Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Sixers Vs. Celtics: Countdown To Game Seven

Arizona 10, California 9: Defense Steps Up, Offense Steps Down

A last minute drive by Nick Foles and the Arizona Wildcats helped negate a great defensive effort by the California Golden Bears and raised serious questions about Cal's offense going into the bye week. What a difference a week makes, huh?

Clancy Pendergast's Golden Bears defense was everything they weren't against Nevada. They were disciplined and aggressive. They stuffed the run, put pressure on Foles for most of the game, made huge plays in the backfield, broke up deep passes, and came up with big turnovers. Unfortunately, Cal could not capitalize and get into Arizona's end zone, and it eventually came back to bite the Bears.

Jeff Tedford will be coming under serious fire for what happened tonight, fairly or unfairly. He's going to receive ire for making some conservative decisions, like sending the field goal unit in on 4th and very short deep in the red zone, or predictably running the ball with a narrow second half lead. When the Bears got into field goal range, did any of us really think we weren't running the ball three straight times up the middle to burn all of Arizona's timeouts?

I don't believe he deserves a lot of blame. Giorgio Tavecchio should've nailed one of those two field goals, particularly the one that was an inch or two away from bouncing in. If that happens, it's a 12-3 game, and we're all talking about how the Bears won a physical, defensive slugfest on the road and upset a top 25 team on the raod.  But the nature of football is to criticize the coach when we "play not to lose" rather than play for the win, and this is what will happen in this case.

Last year Tedford's conservative decisions worked out for us against Arizona and the Cardinal (getting deep inside the red zone only to kick field goals rather than going for the jugular). They did not work tonight and he's going to get a lot of grief, whether it's deserved or not. He knows it. It comes with the territory. He'll have to get the team back on track for Homecoming vs. UCLA for the Bears to avoid falling under .500 for the first time since 2003, because otherwise things could get real ugly.

Star-divide

Let's start with the Cal defense, because that's a subject that makes me happy. Cameron Jordan left off from his 2009 game against Arizona right where he started, dominating right tackle Phillip Garcia and making life miserable for Nick Foles. He constantly got pressure in the backfield, whether off the edge or coming inside and stuffing the run. Jordan had three tackles, a sack, a forced fumble that Mychal Kendricks recovered, and had a few more pressures that didn't get logged into the scoresheet. Kendricks was his partner-in-crime, making a lot of great edge decisions and forcing Foles to scramble, something Foles HATES to do. Kendricks got two sacks and hit Foles at least one or two more times.

Arizona ran a surprising amount of zone-read, apparently trying to take advantage of the aggressiveness of our defensive unit much like Nevada's offense tried last week. However, for the most part, Cal's units did much better containing the plays and forcing minimal gains. D.J. Holt was a force on almost every play up the middle (notching seven more tackles), while the defensive backs contained the edges and the second level.  D.J. Campbell came in and got five tackles, and Chris Conte was much better with eight tackles. Conte may have made the biggest defensive play of the night: With Arizona driving late in the first half to take the lead, Foles threw a pass intended for David Douglas. Marc Anthony made a great read to break it up, and Conte came over to catch it while tip-toeing the sidelines.

Bryant Nnabuife sniffed out a few screens and made some huge tackles backfield (although he did get burned by some over-pursuit on a few occasions). Anthony missed a few tackles but made up for it with his big play in the end zone. Campbell broke up another pass on a broken play by Foles when a wide receiver ran a streak down the sidelines and D.J. stuck his paw in there and said "Naw-aw, son!". It was an outstanding effort by the Cal secondary, which made the Airraid attack look very average.

Unfortunately, some bad special teams mistakes other than Tavecchio's kept Cal from being up a dominant 9-0 late.  Ross fielded a punt inside the 5 (a horrid decision), which led to Bryan Anger punting out of his own end zone which he didn't release well (he kicked the ball off the side of his foot), which led to a short field by Arizona which they did nothing with, which led to the only three points of the game by Arizona. So the defense pitched a virtual shutout until the final drive.

But on the last drive, Arizona finally broke through. After Darian Hagan had shut down Juron Criner all night long with great pass breakups (along with a horrid pass interference call that thankfully didn't come back to bite us), Foles finally managed to get him with a beautiful fade throw that Criner hauled in. After getting burned by the fade once, Hagan thought they were going back to it on 3rd and goal. Criner faked to the outside and went inside on the slant. The danger of one-on-one coverage is you put a lot of pressure on your defenders. I wish we'd sent a safety out there to help out Hagan, but other than that I can barely complain about the defense's effort. Strong performance and it's a welcome sign that we could lock down a top tier Pac-10 offense.

On the other side of the ball, I can find plenty to complain about.  Andy Ludwig seemed to determine to design a gameplan that would not make Kevin Riley throw interceptions or challenge Arizona's secondary, something we were very concerned about going into this game. Arizona has some great cover corners, led by Trevin Wade, and we seemed to shy away from the sidelines and play a very short field with rollouts, screens, and a few checkdowns. The gameplan became pretty predictable early on, and Riley was forced to make a lot of difficult throws. 13 for 26 for 113 yards is a pretty weak number, but I blame some of this on the playcalling, and give credit to Arizona's coverage. There wasn't a lot of diversity tonight; even though Arizona also took away plenty of our looks with a disciplined defensive set and great pressure with their four man front, it felt like we didn't mix it up enough.

One of the big cues that we were trying to evade the defensive backs is when we tried the running back pass in the end zone between Shane Vereen and Riley. This is a VERY risky play and one that could've been intercepted if not thrown well by Vereen (overthrown in fact, because one of the defenders didn't bite and was chasing Riley down). Apparently Ludwig and Tedford did not like how the Golden Bears passing game matched up with the Wildcats secondary, and we did our best to evade it all game long. For the most part, they achieved that goal, for better or for worse.

I know people are angry with Riley, but I think he played a typical Kevin Riley game based on what we showed. He made some nice throws and decisions, he made some not-so-nice throws and decisions. He hit Jeremy Ross down the middle on a catch Ross couldn't haul in. He found Marvin Jones on a nice play-fake sell that Jones took down the sidelines for a huge gallop.  He didn't run for the first down and instead tried to fit the ball into Keenan Allen that hopped from the ground into his chest. He found Alex Lagemann in the corner of the end zone, but Loggy backstepped instead of trying to hug the corner, forcing us to settle for a halftime field goal. He rolled out to evade pressure to deliver a crucial third down throw to Michael Calvin (Calvin actually had his best game as a Golden Bear in two years, hauling in three catches). He also underthrew a crucial third down play to Vereen, which led to Tavecchio's bouncer off the goalpost.

Riley did throw a game-clinching pick late, but the interception late was on Marvin Jones--the ball was a little over him but he should've hauled that in. Still, it was a typical Riley interception--a little over his receiver and into the hands of the waiting safety Joe Perkins. Riley's diminutive height doesn't get discussed much, but i often wonder if he has trouble with those routes because he has difficulty seeing over defenders and outreached hands. And I also wonder if he was handcuffed by our gameplan, which never saw him seriously test a defender downfield. Again, I look quizzically at Ludwig, just as I question his decision to barely call Anthony Miller's number at all.

We were happy to pound the ball away with Shane Vereen, who had a reasonably good game against heavy pressure. The Wildcats often put 8 or 9 in the box when it became clear we were determined to run the ball, and all credit to our blockers, the Bears offensive line showed great heart down the stretch in opening up some huge holes. Lots of credit goes particularly to the left side of the line, particularly Mitchell Schwartz (I'll have to review the gametape before I can discern who played real well). Both Vereen and Isi Sofele (whose three gains were very successful!) took full advantage when they could, which is probably why kept on pounding the ball late (and why Tedford looks so conservative in retrospect).

The last drive that ended in Tavecchio's miss seemed like it would end in success, as Cal had multiple rushing plays end with double-digit gains. But our tendency to lean run and not try and test Arizona one-on-one limited our options offensively, and the run got stuffed just as often as it broke the defense. Does Tedford deserve some blame for thinking one-dimensionally? Perhaps, but it's hard to say that the Cal run game wasn't successful down the stretch.

Whether Ludwig or Tedford didn't trust Riley to throw the ball late by running the ball on 3rd and long (or 1st down, or 2nd down, or any down), or whether we really were placing all our faith on Vereen and the run to win the game when we have single coverage, it was a disjointed offensive effort against an ok Arizona defense. I was really hoping for more, and I still felt like we could've done more. With a lot of experienced talent on the field, the Cal offense laid a serious mulligan. Scoring no touchdowns is very disappointing, and it's the ultimate reason we lost, even more so than Tavecchio's misses.

