
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Did Price play? If he did then I didn’t notice him at all.
No longer a member of the Martinis. I'm now a member of the Twisties...fans of TwistNHook go to www.twistys.com* *Note: TwistNHook does not endorse this site.
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Not that I remember and he probably wouldn’t have done too well since Browner must have been better at executing the defense in practice
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep. He played more for Browner in the 2nd half. He didn’t get to just tee off on pass rushes because of all the fakes. I also feel like the Cal D tried to rotate to get Kendricks to be the read weakside defender instead of Browner/Price.
It kinda seemed like, for the first few drives, Browner was told just to go straight for the RB and the inside backer (Mullins then Hurrell) would do the accounting for the QB. That’s where we could’ve used MikeMo
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
He played. I remember a penalty being called on him I think.
by atomsareenough on Sep 18, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
totally called it presnap too. he was way over the line
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Avi, anything here? Were they just never running plays to Hagan’s side?
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Sometimes Nevada went three wide and Cal brought in the nickelback. Hill played some corner, as did Nnabuife. Not sure if Hagan was on the other side.
I also think the elevation accounted for more exhaustion and rotation by all the corners, which is probably why Hagan seemed to be absent. I don’t think he was injured. He played the second half.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 18, 2010 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a facebook summary of our defense lol.

by Redonkulous Bear on Sep 18, 2010 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs
Haha That's pretty funy
Keep up the great work!
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
by CruzinBears on Sep 18, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
What a sad bear, he’s trolling
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions
What a frustrating game. I really need to stop getting so amped up before games :(
Browner was awful, as Avi pointed out. But, without knowing Clancy’s scheme, we don’t know whether he was just following orders. Who knows if Browner’s job was to crash the RB and leave Kapaernick to the LB’s? Not me, but maybe Cali49a.
Vereen is awesome. What an asset to our team. Gould has done a tremendous job, especially with his balance. Shane was side-stepping Nevada defenders with ease and showed better burst than the first 2 weeks. Very glad he’s back.
Nice to see Miller get more involved. Love to incorporate more of those TE posts that we ran last year to great success with Miller.
Marv is awesome as well. I really thought we had an awesome tri-headed attack with Miller, KA, and Marv. Hopefully KA can shake off this game and be ready to go next week.
KA21 will be ready. Pump it.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Step one: register KA21.com
Step two: Keenan Allen becomes Heisman candidate
Step three: sell KA21.com domain
Step four: PROFITS
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions
step six: LOSSES
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 19, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I might be the only one not really stressing that much about this game
(1) Nevada’s offense is pretty good and they executed well.
(2) Defense looked ill-prepared, and it does give me concern about facing Oregon.
(3) The Bears were only a few plays away from this being a pretty competitive game, imo. Without Riley’s tipped INT, and without his pick-6 then perhaps then the game is essentially tied. I’m not blaming Riley at all for everything which happened by only pointing to his mistakes, but those two turnovers were costly.
Anyways, I just hope people cheer up a bit. Nevada is a good team. Sky is not falling. Cal is still a pretty good. We’re not a complete cream-puff.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think the lopsided victories against Davis and Colorado made us all conveniently forget that we were not even expected to finish in the upper half of the Pac-10 this season. I’m not saying we still won’t, but, well, even trying to nab the Holiday Bowl this season will be difficult for this team.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
I think Nevada has a chance to beat Boise State. I think our defense will bounce back. But I think no. 3 on your list is a doozey since it rests squarely upon No. 13. Riley’s completion % for the night actually was decent (62.2%), but I think we can agree he looked really terrible. A lot of his completions were very poorly placed and only saved by receivers adjusting to the ball (the Miller screen and the long Allen catch on the sideline come to mind).
And his mechanics noticeably broke down playing against a meh defense. Against SC and Oregon, I can understand that. Against Nevada? Other than the back to back sacks, I thought his protection was ok (not great, but ok). The ESPN announcers repeatedly talked about how “the ball wasn’t pretty” and actually replayed his release in slow-mo to show how it was getting long (which almost never happens in the college broadcasts I’ve seen). And that’s to say nothing of the delay of game penalty. This is a fifth-year starter and three-year starter… at a certain point we just need to admit that he is what he is. And what he is is not promising for our Pac-10 hopes.
