SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
Cal-Zona Post-Game Thoughts
by Kodiak on Sep 27, 2010 1:20 PM PDT
Email
Print
Cal football is one heckuva drug, eh? Let's set the stage: Coming off an embarrassing loss in Reno, our Bears travel to the desert to face a ranked team coming off a decisive upset of a top 10 team. They have one of the best offenses in the Pac-10, one of the top QB's, dangerous special teams, and a fast, aggressive defense. Absolutely all of the experts, media, and pundits expect us to lose. Let's be honest - false bravado aside, we all thought this one was going to be an L...and a potentially ugly one, at that. Instead, we went toe to toe with a tough team, acquitted ourselves well, and came within inches of pulling the upset. I'm not happy, but I'm not upset, or down on our team. As far as I'm concerned, the guys fought hard and played well enough to earn respect for their effort. Here are some post-game thoughts following a painful re-watch:
1) Their DE's caused trouble all game long. Although AZ would frequently stack the box with 8, they rarely blitzed. They were getting pressure and collapsing the pocket with just their base 4 guys. On the two plays in the 1st half where we split Shane Vereen out wide to get a mismatch w/ an LB, Kevin Riley had throw both of them away because he either Ricky Elmore or Brooks Reed in his face. Their CB's were very fast and sure with run support. Even though they played off the line of scrimmage, we were never really able to take advantage of that with quick screen passes. Give credit to AZ - they have a fast, tough, well-coached defense.
2) After re-watching the game, I have fewer issues with the offensive playcalling than I did live. Mike Stoops and Andy Ludwig had a chess match going all game long. You have to give credit to AZ. They have two great DE's, plenty of speed, and two solid corners. They mixed up plenty of looks...sometimes moving a safety up late into the box, or starting with a stacked box and dropping out. But, we countered with misdirection, reverses, and roll-outs. It was like a high-stakes poker game with football players. Some of our best runs came when we caught them in a base look (7 in the box). Some of our losses came from when they guessed right and had guys moving up. Or, they would simply beat some of our guys and come in unblocked. (like prior to the FG at the end of the 1st half) One play that may need to take some time off is lining Vereen up for the out n' up matched up on a LB. They had that one scouted cold.
3) Why no throws to Anthony Miller? Answer: He's not getting open. When he's releasing, he's not out-running LB's in coverage. Miller doesn't seem to be moving as well as I remember. He looks significantly bulked up relative to previous years. In fairness, AZ has a really fast group of LB's.
4) Why didn't we throw as often to our wideouts? Was our game-plan designed to avoid challenging their corners? I heard a story on the radio last week: When Mike Shanahan took over, he told all the wide receivers, "If you can't win your one on one battles, you're going to work at one of Elway's car dealerships instead of catching passes from him." From the poor camera angles available to me, it seemed their corners did a good job sticking our guys and had plenty of safety help. Especially in the 2nd half, it looked liked Stoops channeled his inner Bob Gregory and played a lot of bend, but don't break. He was able to get pressure with just his base 4, had his safeties deeper, and kept everything in front. However, this did open things up for our running game and may be one of the reasons Ludwig didn't call for as many passes. Like Hydro alluded to earlier, I think having Keenan Allen out or limited really hurts our playbook. Having him as a reliable outlet, or a playmaking threat really adds to the versatility of our offense. None of the other receivers can come close to replicating what he brings to the table.
5) Was Riley missing reads, slow to make reads, or was everyone covered? I'm not qualified to say. Perhaps someone with superior football knowledge and actual game film can provide an answer. From what I could see, it looked like receivers were often covered. I'm okay with him throwing it away, or even taking a sack instead of forcing it. But like I said, the television typically only showed the pocket and not whether the receivers were open or not. To make any assumptions based on the tv footage would be exactly that; baseless assumptions.
6) Welcome to Cal, Mr. Michael Calvin. I was happy to see him have his best game as a Bear. Maybe this will be the shot of confidence he needs to be a solid contributor from here on.
7) Mr. Riley: 13-26, 113 yards. Five drops on very catchable balls (Marvin Jones - 2, Jeremy Ross - 1, Miller - 1, Isi Sofele -1) -> 18 -26, 170+ yds. (not including the one where Loggy didn't get his feet in or the leaping attempt by Vereen which would have been an incredible catch) That would be a 69% completion rate. (which does include at least two throwaways because no one was open)
Three really bad passes. Near pick-six at the beginning of the game. Short-hop to KA on 3rd and 3, middle of the 3rd quarter. Short hop to Vereen, 3rd and 4, end of the 3rd.
