LaMike'd and Mamba'd: Oregon Uses Second-Half Onslaught To Beat Cal, 43-15
Two years ago, the Cal football team came into Autzen Stadium undefeated, ranked 6th in the country, and entertaining dreams of a conference championship. Meanwhile, Oregon was still trying to find itself under first-year head coach Chip Kelly and still shaking off the effects of a nationally-televised faceplant against Boise State in the Ducks' 2009 season opener.
On that sunny Eugene afternoon, however, Oregon famously (or infamously, depending on your point of view) throttled the Bears, 42-3. And since that day, the fortunes of the two programs have gone in opposite directions: Oregon has won two straight conference titles and played for the 2010 national championship; Cal, meanwhile, went 13-12 in its next 25 games leading up to Thursday night's Pac-12 game.
Cal's return to Eugene on Thursday night was a cold reminder that the Bears have a long way to go to reach the heights to which the Ducks have soared. Cal stayed with the 9th-ranked Ducks for a half, and led 15-14 at halftime. But behind the running of LaMichael James (30 carries, 239 yards, 1 TD) and the all-Thomas pass-and-catch combo -- quarterback Darron Thomas and wide receiver D'Anthony Thomas (6 catches, 114 yards, 2 TD) -- Oregon scored touchdowns on its first four possessions of the second half to take the game by the throat and race to a 43-15 victory in front of a loud Autzen Stadium crowd.
With the loss, Cal (3-2, 0-2 Pac-12) dropped its second straight conference game, marking the second time in three years that the Bears have lost two in a row to start conference play. Oregon (4-1, 2-0 Pac-12) won its fourth straight after its season-opening loss to LSU. But any enthusiasm the Ducks might have about Thursday night's nationally-televised win is undoubtedly tempered by the injury suffered by James early in the fourth quarter.
Though Oregon's offensive onslaught in the second half ultimately doomed the Bears, it is not as if Cal had an answer for the Ducks' running attack in the first half. James ran 14 times for 166 yards in the first half, including ripping off runs of 53 (TD), 47, 39, and 30 yards. In fact, James had broken the 100-yard barrier in the first quarter before the Bears tackled him for an eight-yard loss on the final play of the quarter.
But the Bears hung around with three swings of Giorgio Tavecchio's leg. Unfortunately for the Bears, however, the first two of Tavecchio's field goals (27 and 38 yards), which capped Cal's first two drives of the game, meant that Cal could not finish good drives with touchdowns. And after Oregon answered the first two field goals with ridiculously easy touchdown drives to take a 14-6 lead (on a 53-yard TD scamper by James and a well-executed 17-yard run by De'Anthony Thomas on a reverse), it looked like the Ducks were poised to take control of the game early.
Giorgio Tavecchio kicked three field goals, including a career-long 54-yarder.
But Cal forced two straight Oregon punts in the second quarter and then got a career-long 54-yard field goal from Tavecchio with 9:40 left in the first half to cut Oregon's lead to 14-9. Then Cal seized further momentum, stopping Oregon on a 4th-and-8 in Cal territory on a nice play by Ernest Owusu, who blew up a screen pass intended for De'Anthony Thomas. Cal capitalized with perhaps its best drive of the game, going 59 yards in six plays, including a brilliant 28-yard reception by Keenan Allen on a 3rd-and-19 play to put Cal in the red zone. This time, the Bears got six points when a scrambling Zach Maynard found Allen again, this time for a 12-yard touchdown strike. Coach Jeff Tedford elected to go for the two-point conversion, on which the Bears failed miserably, keeping the score at 15-14 Cal. And just when it looked like Oregon would score before halftime, the Bears' defense came up with a big stop when safety D.J. Campbell snuffed out a promising drive with an interception and return to midfield. Cal missed a chance for more points, however, when Tavecchio's 40-yard field goal on the last play was partially blocked for the senior placekicker's first field-goal miss of the season. But despite the missed opportunity, the Bears still held a surprising 15-14 lead over the hometown Ducks at halftime.
But then the second half began. And oh, what a second half it was for Oregon.