I haven’t given up on the season, but I think I’m over believing that No. 13 will miraculously turn the proverbial corner and become a consistently good player.
I actually agree that Riley was “terrible.” Not even close. I would say he was “okay”. In fact, despite Riley having those INTs, he was the one that kept us in the game too with his throws that he did complete.
As for ESPN announcers breaking down mechanics and showing replays, they’ve been doing that for years, and especially ever since Tim Tebow started getting all this publicity for his windmill throwing motion.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
It’s all relative. Being 100% successful 50% of the time is not “good” even if it does “keep us in the game.”
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree. Especially if a good portion of the other 50% is very bad. However, I agree that he wasn’t “terrible”. Just somewhere between “terrible” and “okay”. Let’s call it “bad”. He was decent at throwing it to open receivers but made inaccurate throws even on completions, ran from the pocket too quickly, and had that awful pick 6 and delay of game.
I would also contend that Riley did not “keep us in the game”. I would say Vereen and the tough catches made by receivers did that. He did avoid knocking us out of the game… until the pick 6.
I disagree. Kodiak’s post last week about pressure causing Riley’s miscues was persuasive, but as someone who watched last night’s game in person, Riley was really bad. He was indecisive. He was locking onto Jones later in the game, at the expense of missing some wide open receivers. He missed on all of his deep balls until the game was out of hand – at that point, since the pressure was off, I predicted that he’d start playing better, and immediately he hits Marv for 40 yards. The pick six was abysmal and essentially ended the game, but if he hits Keenan Allen, who was open by 3-5 yards in the endzone, on the previous play, we take the lead. He missed badly, and the next play he throws the pick six. It was really unfortunate, because up to that point Riley had played a virtually flawless third quarter. Then immediately, he makes two terrible plays. I couldn’t tell from my vantage point if the first pick is on him or Allen – I’ll give him that at the least.
Bottom line, we know Riley is not a particularly accurate qb. It sucks, but it is what it is. What is much more troubling is his lack of decisiveness, confidence, and decision-making. At the least, you want your experienced, senior quarterback to be proficient in these areas, even if he doesn’t have Rodgers/Brees accuracy. The fact that he doesn’t (and that Nate was lacking in these areas as well later in his career), and the fact that he was more decisive and confident as a younger player does not speak well of him and, ultimately, Tedford.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
On the first pick, Riley threw high and behind Allen. Not a good throw, but a catchable, albeit difficult, ball. I think there’s blame to go around on that one.
Basically not a throw a senior qb should make and not a throw a 5-star WR recruit should miss. A negative times a negative equals an interception, it seems.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions
fuck you.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
er, thanks
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d have to disagree. Vereen kept us in the game with 21 points. Riley padded his stats with a lot of yards, but 100 of those yards were Marvin Jones making ridiculous catches that wouldn’t have been made by your average receiver. From my perspective, Vereen carried the team, Riley played average for most of the game, and Riley gave away the game. He needs to hit open receivers around the end zone and not kill all of our momentum. He starts out the game with a pass behind the receiver that turns into an INT, giving Nevada momentum to start out the game. Vereen keeps it close for the rest of the half, but he throws two more picks in Nevada territory, one for a TD. As much as our defense needs to be blamed for the loss, Riley did everything he could to give us false hope.
I actually agree that Riley was "terrible." Not even close. I would say he was "okay". In fact, despite Riley having those INTs, he was the one that kept us in the game too with his throws that he did complete.
As for ESPN announcers breaking down mechanics and showing replays, they’ve been doing that for years, and especially ever since Tim Tebow started getting all this publicity for his windmill throwing motion.
In regards to the first point… like I said, even a lot of his completions were off target. I understand the whole “As a receiver, you need to adjust to the ball” off argument, but he was consistently missing and getting bailed out. If Keenan Allen HAD brought that first INT in (I would have called it between 60-40 to 50-50 Riley-Allen), does that absolve Riley of making the poor throw because he got lucky? I’m not the type to pile it on Riley just because. I thought he played well in the first two games and people were being unfair… not so much this time. MAYBE “terrible” is harsh, but at best I think he was bad.
As for the second point, I don’t watch a ton of CFB outside of Cal and occasional Pac-10 games. Usually when I’ve seen that replay it’s more along the lines of “look how compact this guy’s release is?” Last season it was maddening to see Riley’s mechanics and footwork clearly breakig down in real time and no one on the broadcast taking note of it (or at least getting a replay to see for sure), so it was novel for me.