Draw your own conclusions.
8) This is the D we've been waiting to see. Not a lot of blitzes, but we were also able to get pressure with our front four, especially off of stunts. I liked seeing the corners up and disrupting their routes. I think some of Foles incompletions were because we re-routed their guys and screwed up their timing. Our secondary really stepped up. Unlike last week where our CB's and S's were consistently taking bad angles or getting blocked out of the play, the guys were fighting through blocks to limit their YAC. Nnabuife and Conte both had the best games that I've ever seen either of them play. Not sure if Hill was hurt or just demoted, but I saw a lot of DJ Campbell - and he played very well.
9) Can I just say how much I loved not seeing us try to cover a 3 WR bunch with just two guys? And that we actually limited their bubble screen, slip screen, and swing pass game? Also, I know that special teams gaffes were part of the difference in this game (Ross fair-catch on the 5 + Anger shank, 2 missed FG's), but I thought our coverage teams were much improved.
10) Some people asked if there were any statistics which support the decision-making in the 4th quarter. I'm not a stats guy, but I did find some interesting links. For those of you with better math skills (almost all of you, I hope), have at it:
A) 4th and 1. Kick it or go?
Odds of converting 4th and 1 - 65%
4th Down Percentages
A FG from 40yds has about a 70% success rate. (*As many astute commenters have pointed out, the kicking percentages for the NFL likely do not translate to the NCAA because of the talent disparity. The true projected success rate for a college kicker is probably less than 70% at 40 yds.)
FG Percentages
Odds of scoring FG or TD, final two minutes - 40%.
Odds of scoring a TD, final two minutes (starting from own 20) - 20%
Odds of scoring both a TD and FG, final two minutes - 8%
Two Minute Drill Scoring Odds
So, forcing them to score a TD instead of a FG reduces their chances of winning by 20%. On the other hand, scoring a TD and forcing them to score twice reduces their chances of winning by 32%. I'd take the 65% 4th down try over a 70% FG in this scenario.
Another look at a similar scenario: They went for it and lost.
4th and Goal Discussion
B) 3rd and 8, 2nd to last drive of the game. Run clock, or throw for the 1st?
Why not throw? Interestingly, the success rate for 1011 different 3rd and 7 scenarios featured equal success for running or passing. (38%) Because defenses are expecting the pass (teams only run 12% on 3rd and 7+), runs seem to have more than their fair share of success. When assessing risk, a run obviously has a lot less risk than a throw. In looking back, I actually don't see this as "conservative" coaching - if that were the case, why not call a run that just centers the ball? Instead, I see this as a calculated gamble trying to catch them over-playing the pass while also forcing them to burn their last timeout. I would have thrown for it...but I don't know much about offensive football.
3rd Down Percentages
Also, with about 3 minutes to go, the odds of winning with a 3 point lead are almost identical to the odds of winning with a 7 pt lead. (approx 92%)
End Game Analysis
By this math, kicking a FG doesn't really help your odds of winning.
If running clock and settling for a FG = 92% chance of winning,
but throwing for it (38% success rate) and making a 1st Down = 100% chance of winning,
then the math says you throw for the 1st Down...If you can accept the risk that comes with throwing.
Final thoughts: As I mentioned in my pre-season preview, I feel like Tedford's decision-making has been different these past few years than from his first few. "I almost think that something changed that day Riley didn't spike the ball against OSU and made Tedford throw his clipboard. Ever since then, it almost feels like we've been playing the odds; playing more not to lose than playing for the win. Statistically, many of the decisions are probably sound. But this game is played by young men. In college sports, morale and spirit are arguably more important than the athletes themselves. I think that it may have been forgotten that the right football decision is sometimes the wrong decision for a leader of young men."
Can I play arm-chair coach and question recruiting, hiring, and game management decisions? Of course. I'm utterly unqualified, but it's still my right to second-guess, grumble, and moan; even if most of my judgments are knee-jerk and uninformed. Criticizing his decisions is fair. Calling for his head after losing a road game by the margin of a football off the uprights that we were supposed to lose? Seriously?