The Ducks were everything on their first four possessions of the second half. You want methodical? Well, that was Oregon's first possession, an 88-yard drive that started with seven straight running plays (including two conversions of 3rd-and-shorts) and ended with a 23-yard touchdown pass from Darron to De'Anthony Thomas, which was executed to perfection to beat Cal defender Josh Hill. Just like that, Oregon retook the lead, 21-15.
You want quick strike? That was Oregon's second possession of the second half. After a Cal punt, Oregon's next drive was 86 yards on three plays, the last being a 68-yard touchdown jaunt by Kenjon Barner on which there were few (if any) Cal defenders present at the point of attack. An equally easy two-point conversion pass play to De'Anthony Thomas made it 29-15 Oregon.
You want both methodical and big play? Let's look at Oregon's third possession of the half. Quarterback Darron Thomas took advantage of the Bears' concern with James, running for 25 yards on a zone read play. After five straight runs by James, Thomas then found The Black Mamba again: De'Anthony Thomas beat Cal cornerback Steve Williams on a corner route for a 21-yard touchdown. 36-15 Oregon, and Cal was pretty much done.
But Oregon wasn't done quite yet. After a Bears drive ended meekly with an unconverted 4th-and-3 at the Oregon 41, the Ducks went for the throat. The quarter ended with a 41-yard pass play from Thomas to Thomas, which gave the Ducks 256 yards of total offense in the third quarter alone. (The Ducks finished with 563 yards of total offense to the Bears' 465.) Then, on the first play of the fourth quarter, James looked like he had another one of his patented outside touchdown runs when he outran the Bears defense to the left corner of the end zone. But James stepped out of bounds at the three-yard line -- a fact that, on the very next play, showed how football can be a cruel game of inches.
Oregon would ultimately get the touchdown to make it 43-15. But one play before the Ducks scored, James was stuffed for no gain by Cal defensive lineman Mustafa Jalil. As James fell to the turf, his right arm landed awkwardly on the turf, a sight that was difficult to watch on the instant replay. James was carted off the field with an air cast on his right arm. As of the time of this post, his status (and, arguably, Oregon's status as a Pac-12 championship contender) is uncertain.
The only thing that could stop LaMichael James on Thursday night was a freak injury. Here's hoping he is all right.
As for the game -- well, that was over. Cal fans got to see Allan Bridgford enter the game at quarterback with 9:49 remaining in the game after Maynard appeared to be wobbly after taking a hard hit on the previous series. Bridgford completed 8 of 19 passes (including several near interceptions) for 103 yards, but could not get the Bears into the end zone.
Before leaving the game, Maynard completed 20 of 41 passes for 218 yards and a TD. He did not throw an interception, but it did not take an expert analyst like Jesse Palmer to see that Maynard struggled with his accuracy. On at least two occasions in particular, Maynard missed wide open targets in the flat on short dump-off passes that would have given Cal much-needed first downs to keep drives alive and keep the ball away from the Ducks' potent attack. There were also times where Maynard seemed locked into his primary receiver, none more glaring than the 4th-and-3 play in the third quarter when Maynard threw incomplete to Marvin Jones along the right sideline (a pass that Jones had no chance to catch inbounds). As noted on the telecast by (ugh) Craig James, Allen was wide open on a crossing route over the middle -- an apparent missed assignment by the Oregon defense left Allen roaming free. Yet, Maynard did not give Allen's side of the field a look, even though Allen was the Bears' most formidable receiving target (9 catches, 170 yards, going over 100 yards for the fourth time this season).
Though the Bears did some good things against a very good team, a 28-point loss is still nothing to feel particularly good about. Cal will need to regroup and gather itself quickly -- the USC Trojans come to AT&T Park in another ESPN Thursday night game next week.
CAL INJURY UPDATE: Marc Anthony, who left the game in the second quarter, has a dislocated shoulder. (HT Berkelium 97)
161 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m curious if Maynard was REALLY wobbly, or wobbly enough to provide cover fire for inserting Bridgford. Let the QB controversy begin!