Great summary, Avinash. I don’t have much to say about the game that you didn’t already say. The most interesting part of your post to me is the bit about Mansion being solid in the pistol. I really feel for guys who never get a shot to play for reasons that are, in part, totally outside of their control. Not to mention for guys who seem to really work hard but can’t live up to our collective expectations. I wish I could run in to Riley and shake his hand, not that it would mean anything to him. I appreciate what he has done, even if he hasn’t led us to the promised land.
mmm...pistol whip

Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Sep 18, 2010 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Calvin
Why was Calvin seeing so much playing time on the field yesterday?
I know hes a physical WR, but come on.
Jones>>Allen>>>>>Ross=Lagemann>>>>>>>>>>>Calvin
We need to utilize JRoss and Loggy a lot more.
No more Calvin please.
Quite simply: He’s a big-bodied WR, very good at run-blocking usually. I wasn’t paying too much attention to it, but he’s been pretty consistent with that. Shane did do well in the second level. I’d have to rewatch that tape to see what types of schemes we had going when he came out.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 18, 2010 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
The problem with Calvin is that he looked like he was run-blocking when it was a passing play and Riley expected him to be running a route…..equals INT. Calvin just isn’t very cerebral, and considering all the time he’s spent on the sideline nursing his injuries he hasn’t learned very much by watching.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Calvin has yet to see a ball thrown at him on the numbers this year that wasn’t totally read by a db (ucd game). He is better than Loggy.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions
How are we judging these guys?
I haven’t ever watched them in practice so I have no idea how we can definitely judge these guys based on plays during games. They aren’t in very often, and even more rarely have plays run for them.
I’m going off practice reports from a few years ago from JO, when Calvin was supposed to be hauling in great catches alongside Jones. Then he broke all three of his knees twice or something and we haven’t seen him til this year.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Calvin has what, three catches in his career? I don’t want to pretend that Loggy is great, and part of the reason that Loggy catches more balls than Calvin is due to them playing different positions – Loggy in the slot catching underneath stuff, and Calvin on the outside. That said…I have zero confidence that Calvin will catch a pass when he’s in the game. He made a nice grab during big game last year, but I can’t remember him making one other meaningful catch in his career.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Calvin has what, three catches in his career? I don’t want to pretend that Loggy is great, and part of the reason that Loggy catches more balls than Calvin is due tothem playing different positions – Loggy in the slot catching underneath stuff, and Calvin on the outside. That said…I have zero confidence that Calvin will catch a pass when he’s in the game. He made a nice grab during big game last year, but I can’t remember him making one other meaningful catch in his career. Numerous injuries to Calvin over his career that have massively hampered him.
fijar
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions
certainly
I’m talking about when they’re actually in games – Loggy has easier balls to catch, since they’re short and over the middle. Deep, outside passes are a much lower percentage.
But again, I have no faith in Calvin’s ability to make a catch in a game. He drops passes, he doesn’t get separation from dbs, he doesn’t use his body to shield dbs…I was excited to see him play based on his strong showing with the scout team his true freshman year, but he is a pretty bad receiver right now.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I have faith that when Calvin sees a ball thrown at his numbers he’ll catch it AND take two steps before falling down and rapping about it.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah, like I said, I don’t think Loggy is great. But he actually catches passes. Calvin does not catch passes in games. In my opinion, this makes him a pretty bad receiver, basically by definition.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
i agree
Calvin has dropped alot of passes, even short ones. Loggy falls, and he has absolutely no YAC, but at least he catches it first.
and Calvin doesn’t run good routes. there were a couple of times where, despite his size advantage, he got completely bumped off his routes and generally looked confused.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 19, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
when, exactly?
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 19, 2010 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
the first time was when he got bumped off his route, the second time that also happened.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 20, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Gabbert held in check at the moment...
Sorry to hijack, but I feel like San Diego State is playing better D against the zone read.
I agree all is not lost. This game may help us slow down Oregon, and who knows w/ Mikeymo…
Riley is just a teeter-totter. up down up down up down I thought the pass to Allen on the first drive was put where it needed to be. Kinda felt like bad luck.
Couple questions...