I don't have any special football knowledge or insight beyond that of the casual fan. However, I do have some perspective that comes from watching 30 years of Cal football. We're not in the South. Our fanbase and alumni don't live and breathe football. We actually have some semblance of academic standards and the cost of living in the Bay Area makes it difficult to retain top assistants. Except for a hiccup from Russell White/Mike Pawlawski, the pre-Tedford years were pretty darn bleak. Let's not kid ourselves. We don't have a rich football tradition or culture to attract the very best recruits or big-name coaches. Instead, we have a solid coach who emphasizes academics, represents himself and the university with class, and consistently puts a competitive product on the field. Is he the guy to lead us to the Rose Bowl? I have no idea. But I do know that he's the type of man that I don't mind supporting and the same goes for the team of young men he has put together.
They made plays when it counted and we didn't. It's that simple. Our guys fought for the inches they needed and came up a little short. No shame in that - I'm still proud of our guys.
The time for hand-wringing is over. Let's use the bye week to get healthy, re-focus, and get ready to lay the smack down on ucla in two weeks.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
100 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not sure if Hill was hurt or just demoted, but I saw a lot of DJ Campbell – and he played very well.
Because I was at work (yes on a Sunday) and for some reason our office ISP doesn’t like Slingbox, I was forced into listening to Starkey and Taylor – however, this was able ot afford some insights it didn’t seem like the TV announcers were mentioning.
One of them was this: Mike Mohammad wasn’t playing a lot because Pendegast was running a lot of 5 DB sets, and substituting DJ Campbell in for Mikey Mo
Saw the same thing as Kodiak
That’s what I figured. Hill was the deep safety and Campbell basically was playing a LB/S hybrid. Did surprisingly well, even better than our ILB replacements.
Mohamed wasn’t 100%. He didn’t have a big impact on the game. But it’s good to see Pendergast showing flexibility in mixing positions to fit function.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2010 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
This was a wrinkle that you guys saw.
Campbell was being used in the 4-2-5 look. Instead of the 2 DL, 4 LB, and 5 DB personnel that I mentioned in my post from a few weeks back, Pendergast used 2 DL, 3 LB, and 6 DBs against UA. In other words, it was our dime package personnel being used in the 4-2-5 look. Did Pendergast use this personnel all the time in the 4-2 vs UA? I’m not entirely sure because I picked up on it midway through the game and haven’t rewatched the game. But from that point on, I believe that was the personnel he used with the 4-2.
So what does this do? It adds more speed and better coverage to the field for one thing but sacrifices run support.
Why did this happen? With UA splitting 3 or 4 wide most of the time, Campbell was being lined up as a LB with the same responsibilities as a LB (slot receiver in coverage, run support). However, with another DB on the field vs 4 WRs, you now have 4 DBs matched up against 4 WRs with 2 safeties over the top for help. This best can be seen when Campbell batted down a pass in the 3rd quarter on a receiver who went long. He did fine in run support from what I recall.
Pretty much, although Arizona adjusted accordingly themselves with two running plays against the dime package, particularly on the 3rd and 5, and got two crucial first downs.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
*on the final drive.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
True....
…..but unfortunately Arizona’s passing game HAD to be respected. And they showed why.
From watching Pendergast as the DC for the Arizona Cardinals I became familiar with his unwillingness to bring any kind of pressure late in a game with a marginal lead. I don’t know what the right calls were for the final drive but I do believe bringing MikeyMo off the edge on the TD pass was a good call but poorly executed (MikeyMo went for a straight sack instead of getting his hands up to likely block/redirect Foles’s’ pass). I agree that the passing game had to be respected but if you look at Foles’s inability to throw the deep ball last season (Oregon @ Arizona Stadium – prime example), Darian Hagan playing out of his shoes, Foles’s discomfort with any kind of pressure coming from his right (which Kendricks had success with throughout the game), and the fact that Criner was suffering from two injuries and wasn’t really expected to play, I think Pendergast should have been more aggressive and included blitz packages during the final drive. Those runs were super predictable when you saw how sold out Cal’s defense was on the pass but they were still good, and gutsy, call by their co-OC’s. While some people criticize Tedford’s conservativeness I’d like to also turn the tables and say that I thought Clancy was not channeling his inner Rex Ryan on that final drive.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 4:34 AM PDT up reply actions
That is interesting.