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
Honeybadger got smashed on his last play. His wobbles were completely legit
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
He got sandwiched btwn 2 ORegn guys. Very rough hit.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
One moment in the game that made me LOL
Tavecchio’s reaction as soon as his foot hit the ball on the 54-yarder. Dude knew it was good the split second he hit it.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
I saw that too, he slapped hands with Anger right away. Forza Giorgio!
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
G-Money, baby.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Oct 7, 2011 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Because we can't give it to Keenan every week...
I’m giving it to Tavecchio because of his redemption from last year. The dude came ready to play today.
Down, cheerios, cheerios, chomp chomp, close, kick, halt!
by Golden Bearcats on Oct 6, 2011 11:51 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Owusu had a real nice game, after several games where he’s been a non-factor.
Kendricks did not have the dominant game I was expecting.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I haven't seen Kendricks have a bad game like tonight since 09
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 12:12 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
One question:
Why did we abandon the running game entirely in the second half? It was working!
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
you were down by 30 points
That’s what teams do when they get down to oregon, they just throw, throw, throw to try to get back into it.
Quack Quack Bitches!
by Quack Addict on Oct 7, 2011 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
with all due respect, you guys are really full of yourselves. we were down by 6 on our first possession of the second half… by 13 on our second… so, no, that wouldn’t appear why we abandoned the run to start the second half.
That was a really nice post considering you said “with all due respect.” Re3member, if you say “with all due respect” you can say ANYTHING insulting after it and hte person cant get mad. Its a get out of jail free card
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
With all due respect, fuck all y’all, bless their hearts!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I actually thought Quack Addict was just kidding
Seeing as how we were never down by 30 at any point in the game.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Well we didn't have the ball much in the 3rd quarter
Did we go three and out on our first or 2nd drive of the 3rd quarter?
Anyways by the time the 4th quarter started we were down by 21 and were in pass happy catch up mode by then.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 12:15 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
y’know, part of the problem with the FG’s is not just the red zone. Marshawn, Best, Arrington, Forsett, and Vereen would have taken a few of Isi’s runs to the house. I’m thinking maybe even 3.
To answer your question, it was, at times, working. But we lost 1st down so often, that getting into a 3rd and long, with Maynard’s accuracy, was just not good and needed to be avoided.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Oct 7, 2011 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Isi has really won me over these last two games
However I do agree that our past RBs would have taken one of those runs to the house.
I can’t remember which long Isi run but he had one defender to beat and he tried to outrun him even though the defender had the angle. I feel like had he tried to cut it back inside he might have been able to score as it looked like he his WRs ahead of him to block down field.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 12:26 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
But we lost 1st down so often, that getting into a 3rd and long, with Maynard’s accuracy, was just not good and needed to be avoided.
I don’t think this is accurate. Our first (and second) down rushing was fine in the first half.
1st down rushes:
Isi gains 2 yard, followed by 16 yard rush on 2nd down
CJ gains 8 yards
Isi gains for 2 yards
Isi gains 25 yards
CJ gains 3 yards (followed by TD pass)
Isi gains 1 yard
That looks like pretty decent 1st down rushing results to me.
except that there were 4 1st down rushes of less than 3 yards, and 3 1st down rushes less than 2 yards. How many 1st downs did we throw?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
you’ll have to go back and look. I’ve done my work here ;-)
It’s not “except” that’s part of what I showed. The first 2 yard first down rush was followed by a 16 yard pick up. The 3 yard first down rush was followed by a TD pass… I’m not saying the results were astounding, but you said those first down runs resulted in third and longs when in the majority, that wasn’t the case.
actually, because we were down by 14 points...
Below shows the Cal drives (runs vs. passes) in the third quarter and the score. Clearly, after cal is behind by two tds, They change the game plan. With the benefit of retrospect, it wasn’t the right thing, but, if I was a coach, at the time, I would have done the same thing. We know, that Maynard-Allen/Jones can be LETHAL, and they were hoping for that:
Cal drives in 3rd quarter
__score___ ___plays___
cal-oregon : runs-passses
15-21 :_______ 3 – 2
15-29 :_______ 0 – 3
15-36 :_______ 1 – 4
15-43 :_______ 1 – 7
stopped recording after turnover on downs. pasing strategy continues…
You made me sweat for the first 2.5 quarters
Voted for Keenan Allen, he tore us apart today. I was at the stadium and one who DIDN’T boo every time a player went down. Cal played us really well and it was a great game. See you next year at your place!