For the record, I don't agree with the running to burn all of Arizona's timeouts or the 4th and 1 call. I would've liked to see us put the game away on one of those possessions. Who cares if we make them burn all their timeouts? It the Airraid attack. That's the whole point of the offense: Quick-hitting scores. Doesn't anyone remember how quickly Texas Tech marched down the field against Texas? That Arizona marched down the field and scored in ninety seconds with ample time to spare seems like a clear indictment of that strategy. Keep running the offense and make Arizona stop you rather than stopping yourselves. It's absolutely frustrating to see the Cal defense dominate this game and see them give up the go-ahead score. The offense wasn't good enough or aggressive enough, and that's what hurts tonight.

***

So we're 2-2 going into the bye week. Just like last year after the Oregon and USC debacles, Cal is at a crossroads. Their season could swing either way depending on the resilience of the players. However I saw a lot more fight and effort in our losses this year than I did last year. The offensive line is playing better each week. The defense looked like a top-tier unit. The special teams is finally competent (not great, but not the disaster it was last season). Our team has five more home games (and we always bring it in Memorial) and winnable road contests. Although this loss is uber-painful, we definitely could've beaten a top Pac-10 team if the ball bounces our way on one or two more plays, or if one more kick sails through the uprights. There's still a lot of season to play and no reason to give up hope that we can produce a solid season.

The loss stings (trust me, I'm hurting as much as the rest of you), but our team isn't going to just fold the tent and give up. Other than Oregon, you can't say any of the Pac-10 squads are discernibly ahead of the rest of us. We're playing better and starting to click as a squad, and if we can combine our execution with our resilience, we'll have a very very good football team in place.

That being said, it's definitely time for the coaching from our coordinators to start fighting along with them on both sides of the ball for an entire game. Pendergast didn't perform well last week, now Ludwig this week. They both need to click together, or otherwise more heartbreak could await.  Go Bears.

Comment 288 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’m worried about this team. The worry isn’t debacles like last year against USC and Oregon, but I’m worrying (especially with the way UCLA and Furd played today) that these toss up games that are on the Pac-10 season – and here, I’m counting OSU, Furd, UCLA, UW and ASU start to tilt away from the Bears.

These are all winnable games – but they’re also all losable games. And these small mistakes or small individual losses (Jones dropping a ball, Laggeman stepping backwards, Vereen overthrowing his man) will lose the larger game. I worry that this Cal team – especially the o-line might lose these small battles more than they win them . . .and I’m starting to think Spazzy might be right.

In this thread there is a lot of sunshine pumping and a lot of doomsayers calling for Tedford’s scalp.
I would love to believe the former, and I don’t think it’s as bad as the latter, but
I do not see this team having much of a chance against OSU, USC, Oregon, and Oregon State, I think we are 50/50 against ASU and fUCLA, have a decent chance against UW, and will beat WSU.
so,
I am preparing for Cal’s first losing season since Holmoe.

Don’t worry about me. I’m still in for the long haul. I don’t think getting rid of Tedford is the right move for this particular date and time – in addition to the winning program and bringing us back from the brink of not mattering as a college football program, he has also consistently recruited a better level of student than his predecessors and has given us alums and fans a program to be proud of.

I would like some serious examination of offensive philsophy at the end of the year – I think we will have a blank slate with Mansion, Brigford, Sweeney Maynard and we can change the offense around. What was the last really dominant offense we’ve had at Cal? Longshore 2006? We’ve been good since then, but not as great as that team was. Not a whole lot of people would argue that Longshore was a great QB, but Cortez (it was Cortez right?) and Tedford put him in a position to succeed that played to his strengths. Kevin Riley does some things well, but I’m not sure that he’s always placed in a position to succeed.

by LeonPowe on Sep 26, 2010 2:39 AM PDT reply actions  

I feel like last night’s game made me feel more positive about our ability to beat the OSU, Furd, UCLA, uw, And ASU games. I felt very depressed after the Nevada game, so seeing the D step up was positive.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed. It hurts, but also gave me hope because we know we CAN beat a ranked team.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I guess it’s better than losing 42-3. Or losing 52-31 to a WAC team.
But it’s still a loss of a game we had every opportunity to seize.

Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.

by Ohio Bear on Sep 26, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with Twist

I can’t believe I’m saying this for the second time this season.

I've been Honked...

by giantfan5 on Sep 26, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Eh, I think it’s easy to look at the mistakes/small battles Cal lost, but for every Jones dropping a ball, there was a Bug Williams dropping a ball, or for Vereen overthrowing his man, there was a dropped pick 6 from Arizona. Easy to focus on Cal’s mistakes, but those mistakes will happen to both teams over the course of a game.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

The running joke with my friends was that “Cal’s best offense is a defensive penalty” Arizona had SO many penalties that really helped Cal out offensively.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah. I really think the offensive performance last night more or less sucked, and the loss can pretty much be blamed on them.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

4.3 yards per pass, 4.1 yards per rush, 262 total yards. 2-12 on 3rd down. That kind of offensive performance loses games.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think it was our best rushing performance of the year, and the offensive line’s best performance of the year. The problem is our passing game. 4.4 ypa is abysmal.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think the 4th quarter is skewing your memory of the rushing performance (and olines). They weren’t very good for most of the game. We average 4.1 Y/A. Vereen averaged 3.8. Marshawn Lynch averaged 6.6 Y/A for his career, with his lowest season performance being 6.1. JJ also averaged 6.6 Y/A for his career, and averaged 7.0 in his year as a starter. Forsett was over 5 Y/A in his year as a starter. We still need to do significantly better rushing the ball.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

oh I agree

but I think this was their best performance of the year. Nevada shut down the run, those two long ones excepted, and they have a pretty bad d. Colorado and Davis aren’t really useful in assessing our team.

Definitely think that the o-line and running game need to get better, but they are much better right now than our passing game.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah I agree with that. I’ll even say that while CU and Davis aren’t really useful, we still weren’t particularly good running against them, either, which is really troubling.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

exactly my thoughts on CU and Davis, regarding the run game and o-line.

On the passing game, Riley was much, much better against MSU in 08 and Maryland in 09 than he has been in any game this season. That is very troubling.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is not a surprise. Other than the Tennessee game, we always play well in our home opener, in every facet of the game. We get a month to prepare and the gameplan is always solid.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

right, which is why it was so troubling that Riley looked worse against Davis this year than he did in those previous two openers.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think he’s looked roughly the same in all those game (and, statistically, all of these games look nearly identical – MSU, Maryland, UCD, CU). I think you’re wrong in that he’s looked much, much worse. He just hasn’t improved on anything, which is the troubling point. What are you seeing in those games that so much different from previous years?

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think he was much crisper, more decisive, and more accurate against Maryland and MSU than he was against Davis. He had better receivers and was facing a worse defense against Davis than against the other two schools, and looked worse in my opinion.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also, the best two games of his career were last year (Furd, ASU), so there once was a semblance of an uptick. I guess those were blips on the screen though. Kinda funny that they both happened on the road.

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

2009 FUCLA was, imo, his best game considering the defense he faced.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 26, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

True

hadn’t remembered that game.

He actually did a lot of “leading” in the two other games, completing crucial passes in tight games.

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

ASU was statistically a much better defense than UCLA last year. Top 20 in passing/rushing/total offense.

"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.

It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0

by AERose on Sep 26, 2010 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed. I would say ASU 09 was his best overall game to date given game situation and the defense he faced. It was the game I THOUGHT he grew up and matured into a consistent leader.

I likened Riley to an abusive spouse to a buddy last week; every time you think he’s turned the corner, he downs a fifth of vodka and smacks you with a lamp.

by dchu on Sep 26, 2010 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

When did Cal start calling so many plays out of the shotgun?

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 26, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think this is to help Riley get a better view out of the pocket because of his diminutive stature, plus he’s much better when he’s able to quickly release. Rodgers works a lot out of shotgun too because of those characteristics.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

doesn’t really help when ’gun = pass, and under center = run (more or less).

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 26, 2010 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

We ran a lot of shotgun draw plays in this one.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think we got some good yardage on those plays actually.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I remember shane almost getting killed on one of those shotgun handoffs.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 26, 2010 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Defensive tackle won his position battle. Good anticipation of the play.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

nice analysis, avi

I had Riley as 14-27 for 120, similar to your 13-26, 113. Like everyone, I saw shorter pass plays, supported by a 4.4 yds per completion stat. O-line looked good. Defense seems living-up to its potential and on occasion exceeding expectations this week. Offensive planning appeared reasonable, though conservative.

How Tedford/Ludwig intend to compensate for Riley’s passing inconsistencies in upcoming weeks has me stocking-up on Alka Seltzer. Cal is reasonably good right now, but it appears Kevin has to have some big games, really step-up performance and leadership on occasion, for the team to get what they deserve against quality opponents. We felt, we understood, AZ could score when they got the rock back w/2 minutes, and that’s no discredit to Cal’s D. Cal’s offense needs to get to that place, and that’s no discredit to the Cal O line or Vereen. Rather, leadership (including from the sidelines), and Riley’s passing, appear to need reinforcement.

by crackpipe on Sep 26, 2010 6:29 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

Reflecting on Riley’s performance, I think it was pretty poor overall. He gifted them a pick 6 the exact same as he did against Nevada, only this time they dropped it, his Y/A was horrible – yeah it was hurt by drops, but drops are going to happen, and it was so bad clearly drops weren’t the main issue…..