I assumed that on the big play downfield Cal had brought pressure, Arizona handled it, and Criner made a great catch aided by lack of safety help for Hagan. If Cal was not sending extra rushers, then I have to wonder how we let their best player get one-on-one down the middle of the field.
jh
That’s encouraging then. I didn’t see whoever came, or where they came from, but that’s probably because it was pretty clear to us that Foles was going to Criner once the ball was snapped and we were all holding our collective breaths. I think I would have dialed up that call, with my vastly inferior knowledge of football, if I was Pendergast. Hagan had the hot hand and bringing pressure seemed intuitive to get Foles flustered for any kind of ball with some air under it. I also think that play came on a first down. Thanks for the clarification.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
You bring up a good point: Darian Hagan, welcome back. That was a great game out of him, especially in regards to the likely BS PI call. Sure, he didn’t win all the battles…but he was in a position to win them instead of getting burnt like toast.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Oh man, that pass-interference call was disgraceful. Was he not playing the ball with his hands in front of him and his back to the receiver? It looked like a role reversal with the receiver acting as an out of position DB going through Hagan’s front pockets trying to break up the pass. I thought it was offensive pass interference based on my vantage. Conte saved the day though, just one of the many large impacts (but the one that stands out the most in the box score) he had during the game.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Kod, love the article. Don’t really have much to add, except Riley also had a poor throw to Marv early in the game (maybe the first drive?). The one where he stepped up, threw it behind a sliding Marv — think it was on a 3rd down, and that would’ve given us the first.
Anyway, thanks for looking up those percentages and putting this together.
On replay, that was all on Marv. He had to step up in the pocket and threaded the needle between coverage to hit Marv on the hands. Good throw, imo.
Old Toothwrangler
For some reason I thought that throw was to Calvin (maybe from my vantage the 1 on the jersey led me believe it was an 11), but either way I also thought that Riley had plenty of room to run. When he stepped up in the pocket the middle of the field was wide open to pick up the necessary yardage and still take a slide. I guess it just appeared like throwing the ball was a low percentage play (even though you said it was on Marv) and that running the ball was the higher percentage play. Marv wasn’t going to get any yards after the catch so the difference in gains between the two different decisions wasn’t significant and they both provided necessary distance to spread the chains. I wasn’t able to watch the game’s broadcast so this is only my perception from about 70 yards away and only seeing the play once.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 4:43 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s also possible that Riley was instructed by the coaches to be really selective with his running. AZ has a very fast LB group and I’m sure it scared them how he’s been leading with his head all season. If Riley gets hurt, we’re really in a tough spot.
Old Toothwrangler
Certainly. And that makes me wonder if all the coaching is what makes some blame Riley for “being Riley” as opposed to seeking first to understand that quite possibly he’s playing with his hands tied by Ludwig and Tedford. It’s difficult for anyone (in any profession) to be instinctual/natural when you’re thinking about how those in positions of authority have preemptively micro-managed what type of performance is expected out of you. I guess, beyond scrambling with the football, I’m bewildered as to why Riley still doesn’t look all that comfortable when it seems his talent and experience would suggest his progression would have had a steeper ascent.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Very good points. I thought some of his issues the last couple of years were that he was so afraid of making a mistake, it made him hesitant – which unfortunately led to slow reads, missed, reads, late throws, or bad throws.
However, I think he actually looked more poised this last game when he had time in the pocket. For example, there was a play at the start of the 4th quarter where I counted 2 seconds, saw him look left, middle, and then come back right to Calvin for a reception. On plays where the protection breaks down, it makes sense to me that he looks uncomfortable.
The big question that I have and that I cannot answer without better film, is whether he looks hesitant in the pocket because he’s rattled, or if there simply isn’t anywhere to go with the ball because no one got any separation.
I’m cautiously optimistic that his play is trending towards improvement, however. AZ really does have a tough D w/ speed everywhere.
Old Toothwrangler
I would have to agree that it is trending towards improvement. The Vereen TD pass against Colorado (the back shoulder throw) was a thing of beauty as well as the Jones TD pass against Colorado – which was zipped in very accurately. Those are the kind of throws that I would like to see from Riley every game. The 3rd and long completion to Calvin against UA was very impressive and I would not have expected the kind of poise and accuracy displayed on that play from Riley last season.
I will say this though: Arizona has a good (but not elite) secondary and our receivers were not creating nearly enough separation to give Riley high percentage looks. Keenan Allen’s sparse and lackluster performance is what I deem to be the deal breaker on that. He was limping even as he was walking out of the locker room from the start and I saw him more as “meat on the field” to create space for other receivers when he actually was in the game (Remember: his only catch was on the last drive because it was desperation time). If Arizona had to respect his playmaking abilities, and he was on the field more often, than perhaps Riley would have cut up that secondary with better accuracy and more efficiency. Purely speculation.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
A FG from 40yds has about a 70% success rate.