Quack Quack Bitches!
I was at the stadium and one who DIDN’T boo every time a player went down.
That’s so awesome. I’m so glad that there’s one sane person in a sea of douchebag oregon fans.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Oct 7, 2011 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
This.
Just got done arguing with my cousin who is on the Oregon golf team.
He’s trying to excuse the booing of legit injuries to Autzen Stadium’s style.
Well, all that tells me is that Autzen attracts the wrong fans.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
You don't say!
Well, all that tells me is that Autzen attracts the wrong fans.
You mean a shitty school that’s only selling point is a fuckload of corporate money for athletics might attract exclusively moronic asshats? NO WAY!!
I was talking about this today, how strange it is that oregon has a bunch of students from california. That is fucking insane. You could go to any state school, all of which are significantly better than oregon academically, or you could pay out of state tutition to go to that academic wasteland…
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Oct 7, 2011 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
As a California boy who got into Cal and chose Oregon instead...
there are a number of reasons why you pay the extra money to go out of state. Besides the fact that your “any CSU is better than Oregon academically” argument is fundamentally false, Oregon has a number of programs that are highly regarded nationally, including music, marketing, business, architecture, and journalism. As a music student, I know for a fact that I wouldn’t have gotten nearly as enriching a college education had I chosen Cal over Oregon.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
fair point
instead of “any state school”, let me revise that to say, “any UC, and a boatload of CSUs”. I stand corrected. Cal has extremely good programs in all of the areas you mentioned, with the *possible exception of music, as do many other CA state schools.
As for music, A) I highly doubt the music program is better at Oregon than at cal by any discernable meausure, especially considering that music is a liberal arts degree and you need to take classes outside of your concentration.
B) I am positive that many state schools in California, leaving Cal out of the equation, have better music programs than Oregon, at a fraction of the cost. I would guess CSU East Bay is one, though that is just off the top of my head.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Oct 7, 2011 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
and before you reply
“any UC” probably does not include Merced, and maybe not Riverside. I don’t really know off the top of my head. For my punishment for using a bit of hyperbole, feel free to boo me as I watch Kris Letang roof a backhand over Lolongo on repeat.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
In Oregon’s defense, they do have some good national programs. They are an accredited University with AAUA status, which is more than you can say for other universities in the conference.
I think the problem with the fans is more owing to the bandwagoners in Oregon who would in other places be NFL fans (never attended college, blue collar football fans). Nothing wrong with it, but I suspect that the refined etiquette of the college game is not why they’re going to the games (Imagine Cal games if we didn’t have the Raiders and the 49ers to suction off the hooliganism in the bay area).
And finally, many high school kids in CA can’t get into Cal or UCLA academically, but still want the big college experience: therefore Arizona State.
eh
And finally, many high school kids in CA can’t get into Cal or UCLA academically, but still want the big college experience: therefore Arizona State.
This is no excuse. San Diego State. Fresno State. I doubt they are any worse than Oregon or ASU, and they cost much less.
I think it’s more the type of people Oregon attracts. Their football program is the closest thing to a corporate team right now. People are not attending oregon for the academic experience. Thus, you get a bunch of people who boo a kid with a concussion and a dislocated shoulder, in consecutive years.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
You’re forgetting one factor for incoming male college freshmen who don’t place that much importance on academics…the girls.
SDSU and ASU legit hot girls…Fresno St? Not so much.
Also, Fresno State is in Fresno.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Oct 7, 2011 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
it might be because people have faked injuries the last few years
it wasn’t an issue when I was a student
scrappy
by Honka Playboy on Oct 7, 2011 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions
now, ust hear me out on this one. Maybe, just maybe, it could be because so many oregun fans are complete and utter classless pricks.