What were people’s thoughts on Tedford going for it on 4th and 6 (and then 4th and 11)? I am in favor of the former, a little more ambivalent on the latter… I would be a definite NO on 4th and 11 if not for the fact that our defense was gassed and had not shown the ability to consistently stop Nevada. It seems decidedly anti-Tedford.
Second question: anyone know Bridgford’s health status? I’m hoping he at least gets up to speed quickly because our future QB situation scares me a bit, since No. 13 is gone (for better or worse), Beau Sweeney hasn’t overtaken him, and Brock Mansion was at one point in danger of losing the no. 3 spot to a walk-on.
First of all, I’m not entirely sure there is a right or wrong answer. It just depends on how confident you are in your (1) defense to get the ball back without giving up more points; and (2) how much faith you have in your offense to score again in the allotted time remaining.
I think at the time we were down by 14 points before that fourth down attempt. Getting a field goal would leave us down by 11 points with 9:55 remaining in the 14th quarter. Cal would still need two scoring possessions (8 point touchdown + field goal) to tie the game on the assumption that the Cal defense doesn’t give up any more points. So the question here seems to be: do you trust your defense to stop Nevada TWICE without giving up points, and that your offense can score one touchdown and drive at least half the field for a field goal?
Alternatively, going for it on that 4th down would have put Cal only seven points behind Nevada with 9:55 remaining. Then you’re just asking your defense to stop Nevada ONCE without giving up any more points, and hoping that your offense can drive the field for a touchdown, and perhaps settle for a field goal if they can’t.
I’m not sure there’s an entirely right or wrong answer, but I was leaning in favor of going for it on 4th down regardless of the yardage because at the rate things were going during that game, I was not confident in the Cal defense preventing Nevada from scoring more points.
So I agreed with going for it on 4th down both as a 4th &6, and as a 4th & 11.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
And remember, all this:
do you trust your defense to stop Nevada TWICE without giving up points, and that your offense can score one touchdown and drive at least half the field for a field goal?
has to occur in 9:55 of less. That’s A LOT of football to squeeze into 9 minutes and 55 seconds. Plus, when you consider how Nevada’s offense was moving the ball, asking for your defense to stop them twice is a lot.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Hydro, keep in mind that Maynard will be eligible next year and I honestly think he’ll be the most experienced QB we have available.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Sep 18, 2010 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
He is familiar with the Holy Hand Grenade scheme!!!
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 18, 2010 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I would’ve gone for it every time. With the points the way they were, the key thing to note is momentum. What will happen to our momentum if we fail? In that situation, Cal had already lost their momentum and were trying to get it back. In this sense, I think the “Get points no matter how many” approach doesn’t really help us. We’re not stopping Nevada’s offense regularly and if they score a TD we’re just down by 4 more points; we’re still going to be down by one more score. Momentum-wise, it’s more of an aw shucks, better luck next time and Nevada has their momentum continuing. If we do convert, we silence their crowd and most likely score a TD and energize the team. Not much to lose at that point in the game the way our defense was getting manhandled and so much to gain, even when it became 4th and 11.
I think it was the right call. There were only 4 punts in the game (2 for each team). Hard to imagine Cal getting two shots at the ball and holding Nevada scoreless … and their grind it out drives meant time was limited.
I think the fact that Cal only punted twice underlines the point that the turn-overs and mistakes (in particular the miss-fires in the end zone) made the difference. The third quarter interception returned for a touchdown was the play of the game.
jh
additional comments
You might add the fact that Nevada’s defensive coordinator, Andy Buh, was previously an assistant at stanfurd for 3 years. The last 2 as co-defensive coordinator before returning to Nevada, January 2010. He played and coached at Nevada from 1993 to 1999. Unfortunately, he was familiar with Tedford’s offensive scheme and Riley. Im sure he knew Riley’s tendencies and short comings. Especially the interception leading to the TD. Putting the game out of reach for Cal. I’m annoyed by his mistakes as shown by placing both his hands on top of his helmet. As the other senior QB on the field, he should have learned from his prior 2 years of game experience. What happened after his Armed Forces Bowl performance? I’m hoping the rest of the season isn’t a repeat of the last 2 years, high and low performances.
Unfortunately, he was familiar with Tedford’s offensive scheme and Riley. Im sure he knew Riley’s tendencies and short comings.
But he was only at Stanford from 2005 to 2007. So I dont think he knows Riley too much, and if he does, Riley was excellent in 2007.
another way to keep this all in perspective...