70% with Tavecchio? No friggin way.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
Yeah it does
That field goal would have been good if we had centered it in anyway instead of putting it on the right hashmark.
You forget we have a new ST coach and Tavecchio had the leg. This kick just barely missed.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL in his career, Tavecchio is 9/19 from 30+ yards.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 2:47 AM PDT up reply actions
That was mostly with Alamar. Tavecchio’s leg is much improved this season, haven’t you noticed? Both of those kicks barely missed.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions
9/19.
9/19!
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
And now with Genyk he’s like 2/4 or something
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
He is 6/8 and perfect on PATs. We saw the only 2 kicks he has missed all season on Saturday. One of which was 1 inch away from being a make.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Uhh. He was 2/3 before that kick. That would indicate he had a 66% chance of making it by this methodology. So the decision to kick is a sound one if you’re using stats.
This is kind of the reason we don’t use stats to make all our decisions. Tavecchio had the leg and could’ve hit it. He just missed it. It happens.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
SSS
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Speak English boy.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Small Sample Size
Or, maybe he’s doing a snake impression.
by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2010 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
That would indicate he had a 66% chance of making it by this methodology.
No, if he was 2/3 on 30+ yard kicks this year and 9/19 overall it does not mean that he had a 66% chance of making a 40 yard kick.
Nobody is saying there’s an exact formula here (at least I’m not), merely that the number seem to indicate Tavecchio isn’t particularly accurate on longer kicks, which might mean that the chance of converting on 4th down > the chance of making the FG.
Yeah, you’re right. I’m glad Tedford put the game in the hands of a kicker who was 9/19 on kicks above 30+ yards (but with a new ST coach!!!!!!!) It made a lot of sense.
Which is why it worked so well…
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 27, 2010 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions
He looked a little spazzy in the 4th Q, no? Even the early FG in the 4th Q he looked rattled.
Losses like this one can and will be learning experiences for this team moving forward
What can’t happen is this team playing flat and giving up. To me, that’s the only thing other than multiple losing seasons that could get Tedford fired.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
They’re kids. Guys screw up despite coaching. I’m sure Genyk didn’t tell Ross to fair-catch at the five, or Anger to shank it out of the end-zone.
Remember a few years back when Alexis Serna whiffed on 3 extra points and ruined a chance for Oregon State to upset LSU? (loss 22-21)
After the heartbreaking loss and the surge in press coverage, Serna received hundreds of letters of support from people across the country. One of these letters came from 12-year-old Austan Pierce, a boy receiving cancer treatment from Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital in Spokane, Washington. Serna was so moved by his words of encouragement that he wrote an “A” on his left thumb and a “P” on his right thumb before each game from then on, to remind him of Austan’s words. Serna went on to complete 29 consecutive extra points and make 17 of 20 field goals in the remainder of the season, earning Pac-10 special teams Player of the Week twice and becoming a finalist for the 2004 Lou Groza Award in the process. By the end of the season, the same media outlets that had commented on Serna’s struggle as a kicker touted his subsequent success3. He was also named to the College Football News Freshman All-American second team. and to The Sporting News Freshman All-American first team.
[edit]
Sometimes, young guys just need a little confidence and support.
Old Toothwrangler
70% with Tavecchio? No friggin way.
FYI — that stat is for NFL kickers. I believe that’s accurate.
I don’t believe it’s the same for college kickers.
They had to give him a chance....
…….because he had been perfect to that point (except for the upright miss). Now one has to consider whether his head can handle the pressure of “game-winning” kicks and adjust accordingly.
Again, I’m not against letting Tavecchio kick for the win on that penultimate drive, IF we honestly tried to get the first down to salt it away first. I think our playcalling (3 straight runs, after 4 straight runs coming into the series) made it clear that we were just going to settle for the field goal, and that was the mistake.
Letting Giorgio kick the FG is fine (and he should have made it), but getting a first down and removing all doubt is better. We should have put our efforts towards that, more so than we did — bringing the kicker on should be the fall-back position, not the prime strategy.
I would say the 2007 Oregon St game was a big, unforgetable moment in the lives of both Riley and Tedford.
I think, but by no means do I know for sure, that Riley wouldn’t be a hesitant, panicky, and perhaps inaccurate player that he’s turned into.