Maybe.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
by SoCal Oski on Oct 7, 2011 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
nah, I'm with you
booing a concussed player is just part of your fans’ charm!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’ll pose the same question I did following the failed final series against Washington: Why not give Zach Maynard a chance to make a play outside the pocket?
Which leads me to …
* 3. Maynard is being used almost exclusively as a pocket passer. The Bears aren’t rolling him out, aren’t using him on misdirection plays and certainly aren’t using him in spread-option situations.
I go back to Jeff Tedford’s comments in the May 14 press release announcing that Maynard had been named the starter:
"He has the ability to both throw and run the ball effectively, giving us another dimension at that position that we haven’t had in a while."
I’ll assume there’s a reason the coaches seem hesitant to let Maynard make plays with his legs — to use that other dimension so integral to Maynard winning the job in the first place — but I don’t know what it is.
(And let’s hope, too, that Maynard’s neck injury isn’t serious.)
* 4. From the easy-to-see-coming department: Cal had trouble on the perimeter of its defense.
It’s unfair to ask freshmen linebackers to consistently make the right reads and execute their assignments against an offense as dynamic difficult to decipher as Oregon’s.
But Cal’s best players at the position are rookies (Cecil Whiteside, Chris McCain and Dave Wilkerson), and they were exposed just often enough to make a difference.
The interior of Cal’s defense played well and the secondary didn’t appear to have as many coverage breakdowns as it did in Seattle — encouraging signs for next week (USC) and beyond.
"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 understand carp. You berate Wilner at almost every juncture, then you use him to justify your viewpoints.
Almost entirely in contrast to what Wilner stated, Maynard was used in designed rollouts, QB keepers, and even a zone-read or two.
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 7, 2011 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions
The issues with Maynard were almost entirely mechanical rather than schematic.
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 7, 2011 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
agreed, but “schematic” could be better, too.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’m no QB expert so it’s hard for me to speak to his mechanics, but just looking at the guy you could tell he had a nervous/jittery quality to his style of play, for the entire game.
[Cal is] a fabulous university with a football program that typically has precious few and very fleeting brushes with success but a great many unions with failure.
--Monte Poole, Oakland Tribune, 11-30-2010
by SonofCalifornia on Oct 7, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
There was one play in particular where his feet went into hyperdrive but his body didn’t move at all. It was like the river dance.
it was kind of amusing to watch
until the 3 yard pass fell to the ground yards away from the receiver.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Yeah I felt like we did use Maynards mobility tonight
I haven’t looked at the stats but I would bet Maynard had just as many carries tonight as Thomas.
We did roll Maynard, wasnt Maynard rolling out when he threw the TD? Although if he was I can’t remember if it was designed or if he was forced.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 12:29 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
actually, I didn’t mean to bold that at all. formatting fail.
I disagree that the secondary had “encouraging signs for USC,” but I actually agree that his mobility is being under utilized.
And I’m really tired 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
I disagree with what Wilner states there.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
* 3. Maynard is being used almost exclusively as a pocket passer.
I can agree with this. Yeah there was that QB draw, and a few Maynard self-scramlbes, but it’s pretty much hanging out in the pocket and, shockingly, many times he had DAYS to throw.
The Bears aren’t rolling him out
I think when we saw him roll out, like on Keenan’s TD, it was what Hydro calls the “OH NOES PRESSURE”S COMING LEMME RUN LEFT" even when there’s no pass rush. Really, I don’t remember a planned rollout pass.
aren’t using him on misdirection plays and certainly aren’t using him in spread-option situations.
what does he mean by misdirection plays? Spread-options are few and far between…did we see any yesterday? I really miss the option pitch plays that we ran only twice against UDub. AWESOME!
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Maynard is choosing to stay in the pocket. It’s not like the coaches are putting him on a leash and telling him to stay. He’s trying to survey the field and make his reads. But he doesn’t quite yet know how to operate when his first read goes down, and his mechanics break down.
I’ve seen Maynard in a lot of half-rollouts. I would guess misdirection is like that TE slip we ran with Miller against Colorado.
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 7, 2011 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
mmkay, but I’d say his inaccuracies (if that’s what you’re calling “break down of mechanics”) are present even when he has his first read available.