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

you ARE tedford

overly analytical. ridiculously risk averse.

people who called for bob gregory’s head last year and the year before were called trolls, were offered charts and graphs and other arguments to show how, even though our defense appeared to suck, and while this would seem to be the defensive coordinator’s responsibility, bob gregory was actually good.

now you want to tell me that because things worked out last year (BARELY) against the cardinal and arizona, that playing conservative beyond all reason is just fine. it wasn’t fine last year against stanford. shane vereen flinging himself to the ground to burn clock instead of putting the dagger into the cardinal’s heart has remained iconic for me of how dangerous tedford’s conservatism really is.

it is revisionist to say that since we won last year in these cases, that nobody complained about tedford’s approach. we won because foles made a bonehead mistake and because luck made a bonehead mistake. this cast a long shadow over these wins for me.

burning the clock and icing the game with a field goal last night?

good idea.

better idea? actually trying to get a first down, burn more clock and give your kicker a better chance. what tedford does shouldn’t even be called conservative because it’s so risky.

tedford deserves a TON of blame and he did last year against stanford and arizona.

by aztectomb on Sep 26, 2010 6:45 AM PDT reply actions  

the item that has always been confusing to me is how people are very much willing to place blame on Coach Tedford for the end of game decisions, but seem hesitant to place credit for the decisions in the rest of the game. I think reasonable people can point to concerns at the end of the game and say that this could have been done this way or that way. Fair enough.

But if one is to say that Tedford guided the Cal team off of a cliff at the tail end of the game, wouldn’t they also have to provide praise for Tedford guiding the Cal team to be in a position to then fall off said cliff?

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, Twist, explain why after calling a timeout on that last drive, we came back and tried to run a reverse inside the AZ 20 yard line? I’ve never seen that before. Usually its run when you have space to fly the WRs downfield to draw the safeties and CBs away from the action. When you’re inside the 20, the secondary is cramped and can react quickly. Just seemed like a dumb move. And then see my comments below about placement of the ball prior to the field goal attempts.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not "dumb"

A reverse inside the 20 isn’t “dumb.” One reason to run a reverse — anywhere — is because you spot overpursuit on the part of the defense, whether it be linebackers or safeties.

Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.

by Ohio Bear on Sep 26, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

I havent seen your comments elow about ball placement prior to the field goal attempts. However, if your point was that we could/should have tried to placed the ball in the middle of the field prior to the final FG, I agree. I think we had it on the right hash and it was wide right, so if we have it in the middle, sounds perfect.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

RAR TEDFORD IS TOO AGGRESSIVE! ;)

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

These Tedford must go people are Cal’s version of the Tea Baggers. They spout irrational things, simply because they like turmoil and the melodic sound of their own voices. A coach doesn’t EXECUTE, he sets up the team for success. A field goal wins the game. Tedford set it up for success. GT didn’t execute.

by BlackandOldGold on Sep 26, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with that thinking, though I am quick to point out a couple strange calls, especially the reverse that I mentioned above. Its just as easy to start blaming Riley as it is Tedford, maybe that’s more appropriate though. Riley just seems like a bonehead. Ross didn’t do us any favors with what looked like lead shoes on his feet all game.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Shouldn’t the fact that this team couldn’t score a touchdown against Arizona be included in the “sets up the team for success” argument though?

i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*

by ch0ster on Sep 26, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

absolutely

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

We made 5 trips into the red zone, came away with just 3 scores and no TDs. I would say that with these stats you’re only going to win about half the time.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Or rather, you come away with three scores in five trips inside the red zone, you win half the time. You come away with three scores but no TDs, you win less than half the time.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Iowa scored what, like 27 on them last week? Most people seem to think Iowa was overrated coming into this season, but what does it say for Cal that they scored only 3 more points against Arizona than freaking Citadel did?

i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*

by ch0ster on Sep 26, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

exactly

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, 14 of Iowa’s points came on an 8 yard drive and an INT touchdown return. The offense numbers are actually kind of comparable between the two games in terms of total yards and # of scoring drives.

The difference is that Iowa could not run the ball in any way – it was 100% shut down. But Stanzi had a pretty decent game, and Iowa capitalized in the red zone.

Cal, on the other hand, ran the ball decently, but the passing game never really did anything, especially in the red zone.

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 26, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Though in fairness, our passing game was barely allowed to try anything in the red zone.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

8 red zone plays, 2 passes (both incomplete). True enough.

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 26, 2010 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

would have liked to see more Keenan Allen down there (or anywhere for that matter)

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 26, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hello son

Did you read my post?

For the record, I don’t agree with the running to burn all of Arizona’s timeouts or the 4th and 1 call. I would’ve liked to see us put the game away on one of those possessions. Who cares if we make them burn all their timeouts? It the Airraid attack. That’s the whole point of the offense: Quick-hitting scores. Doesn’t anyone remember how quickly Texas Tech marched down the field against Texas? That Arizona marched down the field and scored in ninety seconds with ample time to spare seems like a clear indictment of that strategy. Keep running the offense and make Arizona stop you rather than stopping yourselves. It’s absolutely frustrating to see the Cal defense dominate this game and see them give up the go-ahead score. The offense wasn’t good enough or aggressive enough, and that’s what hurts tonight.

I said I would’ve gone for it. But again if Tavecchio makes the field goal and Criner doesn’t make an incredible catch, we still would’ve won. It was a conservative-minded game and I can understand why Tedford played the way he played. In many cases, trusting the defense that they can hold 60 yards after the way they’ve played rather than trusting the offense to not make a mistake is the right move after all the defense played on both sides of the field.

But we lost, so he’s going to get shit for this decision. I understand it and he understands it.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Genuinely sorry that I didn't finish. Got as far as "I don't believe he deserves a lot of blame."

BUT…
seems like you do think he deserves a pretty good amount of blame. you disagree with two HUGE decisions he made, decisions that you seem to think could have sealed the game and taken it off of tavechio’s foot.

seems like we agree more than we disagree about last night. i am dramatic and emotional. many people on this cbg seem cool and analytical. sorry if i came across as a firebrand. tedford’s conservatism did make sense last night given how amazing our d was playing. why let riley throw a pick-six when the d is so stout? i get it. but somehow i knew exactly what was going to happen about midway through the fourth quarter. like i could have told you what was going to happen down to the play. the runs to burn time outs. the missed field goal. the az two minute drill. so, i was especially upset with tedford’s conservatism. it was more foresight and less hindsight really and it was hard to separate my emotions from my frustration against stanford last year.

i appreciate the work all of you guys put in to your posts. i don’t want to be perceived as an agitator or tea party member. i don’t want to agitate. and, i don’t want tedford’s head. i want tedford’s head to change. a little more aggression on any of the trips to the redzone and i think we win that game.

by aztectomb on Sep 26, 2010 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

all i could think while reading this post was

&%!@ it, I wish we could have just WON so we wouldn’t even be in this hole, beating each other up.

by totallyawesome on Sep 26, 2010 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fairly reasonable

We’ll be writing more about it tomorrow. But yes, I agree it was exceptionally frustrating that we got the result we didn’t really deserve.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Analysis is good. When someone starts offering charts and graphs and other arguments, it’s called evidence, and you generally use it to support your side. If you have an argument, you need to support it. For instance:

that playing conservative beyond all reason is just fine

This is an absolutely meaningless statement without supporting it with evidence. Maybe it is conservative beyond all reason – but without showing evidence to support that, all you’re really doing is spewing hot words. Hot words aren’t an argument.

I also go along with Twist’s point that you can’t look at any single decision on it’s own – if we were being conservative by continually running the ball and that was a bad strategy, well, you have to at least acknowledge that that conservative running strategy got Cal into FG territory to begin with. Maybe you’re right that the strategy was bad, but again, you have to look at the successes as well as the failures, and you have to back up your argument with evidence/support.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Oregon would have gone for and obtained the first down on that 4th and 1.

Tavecchio’s shot off the crossbar is forgivable, as was his miss.

I would have more of a problem with this call if Cal’s O-line had demonstrated that they can dominate in short yardage. Not sure we know that yet.

Loved the effort, was half-expecting them to come out flat and lifeless. Sure we should have won, but I wasn’t expecting Cal to be winning so deep in the game.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 26, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

I second this. I couldn’t watch the game and had to follow along on my phone, and I appreciate the detailed description of what went right and how we lost.

by sec119 on Sep 26, 2010 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

My question is

When the hell did we become Ucla?

Hey, Ucla -
1. Get your own colors
2. Get your own fight song
3. GET A REAL BEAR!

by SoCal Oski on Sep 26, 2010 7:38 AM PDT reply actions  

I have a feeling

At the end of the year, we’re going to wish we won the game even more. (When we only have 5-6 wins)

The Bear Will Not Quit, The Bear Will Not Die
CAL 34 - STAN 28

by Nik Jam on Sep 26, 2010 7:56 AM PDT reply actions  

No, you have dilute the Kool-Aid just a bit before you drink it.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

oh so THATS why my head is spinning and im slurring my words.

by boomtho on Sep 26, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Adios, muchachos!