Tedford, since that loss, has seem to get more conservative in the way he manages his program. Not a fan of making your defense earn the win when the offense can still make it a no-doubter.
"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 6:26 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The gift that keeps on giving. Unfortunately, it's that fruit cake no one wants...
I would agree with this slant. Those final five minutes of that game, prior to the final sequence in the red zone, were some of the most thrilling moments of Cal football I’ve ever experienced, win or lose. I’ve watched Cal football since my undergrad days, and I’ve rarely ever seen a youngster with a gunslinger mentality the way Riley did. He looked and acted absolutely fearless in those final sequences. Of course, he got tremendous help from both Hawk and Robert Jordan, but watching him took me back to how it looked watching Elway bring the Furd back from the 4th and 19 in the ’82 Big Game, except for that instant, the hero was wearing blue and gold.
I know that Riley’s weaknesses as a quarterback have come to the fore since that game, and we’ve all seen them. But I was far more forgiving of that final error given that he had made it possible for Cal to get there in the first place.
I also realize that the OSU game is far more complicated than simply those final minutes. For instance, right before halftime, OSU’s QB stepped over the line while completing a pass, setting the Beavers up for a field goal right before half. Canfield should have been flagged, and wasn’t. And OSU got 3 points that, in the end, made a difference between Riley’s error and Cal simply lining up for a game winning field goal after Jordan’s spectacular catch.
That having been said, since that time, Riley, aside from glimpses, never looked as fully in charge of the offense as he did that night.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 27, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks
for your careful writing and for doing the research. It was an entertaining game and the team played well, just not well enough.
In a close game, every play and every decision can take on outsized importance. It is foolish to assume they will go in the favor of your team, particularly when you overlook the opportunities Arizona squandered (all those penalties, interception in the end zone, missed field goal, etc.) If these two teams played 10 times, it would probably be a 5-5 series. It is the special (or statistically aberrent) teams and special players that can find a way to win more than their share.
I think this team is still learning and growing, as is the case with many college teams. The coaching staff needs to keep teaching and keep motivating and we have a good chance of a Tedford-normal year (8.4 wins and 4.4 losses). I like the team’s fight and think they should be in every game they play this year.
jh
7) Mr. Riley: 13-26, 113 yards. Five drops on very catchable balls (Jones – 2, Ross – 1, Miller – 1, Sofele -1) → 18 -26, 170+ yds. (not including the one where Loggy didn’t get his feet in or the leaping attempt by Vereen which would have been an incredible catch) That would be a 69% completion rate. (which does include at least two throwaways because no one was open)
Three really bad passes. Near pick-six at the beginning of the game. Short-hop to KA on 3rd and 3, middle of the 3rd quarter. Short hop to Vereen, 3rd and 4, end of the 3rd.
Draw your own conclusions.
Conclusion One: Kevin Daft is our weakest position coach. 3 years in and our receivers still drop almost as many as they catch.
"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
I thought Keenan Allen called Daft the “best WR coach evair,” which I thought was odd since he’s a true freshman and is relatively new to the WR position.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Hm, I don’t remember seeing that and I just found your reference on Google. If others are interested, it’s quoted by Crumpacker: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crumpacker/detail?entry_id=71421
by BeareatsTacos on Sep 27, 2010 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Miller doesn’t seem to be moving as well as I remember. He looks significantly bulked up relative to previous years.
I saw this as well and said as much in one of the game threads. He looks much bulkier and I am not sure it’s a good thing with him.
Think I saw a pass play attempt w/ Ladner vs ‘Zona. I welcome Ladner’s development.
http://twitter.com/solariseCGB
Yes, it was a sideline fade. Unfortunately, he was well-covered, and pressure on Riley made it a throw-away.
Ladner was a big-time TE recruit from what I remember. He and Stevens both had better games blocking…Next step will be turning into serious threats in the passing game.
Old Toothwrangler
Ladner had a catch on a swing pass out of the backfield which is more of an H-back route. He got stuck pretty good on the hit and got up slowly but otherwise, it was a nice little catch and run.
He looked to be limping a little after that play, I remember it clearly.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yeah he was banged up and had to come out for the next play(s). I thought his blocking was really solid. Also, Miller never did seem to get open. Whether that is a consequence of lack of speed/mobility due to increased bulk (and I agree that he does look bulkier), or the backers covering him down the field being quite good in pass coverage (there isn’t much tape on them that Ludwig could look at) and having leverage in speed is something I can’t answer. I still think Miller is a weapon in the clutch, especially when he hasn’t been thrown to much, but the one roll out designed for him late in the game was well schemed by Stoops and Co.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 4:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Then why didn't the refs throw a flag?