I just talked to a friend about his philosophy towards golf:
“I usually shoot a 90…that’s 18 strokes over par. I know that I’m going to hit a really horrible shot every other hole….that’s 9 strokes. And I know I’m going to blow a putt every other hole…that’s another 9 strokes. So from hole to hole if I hit a bad shot or miss a putt, I know its just one of those 18 strokes.”
So what does this have to do with Cal football? You can take whatever prediction you had before the season, 7-5 or 8-4 or 9-3 whatever. We know we’re going to lose some games, probably get blown out pretty bad. So from game to game, if we lose one its just one of those losses we had expected at the beginning of the season. The sky isn’t falling, the moon’s orbit isn’t off, its ok. And that, my friends, is my Kool-Aid wisdom for the day.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
Kevin Riley 2010 = Kevin Riley 2007. That’s fine with me, Riley is good at times and he plays his heart out. What’s disappointing is that QB guru JT still hasn’t found someone in this 4 year time frame that has more consistency. Anyone else remember Shane Vereen shaking his head in disgust that Riley is taking delay of game penalties on critical 4th downs? I’m excited to see what Bridgford and Hinder can do next year, but at the same time I’m anxious.
On to the defense. I was really looking forward to Pendergast’s gameplan yesterday to see how he would deal with the pistol offense. I was especially interested to see how the D would contain the QB. I thought for sure we would be smashing their QB on every play until he was numb. Epic fail. The coaches didn’t put the players in a position to succeed, and that hurts!
Recruiting updates @CalEternal on Twitter.
by CaliforniaEternal on Sep 18, 2010 11:20 PM PDT reply actions
What’s disappointing is that QB guru JT still hasn’t found someone in this 4 year time frame that has more consistency
Exactly. This is what concerns me the most. There’s a trend here, and I have a difficult time believing that all of our recent qbs just don’t have it mentally, especially when they perform better earlier in their careers. If it’s only one player, then he’s a bust. It’s a pattern at this point, and that falls to Tedford.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think it has more to do with Tedford’s tendencies than our actual QB talent. Well, it would have to do with both. Here’s my reasoning. Tedford doesn’t start freshmen. He thinks you need more experience with and knowledge of his offense to start and will give the position to the guy with seniority almost every time. He veered away from this when Longshore got injured, but couldn’t make a decision and that hurt us for the entire season. He usually starts juniors, maybe sophomores. The problem is that this puts us into a nasty cycle. We have a lot of talent at the QB position in terms of upside, but they never get the chance to develop since most of them won’t ever get meaningful minutes. By the time it’s their turn, they’re probably juniors and only have two years to give and get good experience. I don’t think Tedford’s necessarily wrong because putting all your faith in a freshman could do just the same thing. You give him a couple years, he doesn’t pan out, and then what? What screwed up our QB rotation was Longshore. After Rodgers, Longshore was supposed to start, but he got injured, which put in Ayoob. I believe Longshore got that year back, but all of our other QB’s on the roster lost a year and we ended up with a QB competition when there shouldn’t have been one.
I thought for sure we would be smashing their QB on every play until he was numb. Epic fail.
Can’t do that when they either handoff or fake a handoff on every running down.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
Well, against most offenses, no. But against a spread option offense like the pistol offense, you can hit the QB under the pretense that you think he still has the ball. If he’s pretending like he has the ball right after he gives it the the RB, you have every right to lay him out. Otherwise, everyone would be running the spread option package.
Obviously, you can’t hit him once it’s obvious he doesn’t have the ball. The beauty of it, though, is that he’s rarely passing the ball, so you won’t have to worry about roughing the passer. You can really hit the guy.
And to do all that we need to get through their o-line.
Which was very, VERY well coached.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
by Swamphunter on Sep 19, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, Browner did a pretty good job of getting through, he was just tricked every time. I think what we’re saying is instead of guessing the running back’s getting it like Browner did, guess that the QB is taking it every time and hit him whenever you can.
True.
The point I was trying to make was that since Browner and pretty much every one else bit on the fake every time, there was no way we could keep getting to the Nevada QB.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3

by 



























