After a loss like that, I am going into therapy.

by WifeisaTroj on Sep 26, 2010 8:05 AM PDT reply actions  

loller skates

rest up. play some Halo Reach. you’ll be back.

by totallyawesome on Sep 26, 2010 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

General thoughts on the game:

- I think the criticism of Tedford espoused by aztectomb is absurd IN REGARDS TO THIS GAME. I have mixed feelings about last year’s decision making at the Big Game last year, but I’m behind him here. A two possession lead effectively ends the game. And you should be able to rely on your kicker to nail 38 yard field goals (and 33-yarders for that matter). If there is a questionable call, I think it’s earlier when we passed on 4th and 1 when we were only up 6-3 with plenty of time to go. I think Tedford’s call was defensible, but I would have liked to have seen him go for it.

- Riley was maddening to watch. Although he didn’t have any “F*CKING RILEY” results, I think there were a few of them that were very close to it. He threw into coverage several times. It was a remarkable contrasting Foles versus Riley in how they deal with pressure. On that one big play, Cal had a bunch of guys in close proximity to Foles, but he stood strong and got the throw off. Riley however returned to happy feet mode. I remember one play in particular where he almost got sacked in the backfield, but avoided the pressure, but then moved so far up that he was in front of the containment… allowing the d-linemen easy pursuit. I’m not pinning this loss on him by any means and he probably is our best chance to win this year… it’s just so frustrating seeing that the dude NEVER seems to learn from his mistakes.

- Friggin Tavecchio.

by dchu on Sep 26, 2010 8:07 AM PDT reply actions  

Key phrase here: A two possession lead effectively ends the game. That is why the second Tavecchio miss was the right call.

by OaktownAggie on Sep 26, 2010 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Especially if you forced them to burn their timeouts.

by OaktownAggie on Sep 26, 2010 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

No. A 40-yard FG attempt was no sure thing. We needed to get closer, try to pick up at least one more first down.

No timeouts means virtually nothing to the airraid offense; they have plenty of plays to get down the field quickly without burning clock.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yet the D had done pretty good at keeping them under raps. I feel like they had only gotten into the red zone like once or tice all games (one of which was the int in the end zone). Give credit to Az for doing what they had been UNABLE to do all game and move the ball (mostly on one play, which Hagan had done great stopping every time previous).

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

True, but the problem was leaving the defense in a situation where it only took one big play (even to a well-covered receiver) for them to beat us.

Anyway, my only point is that playing to burn their timeouts meant nothing — if we missed the FG, the defense was just going to have to stop them whether they had 2 timeouts, 1 timeout, or no timeouts — so we may as well have just played to get the first down and keep possession. If we get to 4th down anyway, sure, kick it. The problem is that it became clear that we weren’t really trying to get enough yards for a first down.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

I thought Hagen’s coverage on that 51-yard pass was as good as it could be without a flag getting dropped, but his motion to swatting the ball down actually enabled the receiver to catch it. Bad break, and in a close game, that makes a difference…

"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."

by Auricursine on Sep 26, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Anyone have an estimate on what % we should expect GT to make that?

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

No clue. He made a 40 yarder earlier.

I think the 33 yarder should be above 75%

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nedney from 51, right down the middle! Man, if only we had someone like that…

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

One thing at a time.

He’s getting it to the endzone on KOs!

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

Even a touchback yesterday!

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Virtually nothing is a bit of an overstatement. It might not mean a ton, but it’s definitely meaningful, especially if there’s a sack or just a tackle in the middle of the field that’s not a first down. Also, you’re making it sound like their offense is basically unstoppable….

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

You also forgot RIley’s should-have-been pick 6.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

On (I think) the first play from scrimmage no less (or at least the first play I caught).

I thought it went without saying.

by dchu on Sep 26, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think something’s wrong with that play. That’s the second week in a row we’ve run that little out pattern. Ludwig and Riley are giving some obvious cue before the snap that this play is coming because the defender jumped the routes both time.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

I LOVE that.

Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team owned by a Russian oligarch.

by yellow fever on Sep 26, 2010 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think it’s about time to run the same look but a pump fake on an out and go instead…..

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Riley’s pump fakes suck.

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 26, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Does anyone think the offensive gameplan may have been different to start the game and that Tedford/Ludwig tailored it to whether good or bad Riley showed up?

As frustrated as I am with the lack of attempts down the field, for whatever reason (receivers not holding onto the ball, Loggy not dragging his feet in the back of the endzone, Riley misfires) we were not having a lot of success with the passing game and I understand why Tedford kept pounding it with the run at the end. If your QB is having problems hitting screens and other short passes all game, I understand why Tedford/Ludwig would not trust him to make the big throws at the end. No one was complaining when Vereen and Sofele were ripping off huge gains against a tiring UofA D on that last drive.

Also, Avi, I disagree about making Zona burn their timeouts. Cal had been doing a great job on D tackling guys in the open field and limiting receivers from the big gain. It would have only taken a couple of plays where the Zona receiver was tackled inbounds for that clock to start becoming an issue. Hats off to Foles and Criner for that great 51 year throw and catch.

Even after the Zona TD, Riley hits Marv in the hands (that throw was on the money, imho) which would have put us on Zona’s 45 or so with 45 sec left and two timeouts. Perfect example for why the coaches were not trusting the passing game last night.

by medvjed on Sep 26, 2010 8:39 AM PDT reply actions  

I really doubt that the coaches think in terms of “good Riley/bad Riley”

by atomsareenough on Sep 26, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

And even if they did, I really doubt it’s possible to actually use that information for predictive purposes…..

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm feel the same way about Riley how I felt about Longshore at the end of his tenure

I just want him to go away. He doesn’t inspire much confidence and his throws remind me of Alex Smith.

"Too much awesome on my feet."-Brian Wilson
"Time for the laser show, boys!"- Aubrey Huff

by 49er16 on Sep 26, 2010 8:43 AM PDT reply actions  

Ugh

This still hurts, but i’m proud of the team. People that act like this is last year are idiots, two completly different teams, and this years team is better.
 
I hate Cal football

In communist Russia, Sanchez declares YOU!

by HOUSE66 on Sep 26, 2010 9:29 AM PDT via mobile reply actions   1 recs

My only problem with last night's game

On both of the missed field goal attempts, the running plays that preceeded them on 3rd down were designed to go to the outside, thus placing the ball on the far hashmark for 4th down and the subsequent fieldgoal attempt.

Now, kickers practice for this all the time, but it would seem to me, from watching the NFL that if you’re going to play conservative you at least run a play towards the middle so if you don’t get first down, you put the ball in the middle of the field so your kicker has a better shot.

The Tedford/Ludwig supporters will say “oh you try to get the first down first, and then think about the kick.” But I think Tedford was missing some of his usual game strategy last night.

I feel a whole lot better about playing the good teams in our conference, our defense was heroic, especially after we gave them so much crap after Nevada.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 9:31 AM PDT reply actions  

I did find the placing of the ball curious. I think Vereen made a mistake on the final play by cutting outside rather than going inside. He tried to break one and got tackled. So perhaps Cal was being more aggressive than in plays pas by trying to get the first down rather than center the ball.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

The first missed field goal came off the Riley fadeaway incompletion to Vereen.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

So it wasn’t a running play there.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Did Riley call “bank shot” as he threw the fadeaway incompletion?

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

I hope not, because it would’ve barely grazed the net! (Just below Vereen’s hands)

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

Avi, you wrote:

I know people are angry with Riley, but I think he played a typical Kevin Riley game based on what we showed.

But how do you feel about “typical Kevin Riley”? Does he put us in a position to win most games? If so, then I can accept that. Does he cost us more games than he puts us in a position to win? I’m not ok with that.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

The former

We were up 9-3 with two minutes! He wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t perfect against Arizona last year and we won. He kept the offense moving and helped us score against a stout defense. No mistakes until the last drive.

I know people are upset now, but the defense was determined not to give us anything downfield. If Loggy just doesn’t backpedal….man….

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

…or, to a lesser extent, if Riley could’ve caught that Vereen pass…

i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*

by ch0ster on Sep 26, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well that was near impossible. Vereen threw it ahead of Riley to avoid the pick. If no one had been covering Riley (like the playcall was designed to do), Vereen would’ve thrown it low and in front of Riley for an easier catch. And it would’ve rocked the house.

Gotta give credit to Arizona. Their defense stepped up.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

The announcers kept saying Vereen threw it the only place he could to avoid the INT, but from the replay they kept showing, I really wasn’t seeing what they were talking about. The defender didn’t look in position to make a pick at all to me – maybe he gets over there fast enough to break the pass up or put a hit on Riley (and I assume teams generally try to avoid putting their QB in a position to take a hit like that), but I was really skeptical about the potential for an interception. Maybe a different angle would show I’m wrong, but I dunno, from the angle I saw….