Isn’t it illegal to cover the tight end?
MIller looks very large. It’s like watching Pablo Sandoval play defense or Bengie Molina try to score from second base, no? ;o)
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
Re: Discussion A)
Two points: First, as I believe has already been brought up, the chance of making a 40-yarder is probably NOT 70%. It might be in the NFL, but not in college generally, and probably even less so for Cal specifically.
Secondly, while the stats you introduce from the NFL stats sites discuss conversion percentages, it doesn’t take into account field position and its value. If you go for it on 4th/1 from inside the 10, then you have field position on your side even if you fail.
Very true.
Which is why I said,
A FG from 40yds has about a 70% success rate.
And,
I’m not a stats guy, but I did find some interesting links. For those of you with better math skills (almost all of you, I hope), have at it:
Only Tedford/Genyk have a true idea of Giorgio’s projected success rate because they’re the ones that see him in practice every day. I can only assume that if he was shanking them regularly we would have thrown for it…or gone for it on 4th down.
You are most welcome to peruse the data available via google, bing, or oujia board. After re-watching the film and spending a few hours sifting through football nerd statistic articles and sites, I was ready to bash my head in with a stapler. :)
Old Toothwrangler
That wasn’t an attempt to fisk you. I think we both agree that they should’ve gone for it on 4th and 1. I was just saying that the argument you presented is probably understated if anything, and that a fuller analysis would probably bear out that our conclusion is even sounder than we think it is.
by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2010 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Woo-hoo! Obscure stats/facts that people can’t find or substantiate FTW! :)
Yeah, I think we’re in agreement. One of the other links I posted indicated that two successful coaches (Mike Leach and Urban Meyer) would have gone for it. However, Leach went for it, didn’t get it, and lost his game. He said afterwards something to the effect that “it might have been the wrong call, but he believed in it.”
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a great stats guy. But, I know there are some folks that really like to delve into the #’s. So, I tried to post some links as a starting point to let them draw their own conclusions.
Old Toothwrangler
Haha, yeah. It would be really easy if we had things like the data for expected FG% for college and point value assignment to various field positions, or even some win% information for various clock/score combinations.
by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2010 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually expected that there would be plenty of that out there. It’s not like the game is new or these scenarios are completely out of left field.
But all I found was a lot of he said/she said. I guess the whole point is that the numbers only tell part of the story. Because there are so many variables and most of those are human – thus inherently flawed and unpredictable, all we’re doing it reading tea leaves. If either of those two kicks had gone in, or if their CB hadn’t rushed the line to turn Vereen inside, we’d be high-fiving and talking about what a brilliant gameplan Tedford & Co. develop.
“It’s why we play the games.” Oh wait. I’m not supposed to use cliches or I lose my backbone. :)
Old Toothwrangler
The thing about using stats to make decisions is they don’t account for specific instances and actual circumstances. Is the offensive line rolling over the d-line? Am I going up against circa 1998 Chester McGlockton and Warren Sapp with 3rd string linemen? Is the Arizona defensive line getting pushback on the Cal o-line with only 4 rushers?
It’s all well and good to say the statistics say the win percentage goes up when going for it on 4th down, but they don’t talk to actual circumstances of this particular 4th down in this particular play in this particular 4th quarter.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but since there’s no objective (or at least quantitative) way to measure those things, the aforementioned statistics tell you what the right decision is based on the data we do have.
It’s still very subjective. Data glosses a decision down to its basest form, how successful a play is on 4th and 1. It does not take into account how a particular defense plays against that 4th and 1, how a team that’s stacking the box performs on 4th and 1, how a team that’s not been too successful in the passing the game does on 4th and 1…etc.
I would’ve gone for it because I felt Vereen could have picked up the yard. I could also see that Tedford and Ludwig would’ve been iffy on going for it because of the knowledge a run was coming and the strength of Arizona’s front four.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 28, 2010 1:31 AM PDT up reply actions
It does not take into account how a particular defense plays against that 4th and 1, how a team that’s stacking the box performs on 4th and 1, how a team that’s not been too successful in the passing the game does on 4th and 1…etc.
Like I said…“since there’s no objective (or at least quantitative) way to measure those things, the aforementioned statistics tell you what the right decision is based on the data we do have.”
I would’ve gone for it because I felt Vereen could have picked up the yard.