Like Riley, I think he’d be a helluva WAC/Mtn West QB.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Considering the leap in competition Maynard has had to make from the MAC, I’d say he’s performing as well as he could at this level.
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 7, 2011 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I was expecting a big loss
so it shouldn’t bother me. But it does, because Cal just seems so far away from being a good team. Once Oregon got rolling, Cal’s defense had no answer, but that’s Oregon right now.
Maynard is going to have games like this, when he’s rushing his throws – even without much pressure – and doesn’t really come close to the hitting the receiver. Bridgford has a very slow release, should have had two passes picked. It was a tough situation for him, but it would be nice to feel some sense of hope at the quarterback position.
Whatever. It was the blowout loss we expected. Time to move on.
Anyway
Updated the flowchart for 2011.

"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
I am not on the fire Tedford train after tonight
I want to see how the rest of the season plays out and if we see any improvement from the QB position. I do believe next week is extremely crucial for both this season and Tedfords future. Another loss to SC, especially in blowout fashion will bring a lot of heat and questions on Tedford.
That being said, Tedford is now 0-3 against the new guys in the north, Sark and Kelly. We all know Sark and Kelly aren’t leaving anytime soon. If he loses to Kiffin he will be 0-2. Those are three coaches you can probably expect to be at their Programs for the next 3-4 years. We all know Tedfords record against Riley and OSU so a home loss to this OSU team would be extremely bad.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 12:38 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
and this gets at the greater problem
Tedford was great against Koetter, Willingham/Gilbertson, Teevens/Harris, etc etc. Now that we have Sark, Belotti, a relevant furd program, etc etc, we’re no longer winning these games. It’s pretty obvious that the conference has much better coaches than it did when Tedford started, and it coincides nicely with our decline.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Well Belotti is gone but I to agree
I don’t think our decline is has as much to do with the tree sitters and decline in recruiting talent. I just think the coaching talent has caught up to us. A lot of bad coaches have been purged and have been replaced with better ones.
Even more so than coaching it is apparent Tedford is failing at 1. Identifying quality QB talent to recruit 2. Failing to improve the play of the QBs we have gotten or 3. A combination of 1 and 2.
The lack of quality QB play, plus better quality HC in the PAC 10 has really coincided with Cals lack of success in the PAC 10/12.
People like to point at the tree sitters but let’s not forget that during that time UW was a terrible team and suffered a winless season only three years ago, yet they have now beaten us 4 out of the last five seasons?
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 12:53 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Completely agree
I don’t think our decline is has as much to do with the tree sitters and decline in recruiting talent. I just think the coaching talent has caught up to us. A lot of bad coaches have been purged and have been replaced with better ones…People like to point at the tree sitters but let’s not forget that during that time UW was a terrible team and suffered a winless season only three years ago, yet they have now beaten us 4 out of the last five seasons?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I do believe the tree sitters is an excuse Cal fans use too often
Even during those years I believe we still had higher rated classes than OSU (I think we always have higher rated classes than OSU), UW, Arizona, and probably close to Oregon and ASU. It is late and I don’t feel like checking.
I concede the tree sitters certainly didn’t help recruiting but I believe it also didn’t hurt it as much as some others say it did.
Did any recruit at the time actually comment on it and say it had a negative impact? I don’t follow recruiting closely so I really don’t know.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 1:31 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
oh, I think it definitely hurt
but, like you said,
I think we always have higher rated classes than OSU), UW, Arizona, and probably close to Oregon and ASU.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
The way some people tell it, you would think Cal was consistently
Pulling in top 25 recruiting classes in the years before the tree sitting fiasco. The success Cal has had the last two seasons in recruiting has been great but more than likely isn’t and will not be the norm for Cal, even after we get the new facilities.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 2:00 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Did any recruit at the time actually comment on it and say it had a negative impact? I don’t follow recruiting closely so I really don’t know.