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I think Vereen just chucked the ball to where he had practiced chucking it…there was no “read” or thought process about placing the ball, he just threw it.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well instead of throwing it over Riley because the defender was there, he throws it in front of him with no defender so Riley doesn’t have to make a catch like a receiver and extend outward. He turns around and catches the ball upright.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

What I’m saying is I still think he could have made a normal throw to Riley.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

He’s a RB, what do you expect? That it was even close to a TD was something just short of a great attempt.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

I was really impressed by the throw. I just didn’t think the defender was in as good of a position as the announcers made it sound.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Eh, I’m becoming much less enamored with “typical Riley” every week. I think there’s a pretty strong case he was a significant factor in losing that game. And he did make mistakes, as I’ve said a couple of times in this thread, he basically threw a gift of a pick 6 (that they dropped), he didn’t run for an easy first down earlier in the game, etc. Not making mistakes also isn’t enough, sometimes you have to make plays, too. Overall the passing game’s performance was pretty poor, and the offense in general (which is on the entire offense, but Riley is the most important individual on the offense). You can’t expect to win games not scoring any TD’s.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

agreed

I mean, we’re at the point where 4.4 YPA is being considered good, because he “didn’t make any mistakes.” 4.4 YPA is unacceptable, especially considering that Tedford is an offensive guru. The passing offense is clearly the weakness of the team right now, as it has been for years.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed. If you want to get the first down, then actually try to do it — call at least one pass play to take advantage of a defense stacking against the run. If you want to settle for the field goal, at least try to set up a good spot for your kicker. The decision-making was pretty befuddling on that last series.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

On both of the missed field goal attempts, the running plays that preceeded them on 3rd down were designed to go to the outside, thus placing the ball on the far hashmark for 4th down and the subsequent fieldgoal attempt.

Now, kickers practice for this all the time, but it would seem to me, from watching the NFL that if you’re going to play conservative you at least run a play towards the middle so if you don’t get first down, you put the ball in the middle of the field so your kicker has a better shot.

What makes me chuckle about that comment is that when Jeff Tedford did that last year in the Big Game, people called him a pussy, chicken shit, or whatever else their great football minds could think of for centering the ball. He actually goes for the first down against UA and now people label it “conservative” and damn him to hell for not centering the ball.

by Cali49a on Sep 26, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hey I didnt call him a pussy last year. And I dont call him a pussy today. I think he made the right call lastyear and I wish he had centered the ball yesterday.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Quit being so level headed and reasonable.

by Cali49a on Sep 26, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hey, would you stop criticizing my posts every week? Or are you chuckling at them? I can’t tell. For what its worth I’m much more optimistic today about the season than I was after Nevada. Our defense rocked! Our special teams and offense were average. But my biggest concern coming into the game, the defense, really turned it around yesterday.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Dude, considering what some of the other people are saiyng here, you are falling into Sunshine Pumping territory!

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

PS I agree with a lot fo what you are saying and appreciate your very level-headed comments regarding ball paclement

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

PS I appreciate your appreciation. Now, pass the Kool-Aid, I drank all of mine.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

STOP BOGARTING MY KOOL-AID!

Honestly, I’m happy to see the more erasonable tone of this thread. Last night’s game was so upsetting and frustrating that people seemed to be very angry in the immediate post game thread. Which is understandable. But now, in the harsh light of morning, people can takea step back and look at this thing in a more nuanced way. What worked, what didnt work. I think Avi’s post was helpful in setting the tone.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

Losing a tough game by 1 point leads to more rationality than watching your defense get pasted for 50 points.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

You are much more optimistic this week and like Twist said, probably one of the more optimistic this week.
It wasn’t targeted at you specifically.

I highlighted it to point out to the posters who slammed JT’s “conservative” playcalling in last year’s Big Game that sometimes, centering the ball is not the stupidest thing to do.

by Cali49a on Sep 26, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m not sure about this. I think Vereen was supposed to go inside on that last play to center the ball. He bounced outside to try and pick up the 1st down.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

What I’m referring to is purposely having the QB kneel the ball down in the center of the field like Riley did in the Big Game last year. The fact that he actually called a run says a little bit something more about his approach this year.

by Cali49a on Sep 26, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I dont think we shoulda really taken a knee yesterday. It wasnt a chip shot and all the yards we can get, we should get. That said, I do think that putting it in the middle of the field is thew ay to go. In the heat of th emoment, perhaps Vereen thought that he should try to bump it outside and fair enough. But the coaches should have impressed upon him the importance of NOT doing that at all.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

No, I’m not suggesting that. Not from 40 yards out.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

What makes me chuckle about that comment is that when Jeff Tedford did that last year in the Big Game, people called him a pussy, chicken shit, or whatever else their great football minds could think of for centering the ball. He actually goes for the first down against UA and now people label it "conservative" and damn him to hell for not centering the ball.

For me, it’s more nuanced than that. I’d prefer he not be conservative and play for the FG, because a kick from that distance is no sure thing, and one more first down pretty much ices the game. We should have tried harder to get it.

HOWEVER, if you are going to be conservative and play for the FG, at least set it up so it’s easily makeable. What we did was kind of in this vague middle ground that wound up not working either way.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Tedford/Ludwig supporters will say "oh you try to get the first down first, and then think about the kick." But I think Tedford was missing some of his usual game strategy last night.

You are right – Tedford has been making calls this year that are different from what he normally would call the past few years.

by Cali49a on Sep 26, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

I find it extremely amusing that there’s not only an argument Tedford was too conservative, but also an argument he wasn’t conservative enough! :)

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

The argument is that Tedford was too conservative, but still didn’t quite play the conservative strategy right.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe. I dunno. Is it unreasonable to be conservative but still making some effort to pick up the 1st down? Until I see some numbers that indicate otherwise, I’m still of the mindset that all the possible options were pretty close to each other. Dunno which was the best, I just think none of them were significantly better than the others.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

To me, “making some effort to pick up the 1st down” would have meant something other than three straight handoffs to the same guy (Vereen). It doesn’t have to be bombs-away, but some kind of playaction rollout or quick hitch would have been nice. Our playcalling on that series signaled to me that they were giving the appearance of trying to get the 1st, but in reality JT was perfectly happy with kicking the FG.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

The counterargument would be:

1st and 10 at CAL 31 Shane Vereen rush for 9 yards to the Cal 40, tackled by Robert Golden.
2nd and 1 at CAL 40 Shane Vereen rush for 3 yards to the Cal 43, tackled by Joseph Perkins for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 43 Kevin Riley pass incomplete to Anthony Miller, broken up by Anthony Wilcox.
2nd and 10 at CAL 43 Shane Vereen rush for 19 yards to the Ariz 38, tackled by Derek Earls for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at ARIZ 38 Shane Vereen rush for 1 yard to the Ariz 37, tackled by R.J. Young and Paul Vassallo.
2nd and 9 at ARIZ 37 Isi Sofele rush for 8 yards to the Ariz 29, tackled by Jake Fischer.
3rd and 1 at ARIZ 29 Eric Stevens rush for 2 yards to the Ariz 27, tackled by Justin Washington for a 1ST down.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

This. The running game was finally dominating and Riley had been iffy all game long. I have absolutely no problem with calling more runs.

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 26, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

It’s too many runs in a row, even if the previous runs had been successful. The defense was keyed to the run and thus ripe for a passing play.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also, I’ll note that there’s only one 3rd-down play in that sequence, and it’s a 3rd-and-1. We didn’t have to go to the pass at any point because the 1st or 2nd down run was picking up enough yards. On the next sequence, that didn’t happen, yet still no pass.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe, I was really just trying to highlight the thought process involved rather than say it was necessarily the correct thing. The run game was working (and the pass game was not). We stuck with it. Maybe it wasn’t the optimal call, but I have a hard time thinking any other option was much better, even if it was a little better.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Probably not MUCH better, no. But I’ll take a little better any time. I’m not naive enough to think that we definitely get a first down by passing, but I would have liked to see us try.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

If we had called a pass, people would have looked at this and said “THE RUNNING GAME WAS DOMINATING WHAT ARE YOU DOING??” just like last week against Nevada.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m sure some people would, but I wouldn’t. I didn’t have a problem with calling passes against Nevada either; we didn’t always complete them, but you need to mix it up sometimes even if the running game is working.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

The run game was doing well but you can rarely count on 8 yards for a first down on a run play.