And why would looking at Vereen’s performance in 4th-and-1 situations vs. Tavecchio’s performance on longer kicks make you less informed in this situation?
Well there is the data for that sort of deeper idea – you could track things like pancake blocks, penetration, TFLs, hits behind the line, QB hurries and sacks to get an idea about how the offensive line is playing vs. the defensive line.
Yeah, but there are too many variables and the sample size is too small. It’s not really possible to come up with a formula that tells you exactly what to do in a given situation – but I think that a statistic such as your kicker being 9/19 in his career on 30+ yard kicks is comprehensive enough to at least give you pause in that situation.
BTW, I also found a Ouija board while cleaning out the garage this weekend. Either it’s really stupid, or I don’t get it.
by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2010 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
The board’s pretty sweet though. Looks like it’s from maybe the mid-1960s.
by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2010 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the larger problem is that there is no established correlation between kicking at the NFL and at the college level. Despite the similarities in rules, the difference between the two in talent is immense.
Given the lack of data here, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to bring in that 70% figure at all. But I’m just nitpicking — for the kind of work I do, had I done that I would’ve been put in the equivalent of detention for the afternoon.
by BeareatsTacos on Sep 28, 2010 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it’s a very fair point. There’s data at the NFL level because most of the kickers are similar – they either perform at an acceptably competent level or they don’t get paid to play. On the other hand, there’s such a huge variability in the college game – not just in talent, but in maturity or performance under pressure. I couldn’t find any stats on college kickers.
I suppose the only people who really know what Giorgio’s true odds of making that kick are Tedford and Genyk because they get to observe him in practice every day.
Ironically, the same day I worked on this – at least two NFL kickers missed “easy” game-winning FG’s from <40 yards.
Old Toothwrangler
Good thing I'm also a Raiders fan
No, wait…they lost in the same hell-hole of a state, and by a point…and Janikowski blew it three times too. Good thing I eat my oatmeal…just came down to execution, not the coaching.
We're not in the South.
And thank the Lord Jesus, or whomever, for that. Great analysis, and Tedford has also improved the graduation rate of the players, which, in some ways, more important than going to the damn Rose bowl anyway. Does anyone have any idea who else would coach here if he wasn’t? I asked that to a dude with “Fire Tedford” on his shirt, and he looked at me like a drunken owl. (I have no idea what that looks like, but he didn’t say much).
And If we were in the South, those tree sitters wouldn’t have been sitting in the trees…
And the trees still woulda stayed up for 2 years, because of the Court injunction.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Take this with a grain of salt...
but Anthony Miller is apparently in several of my friend’s classes, and said friend said he (Miller’s) noticeably fattened up over the summer.
Yeah, he has. He’s been disappointing, to be honest.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 27, 2010 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Darn, I was hoping by “bulk,” it would be muscle. With our OL, I’d rather have a great blocking TE like Craig Stevens than a great pass catching TE. And for those occasions a good blocking TE does catch the ball, a Craig Stevens-like frame and size can accommodate a few stowaway OSU safeties and cornerbacks before succumbing to their combined weight.
by BeareatsTacos on Sep 28, 2010 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions
He’s blocking quite well. But he’s not catching passes anymore, which means we have to depend on the receivers more. Miller was big for us last season, he really could’ve been a big X-factor.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 28, 2010 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I think he still can be an X-factor but not in the sense that he’s going to get any big hits over-the-middle like he’s proven he’s capable of doing (in a more athletic build). In fact, I can’t think of one 10+ yard catch he’s had over-the-middle this season.
"I struck out Mike Schmidt in an exhibition game. Struck his ass right out."
- Morris Buttermaker
by BearOnTheBorder on Sep 28, 2010 4:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Sounds like he needs to read the CGB Fitness tweets.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I don’t want to bash on the guy because there are too many unknowns. Maybe the coaching staff told him to bulk up. Or, he decided to do it on his own to improve his pro prospects. Or maybe he worked out really hard all summer, but didn’t eat right – which translated into building the wrong type of bulk. He’s certainly able to hold up at the point of attack now. I just wished I was imagining things about the effect on his agility and footspeed.
Old Toothwrangler
r, he decided to do it on his own to improve his pro prospects
sigh Russell White’s senior year. Also my freshman year.
You know all those “he gained 10 pounds of muscle, but didn’t lose a step” stories that are the staple of training camps? Russell lost a step getting bigger. A big step.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