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

But the question isn’t necessarily “will running pick up the first down” – it’s “will running have a worse chance of picking up a first down than passing, and if so, does that offset the increased chance of something bad happening if you try to pass and the drop in FG% if you don’t get the first down (since you’ll still probably get positive yardage running the ball, even if you don’t get the first)?”

by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’m pretty confident that the percentages would support passing in that situation, but I’m willing to be proven wrong if someone runs those numbers and shows otherwise.

by sycasey on Sep 27, 2010 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

If I have some free time in the next day or two I’ll see if I can come up with some very rough estimates. For now, the one point I’ll note is the run game’s Y/A was pretty close to the passing games Y/A on Saturday….

by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

The percentages actually say that running or passing in 3rd and 7 have an identical chance of success.(38%)

We missed a block on their slot CB. Otherwise, Vereen breaks one a long way.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 27, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

etc

time to call this season a wash and yank riley…time to develop the future of cal and someone who can get the ball to allen next season or else we’re in for a long 2-3 years until the next qb arrives

by rileyslaststand on Sep 26, 2010 9:33 AM PDT reply actions  

ha, were you watching the game on justin.tv? there was someone there chatting away with your same screenname

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

You can’t be serious….

In communist Russia, Sanchez declares YOU!

by HOUSE66 on Sep 26, 2010 9:35 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I agree that we should start preparing for next year. However, given Tedford's track record (see Longshore),

this will not happen. Riley is there for the long haul. This means next year will be a down year as well as we try to break in a new QB. 2012 is our next hope. By that time Oregon will be in another class – i need a beer. However, I’m thankful that this is only football. There are more important things in life.

by TheOfficialSunshinePumper on Sep 26, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Besides, the Niners game is on right now. :)

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, that didn’t work out too well either.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sports never do for me…

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

At least the Giants won today . . . Cain 4 Prez!

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

That sucks, because the world will end in 2012.

7

by Rishi on Sep 26, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

So should we send Robot Riley back in time to kill the Skynet scientists?

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh wait, Robot Riley was already sent back in time to kill Cal football.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

After the 1st Pac-10 game? Are you serious? Especially if Arizona ends up being good, it was a game on the road against a good team……I mean, come on. Maybe it gets to that point this season, but we’re definitely not there yet.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

Good team or 14th best team in the nation. One of the two

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

imo, Zona and Iowa will likely lose by 3 scores to one or more teams this year. I’d say good, but they aren’t that good.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 27, 2010 6:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

yup

yeah, am getting my expectations up for a bowl game in sf as the best case scenario for this team…

by rileyslaststand on Sep 26, 2010 9:36 AM PDT reply actions  

Because it was overly optimistic or overly pessimistic?

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

do these forums not play nice with safari? I had two paragraphs in my post and the first completely disappeared after I hit the post button.

by bluehenbear on Sep 26, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah yeah, we know, fans like to be aggressive. Now, the question that I personally find interesting, is which strategy actually yields the best expected results?

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t have specific numbers in front of me, but IIRC, guys like the Football Outsiders have in fact done the statistical analysis, and it shows that aggressiveness on offense (going for it on 4th and short, etc.) is the right call most of the time.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

I believe that, as well, and am almost always in favor of being more aggressive (and you can see me saying in the open gamethread that I wanted them to go for it as it was happening because the research supports being more aggressive). I also think the default for most fans is to demand more aggression out of their team, regardless of whether it’s the right strategy….

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’ve been looking. Can’t find anyone who has done the stats on running clock vs. playing for 1st downs. Or, not exactly anyway.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 26, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

That would be a pretty tough thing to run stats on, since there are so many variables: how much time is left, how many timeouts, what’s the score, etc. I suppose it’s possible, though.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

It might be unrealistic to come up with an exact number, but I think you could get a fairly decent estimate.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Was this the rest of the post? Can I hide the other ones that didn’t turn out well?

Also, please use a header when putting up gifs so we can hide them if necessary. Slows up the browser. Thanks!

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

no, not rest of post. I wanted to make my post the “official Cal cliche” thread and was starting it off.

by bluehenbear on Sep 26, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

This does seem to sum up the final two minutes quite well. Ugh.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Conte speaks
“I haven’t ever played in a game that hurts this much,” Bears safety Chris Conte said. “I don’t mean to get emotional, but this loss was especially hard.”

i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*

by ch0ster on Sep 26, 2010 9:53 AM PDT reply actions  

He played a really good game too.

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Great quote. Really tough to go into a bye with a loss, let alone a 1 pt loss in the last two minutes. We’ll see.

by crackpipe on Sep 26, 2010 10:10 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I didn’t like Conte’s effort last week, but last night, he was playing quite well. His INT was something that Alex Lagemann could have learned from him…

"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."

by Auricursine on Sep 26, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

And he wasn’t the only Bear that I watched walk into the locker room that looked mentally exhausted and utterly distraught. I think a lot of those helmets were still on the Bears because they were holding back some emotions. He played great and I know it meant a lot to him to make up his individual performance from Reno as well as the unit as a whole. And he certainly accomplished that. I felt like a ton of bricks hit me in the chest so I can only imagine what those guys were going through (and probably still going through).

"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker

by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 26, 2010 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

I love your icon

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t always look that good. It’s just for the camera, you know?

"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker

by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 27, 2010 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

This game was a real tough one to watch, but it makes me a little (keyword LITTLE) more optimistic for our upcoming games. Since we’re going to see more “traditional” offenses than stuff like Nevada’s, our ability to turn it around in a week is pretty awesome. Kudos to Clancy and the other D-coaches for getting those guys ready to counter the air raid.

On offense, SOMETHING has to change. I don’t know if it’s personnel, playcalling, philosophy, or something else, but our offense just looks “tight” most of the time. Riley really didn’t look comfortable the whole game.

Man, I feel bad for our team. That’s a horrible way to end the game.

by boomtho on Sep 26, 2010 10:12 AM PDT reply actions  

Tough tough loss. We may see Cal’s mettle following the bye. Cal’s D and Cal’s O line had outstanding and above average games respectively. If they stay hungry/proud and challenge the team in the lockerroom and practices to return to CU levels, good. If coaches don’t address the psych angle in a constructive way after this loss, I think it might bite the team. We’ll see, especially if UCLA comes in high on a roll.

by crackpipe on Sep 26, 2010 10:51 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

our offense just looks "tight" most of the time. Riley really didn’t look comfortable the whole game.

Very true. I’d add hesitent and tentative as other appropriate adjectives.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

“I’d rather play,” linebacker Mychal Kendricks said. “Having this happen to us, I just want to take it out on the next team.”

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 10:22 AM PDT reply actions  

I appreciate his motivation, but didn’t some of the Cal players basically say the same thing about playing Arizona after the Nevada loss?

i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*

by ch0ster on Sep 26, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, it certainly helped out the D.

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, the effort was there. Sometimes effort isn’t enough.

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 26, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

And at least defensively, it DID work…..

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I wonder how dear royrules22 is doing this morning.

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 10:25 AM PDT reply actions  

parallels to 98-99 bears

The parallels to the 98-99 bears are starting to emerge (except for the coaching). An inept offense led by a midget qb or at least one who can’t stand above the o-line (vedder/riley), a growing/relatively stout defense (cam jordan etc/andre carter…kendricks/sanyika) that can’t score enough points/protect 3 point leads to compensate for the offense and a kicker that’s iffy past 35 yards (giorgio/nacho, although giorgio is a bit better).

by rileyslaststand on Sep 26, 2010 10:36 AM PDT reply actions  

I never saw Justin Vedder, but from what I heard he was worse than Ayoob. Riley is much better than Ayoob.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Vedder was worse than Ayoob. I was there.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

This. With all due respect to Vedder, who is (I’ve heard) a good guy and a successful alum, he was the worst Cal starting quarterback we’ve had in the 22 years of my Cal fandom. To compare Riley to Vedder is an exaggeration that is totally unfair to Riley.

Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.

by Ohio Bear on Sep 26, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

I too have heard great things about Vedder as a person and alum. Seems like a good guy.

When I say he was worse than Ayoob its as a player in an offense that also was poorly designed and didn’t give him any support. The only decent o-lineman he had was Newberry. Ayoob at least had a decent line.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

parallels only

The quality as a whole is higher now, just that there are some analogies that are emerging…need a messiah (rodgers) type recruit to lift this program beyond mid-tier pac-10

by rileyslaststand on Sep 26, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

You heard wrong. Vedder was actually pretty accurate. His problem is that he had a Pop Warner arm playing against Div-I guys. Mooch recruited him as a JC transfer after we missed out on Akili Smith.

Vedder was not worse than Ayoob. Not even close.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 26, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

vedder

vedder had good receivers right (dameane douglas, bobby shaw)?

by rileyslaststand on Sep 26, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

Correct. Both drafted and played in the NFL.

I could see that happening for Jones if he continues to develop. With KA limited, no way you’d say that about Calvin/Loggy/Ross.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 26, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

I just have very different memories of Vedder. I rate Riley better than him and Ayoob. Maybe football under Holmoe was just worse in general so I associate that with Vedder. Think about the defense and special teams we had back then and wonder why our offense never got going to match it.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’d agree that Riley is better.

However, Vedder was at least serviceable. Those teams had a lot of problems.

Ayoob was probably the worst of the Cal QB’s that I’ve ever seen…Including the immortal Ziv Gottlieb.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 26, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Reasonable minds can disagree. I think Vedder was way worse than Ayoob was.

Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.

by Ohio Bear on Sep 26, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

You guys are totally forgetting about Kerry McGonigal (spelling?) when he used to back up Dave Barr…

"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."

by Auricursine on Sep 26, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

His problem is that he had a Pop Warner arm playing against Div-I guys.

So he’s just as bad as Ayoob. Still not comparable to Riley.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Can we talk about the broadcast? Forget about ahting Tedford, that was the shittiest broadcast ever. They didnt even have the yellow line, they barely showed down and distance and the camera work was terrible. SO BUSH LEAGUE!

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:41 AM PDT reply actions  

fox/comcast tend to suck

10pm EST pac-10 games tend not to get the best resources

by rileyslaststand on Sep 26, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sarcastically, I say we have to win and get on ESPN in order to expect better. The quality of the broadcast matches the quality of the teams being broadcasted? Then I think about it and say….well AZ was ranked #14, and they couldn’t get on ESPN either.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Actually, I thought that broadcast was great, technical kinks aside. Kozimor’s pretty good at play-by-play and I learned a hundred things more from Pawalaski that I don’t learn from most football analysts.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Oh, i didnt listen to the announcing. I was in a loud bar. But they also have to realize that some people arent listening to the announcing. Its basic stuff. Like the yellow first down line! And the down and distance! Thats not asking too much.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

Pawalski’s OK. Kozimor gets on my nerves. Disclaimer: heard his conservative “sports” radio show in Sacramento once or twice before he was fired.

by crackpipe on Sep 26, 2010 11:24 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

You guys are lucky. I had to watch the game on Fox Sports, and got stuck with the broadcast with the Fox Sports Arizona guys.

They were actually funny, because of their smart ass comments about all the Arizona penalties (they didn’t excuse any of them) but, still, the broadcast was slanted to the Wildcats the entire night…

"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."

by Auricursine on Sep 26, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

If the CBA isn’t renewed, 2011 NFL football may be similar.

by crackpipe on Sep 26, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

THE REASON THIS TEAM [AZ] CAME AND BATTLED BACK IS BECAUSE THEY’RE A TEAM AND THEY RESPECT AND TRUST EACH OTHER AND THAT’S WHAT GREAT TEAMS DO AND THIS TEAM DOES THAT!

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 26, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, yeah, there was that. But there was also the blocking assignments, the receiving routes, the quarterback mechanics, the pocket pressure. Lot of good stuff he picked up on.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

This!

Worse presentation ever, they had no idea what they were doing. Hopefully we get ucla on versus.

In communist Russia, Sanchez declares YOU!

by HOUSE66 on Sep 26, 2010 10:45 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Plus they screwed up the clock on multiple occasions – either by not starting it or keeping it running after a play went out of bounds.

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 26, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

What was everybody’s view on Riley’s throw attempt to Miller earlier in the last drive?

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:45 AM PDT reply actions  

Good idea to catch the defense off-guard, but Arizona’s defense had grown pretty wise to the roll-out play and they blanketed him.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

Do you (or any others who want to answer) have any thoughts regarding whether the lack of success on that play led to Ludwig’s hesitance to call a pass play later in the drive?

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Possibly. But for now I’m saving them for a few more posts later this week. Because I have ice water running through my veins.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

You are a clutch blogger.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

We know your name….

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

The way they had those roll outs covered for pretty much the entire game was really impressive. That type of play has been a bread and butter play for Cal over the years and Riley so rarely had an obviously open receiver.

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 26, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was a PERFECT throw. Miller has to bring that ball in.

by boomtho on Sep 26, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Should he have been targeted with that throw? There were THREE Arizona defenders around him, and he got hit pretty hard. Miller looked like he hurt his hand on that play because he got hit with a helmet, in fact.

by atomsareenough on Sep 26, 2010 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was the perfect throw if no one was more open than Miller.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was looking that play right down the barrel from my seats and I was upset with the throw attempt. Riley was dead-set on Miller and his eyes were a clear indication of that from the moment he began rolling out. I think he had a man in front of him in the flat as he rolled out for a possible moderate gain. Because he waited for Miller’s route to develop that option became negated. We all thought when the ball was slung that it was getting picked. Riley got tentative. It’s happened before. I thought he was due this game to not get tight and make some good decisions down the stretch. Oh well. Maybe there would have been a larger window to hit Miller if Riley wasn’t admiring him. A pump fake to the man in the flat just to stay in shape wouldn’t have been a bad idea either. I liked the play call. It was an aggressive attempt with a sure hands large target for a first down on a drive that was almost exclusively runs. And Twist, I think the lack of poise Riley showed as that play developed (and the near pick he threw as a consequence) was what made Ludwig hesitant to call another pass. Our confidence in Riley’s arm at that point was torn to shreds.

"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker

by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 26, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Riley as LB

I think Riley as a LB would have been much better than Riley at the QB position. He looks so good punching out the ball at the last moment.

by zachahuy on Sep 26, 2010 10:48 AM PDT reply actions  

etc

riley would be safer in the wishbone

by rileyslaststand on Sep 26, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

WE MADE THE COVER!

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 10:54 AM PDT reply actions  

By the way, how tall is Riley?

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:22 AM PDT reply actions  

6’

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

He’s listed at 6’2. Now, I generally assume guys are listed taller than they are, but I also don’t really think it matters because I’m more concerned with relative height – so as long as he’s the same height as other guys listed at 6’2 (which is likely shorter than 6’2), it doesn’t particularly matter. So I guess my question is is Riley’s height bumped up more than most other guys that are listed at 6’2? So is he shorter than the general “listed at 6’2” population?

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think this conversation took place last week after the loss and the consensus was that he’s realistically somewhere between 6’0 and 6’1. Height alone doesn’t make for a good qb. Otherwise Mansion would be starting.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Of course height alone doesn’t make for a good QB….

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Slightly taller than me

And I’m 6’.

I've been Honked...

by giantfan5 on Sep 26, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

Are you listed at 6’ and really 5’11"?

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, according the the measuring tape in the training room, I’m 6’. So, possibly.

I've been Honked...

by giantfan5 on Sep 26, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

That makes me think a 6’2 listing for him is pretty accurate, relatively speaking.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’ve stood next to him, and he’s a tad shorter than I am. I’m 6’1 exactly

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Unless he’s grown in the last 3 years

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, but read my earlier comments. Everyone is listed taller than they are.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, but I don’t think they’re all given the same bump.

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

TWSS?

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

And that was exactly the question I asked, whether he really compares to the “listed at 6’2” population….

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

My answer is: I don’t know, but I don’t think so

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’ve stood 35 feet away from him and am 18 feet tall roughly. Give or take 18 feet. I also weight 120 pounds.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wait, you’re an intestine?

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Football sucks.

All aboard the Dasarte Yarnway Battering Ram!

by rollonubears on Sep 26, 2010 12:23 PM PDT reply actions  

Hey, it’s rollonubears! Hi rollon!

I've been Honked...

by giantfan5 on Sep 26, 2010 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I thought he was lupus

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nevada ranked 25th in today's polls

Good news for us, though we all knew they were actually a good team.

by SonofCalifornia on Sep 26, 2010 12:45 PM PDT reply actions  

We've lost to two ranked teams!

Nothing bad about that.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

umm

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 26, 2010 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I GOT IT

RON GOULD FOR HC!

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

You know, if anyone deserves a shot… (otoh I kinda doubt he wants to be a head coach.)

"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.

It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0

by AERose on Sep 26, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think we have differing definitions of the word “lost.”

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 26, 2010 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

My definition includes when we score fewer points than the opposing team in 60 minutes of regulation

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

But not OT?

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

OT losses don’t count as losses.

by sycasey on Sep 27, 2010 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks

This article was really well done.

I thought the team played hard and is probably even more disappointed than the fans with the result, but it gives me some hope for the rest of the season. The team still has flaws, but is talented, so it will be interesting to see what it can do. At this point Oregon, Stanford and USC look like the toughest matches left, and Cal should be competitive in each. The rest could go either way (even WSU – don’t sleep on anybody). I think that puts the pressure on the coaches to gameplan and will be a good measure to see how well they perform this year.

Offense struggled, even with all the trickeration. Interesting that Cal stayed away from deep patterns but did go with half-back/receiver pass plays and end runs — and even a pass back to the QB. But failing to score touchdowns is not the recipe for winning. I was impressed by the run game in the fourth quarter (up until the last sequence of downs!) and hope they can build on that. It would also be more reassuring if the team had another back it was willing to give more carries to – number 34 looked very tired to me on the tv.

jh

by Jake88 on Sep 26, 2010 1:28 PM PDT reply actions  

Agree with that last bit. Vereen was really sucking wind late in the 4th. They subbed Sofele in for a play or two, but it was at least 1 play later than it should have been, and if Sofele is going to be needed in the 4th, he should have gotten more touches earlier in the game.

by atomsareenough on Sep 26, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Since their effort level has been fairly consistent this season, I feel like we know what we get with this team now, which helps to adjust my expectations accordingly for the rest of the season. Talented but flawed, we’re capable of beating any team, but it’s not surprising if we lose.

by sec119 on Sep 26, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t agree about all the criticism of Tedford/Ludwig’s playcalling on that 2nd to last drive. Just look at the stats — Tedford made the most logical decisions that one should make at that point in the game. The entire drive, we were getting pretty good gains from our running game, despite the fact that AZ knew it was coming. So when 3rd and 8 rolls around, do we run or pass?

We should run, which is what Tedford did. Why?

We were 2 for 12 or something for 3rd down conversions on the night, very low probability. We were in field goal range already, and an extra few yards can increase the likelihood of a successful conversion. Georgio was, at this point, 3/4 on the night, and a ~40 yard field goal is in his range. Mind you, a successful field goal puts the game away. So, Tedford went with the play that had a ~75% chance of success (run and settle for field goal attempt) instead of the play that had a ~15% chance of success (pass for 1st down). That’s a good choice by me.

by I hate $C on Sep 26, 2010 1:33 PM PDT reply actions  

The trouble with that argument is that it’s likely you can still try the FG anyway even if a pass fails.

Though personally, I would have rather seen a pass attempt on 2nd down, before we were in a 3rd-and-long situation.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess we have 2 choices:

1. Run, have a chance of success, take time off the clock and force a TO, kick field goal

2. Pass, have a seemingly less successful chance of success, potentially not force the TO, kick field goal

That way the right choice seems to be one to me.

CGB's Jimmy Carter

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 26, 2010 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Except that we’re not actually taking time off the clock, because they’re taking timeouts. And as I’ve already stated several times, I don’t think making them use TOs was all that important at that stage in the game.

I also don’t necessarily agree that passing has less chance of success, at that time. They were keying on the run. Throwing an occasional pass not only makes the pass more likely to succeed, it also makes subsequent runs more likely to succeed, because now they at least have to think about the pass.

by sycasey on Sep 26, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I honestly would put give even odds to completing a 1st down on 3rd on and 8 between passing and running, even with Riley. 8 yards is a lot to ask on any given run play.

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

at least we’re not arkansas fans? if i was i would feel more heartbroken, but really i feel okay

by planetxerox on Sep 26, 2010 4:36 PM PDT reply actions  

I’d feel worse if I were a Texas fan.

I would just be realizing my world is nothing but a lie!

Cal Football: Embrace the Horror

by Thoroughbred on Sep 26, 2010 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

And you’d probably be living in Texas, which is eminently terrible!

Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team owned by a Russian oligarch.

by yellow fever on Sep 26, 2010 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

One good thing on the offensive end: I was encouraged by Ludwig’s/Tedford play calling which seemed to be opened up compared to last year. Their willingness to try the unexpected was apparent in this game, e.g. Vereen’s throw, Keenan’s designed throw, and the reverse. Granted none of them really worked as designed, but it was good to see that our novelty plays are no longer largely Wildbear-formation-Isi-sweeps-RB-up-the-middle-for-2-yards.

I was also happy with the o-line. There were a few collapses, but in all given the strength of AZ’s defense I felt they played pretty well in both pass coverage and in run blocking. Too bad Riley has terrible pocket presence and blew up a few plays when he had an adequate pocket.

by dchu on Sep 26, 2010 5:19 PM PDT reply actions  

Marc Anthony’s Blanket Coverage Yesterday >>>> Marc Anthony’s National Anthem Botching with Fergie Just Now

"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker

by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 26, 2010 5:31 PM PDT reply actions  

haha

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 27, 2010 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Question: did ANYONE see PI on the Hagan penalty? I saw perfect coverage but maybe there was something during the route. At this point I’m not inclined to give Pac-10 officials the benefit of the doubt.

by dchu on Sep 26, 2010 8:36 PM PDT reply actions  

I think the only one who saw PI was the guy in the striped shirt who threw the flag. And he was the only one whose opinion counted.

Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.

by Ohio Bear on Sep 26, 2010 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sad but true. I re-watched today and ended up shouting at the tv all over again.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 26, 2010 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

I thought it was a ridiculous call, but there were two other plays Hagan could have easily been called for PI on that he wasn’t. I’d call it a victory in Cal’s favor on the whole.

by Missing Barry on Sep 26, 2010 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

There were a few plays that could have been flagged by a BAD REF (read: a Pac-10 ref) but every time there was contact it was pretty incidental and he had already turned around to play the ball. You’re right in that he could have elicited a flag or two, but I think they would have been just as bogus.

by dchu on Sep 26, 2010 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree, I think he got a little lucky on two plays.

CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Anyone else think that Vereen will leave at the end of the year?

He seems really pissed at the way things are going, at least in his mannerisms and demeanor towards the end of the games. If he finishes strong this year, what’s the likelihood that he’s gone?

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 26, 2010 11:29 PM PDT reply actions  

He’ll leave because he’s projected to go high in the draft. Ergo, if he has a great season, he’ll be gone.

I hope he has a great season. Good for him and good for the Bears.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cal RB’s should aim to leave after their jr year. Only so many carries for RB’s before you’re selling mortgages. Sure he’s frustrated, but I don’t think he’s “pissed at the program.”

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 27, 2010 6:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

To be clear, I didn’t say he’s pissed at the program. But if you watch the tape he’s got that DeSean-esque body language, which seems out of character given what I’ve seen of him off the field, normally reserved and quiet.

Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!

by dballisloose on Sep 27, 2010 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

Think you’re probably making something out of nothing man. Forsett was the same way.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The California Sports Website that's .....different from all the rest.

GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Humpty_dance_1_small
100 Days and counting... Sneak peek inside Memorial
Cal_2_small
Cal Softball Playoff Video: First Cal vs. Arkansas Game - Reid Steals Home
Cal_2_small
Softball Playoff Video: Cal vs. Iona
Ajoceywcalhatpic_small
DBD 5/18/12:  Riddles!
Cal_2_small
Cal Men's Crew Earns Second Place at the Pac-12 Championships

Recent FanPosts

Cstcst3644_small
DBD 5.24.12 Philip Philips is a person who exists?
Ab_small
DBD 5.23.12 Meeting yourself
Small
Rugby 7s in Philly!!!
Small
Cal vs Ohio State-getting tickets
Ab_small
DBD 5.22.12 I've made a huge mistake
Noneedtobeupset1_small
DBD 5.21.12 Jimmy Rustling DBD
Logo1_small
Cal rugby?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Coach Tedford is mic'd up for spring practice. Listen to him talk, while people practice! It is...
Steve Bartkowski elected to College Football Hall of Fame
Shareef Abdur-Rahim earns his Cal degree 16 years later!  Better late than never, right?  We're all proud of him.  Go Bears!  (H/T John Montgomery's Twitter)

Click here for more on this story from The Sacramento Bee.
Cal Women's Crew Captures Pac-12 Championship

Recent FanShots

DANBURY MINT CAL MEMORIAL STADIUM REPLICA- Just wondering if anyone had...
Alex Morgan links
Natalie Coughlin feature on ESPN
warren long should be offered he has all cal needs really good kid is the word around town.
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
WSJ Writer Urges Pac-12 & Big Ten to Secede From BCS Playoffs
KTVU profiles the USA Olympic men's eight rowing hopefuls, and it includes interviews with former...
Former Cal football players make career in music
Cal has one of college football's best passing and catching duos
Best unimpressed by Floyd Mayweather, boxing in general

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

More great SB Nation Blogs

Pac-12 On SBN

Pacific Takes (Pac-12)

Pacifictakes-165x74_medium

NORTH

AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)

UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)

CougCenter: (Washington State)

BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)

Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)

CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)

 

SOUTH

BruinsNation: (UCLA)

ConquestChronicles: (USC)

HouseOfSparky: (ASU)

Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)

TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)

Block U: (Utah)


Marshawnthusiasts!

Bear_small ragnarok

Script_cal_small HydroTech

Cal_football_2005_09_16_roll_07_012_small CBKWit

Cstcst3644_small TwistNHook

1262541127_small yellow fever

Avinash6_small Avinash Kunnath

Jahvidtician

Bear__small norcalnick

Monty_in_cal_gear_small Ohio Bear

Giorgiorope_small Berkelium97

Ajoceywcalhatpic_small Kodiak

Mbc_small ManBearCal

Members Of The Follettariat

Oski_mini_small LEastCoastBears

Sofele20squarecal_stanford2011_small solarise

47081_1264898881265_1793562355_517598_1551191_s_small FrankCohen

Rugby_split_small RugbyVet

Sam_i_am_small unclesam22

The Hit Squad

1129748640_small LeonPowe

Atom_small atomsareenough

Basketball_desktop_small CALumbus Bear

Humpty_dance_1_small Cugel