I doubt anyone is going to say that… but if you don’t think that didn’t get used against us non-stop (as it should have been) by EVERY team we were going up against in recruiting, and that in turn didn’t have huge cumulative impact on each recruit, I think you’re being sort of naive. Plus just the sight of them there with their crap buckets… actually just the sight of them there… actually just the sight of them… Remember, these are 17 and 18 year old jocks were talking about.
Yes, it had a huge impact.
yeah, I agree
kids won’t come out and say it probably, but obviously, when you look at the recruiting rankings, it had a big impact. That said, the fact that we still had recruiting classes comparable to a lot of the conference still remains.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
indeed
Even more so than coaching it is apparent Tedford is failing at 1. Identifying quality QB talent to recruit 2. Failing to improve the play of the QBs we have gotten or 3. A combination of 1 and 2.
that was also 6 years ago
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
right, but there was a guy named ARod he was learning from his first year… and i believe Reilly was highly regarded…
o, they’re all highly regarded – winners of summer passing league camps and 4* from those in the know…
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
so you’re dismissing those sorts of identifiers when you say Tedford is not identifying quality QB talent to recruit? It’s one thing to say someone didn’t pan out, it’s another to say they weren’t particularly good targets to recruit in the first place.
I really think the issue is more lack of QB development
Rodgers was a long, long time ago in a PAC 10 far, far away.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 8:51 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
i can live with that. but people always have to throw in that extra “point” which isn’t really valid… although in fairness Longshore’s injuries were the biggest issue.. he did lead us to a share of the PAC 10 title in 2006 (not exactly recent) and had us at #2 in 2007 before the injury. I think we can all honestly say if he doesn’t get injured things play out very differently.
And people seem to forget that Riley was having a pretty good year last year before he went down. He had his downs, sure, but he looked like he had progressed in his senior year.
you're on to something
if you eliminate all of Riley’s bad plays, he was much improved!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
It only took about two seasons of mediocre play
to get to that improvement! Unfortunately, Maynard doesn’t have as much time as Riley did.
Tedford was 4-2 against Bellotti
I assume you mean Kelly.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
a relevant furd program, etc etc, we’re no longer winning these games
and by this, vis-a-vis ’furd, you mean the last one in a row.
I thought we just caught some tough breaks in the UW game but that the game plan was very good and second half adjustments were spot on.
Last night we were outcoached in the second half, and of course had that key injury on defense, which sort of changed things. That happens sometimes.
and by this, vis-a-vis ’furd, you mean the last one in a row.
No, I mean that before Harbaugh, Tedford was 5-0 against the furd, and since he’s 2-2.
It certainly does.That happens sometimes.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
No, I mean that before Harbaugh, Tedford was 5-0 against the furd, and since he’s 2-2.
Or he’s won 2 of the last 3 against the furd… I get what you’re saying, but you’re stretching in.
I don't think it's a stretch at all.
my point is that games against these teams used to be automatic wins. We were undefeated against both uw and the furd through 2006, 10-0. A lot of the games were laughers. Since then, we’re 3-6 against those teams. That’s a HUGE difference
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Its a big difference, I guess.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
But i was referring specifically to Stanfurd. But if you want to lump in those three ok. but then yyou should talk about what we’ve done to UCLA and ASU (ie won our last three against each)
ok, just about stanfurd then
2-2 is a lot different than 5-0. And you are certainly correct about ucla and asu. ucla is about to fire their terrible coach and erickson won’t last much longer unless they have a nice season.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Exactly, beating Rick and Dennis isn't exactly uncommon during their
recent Pac12 coaching tenures.
Yet the two coaches at ASU and UCLA both entered this season on the hot seat
and it is a good bet that Slick Rick will not be visiting the New Memorial next season.
I would put Slick Rick and Ol’ Man and the Desert Dennis on the bottom tier of Pac12 coaches. Really, what has Slick Rick accomplished at UCLA? One bowl game win against Temple? Same with Dennis, one bowl game blowout (with a very favorable schedule that year and another coaches recruits)
So cool, Tedford can still beat the bottom tier coaches, it is just the upper echelon of coaching ranks that he struggles with in the Pac12.
The fire Tedford train runs too fast
I’m a beleiver that past investment in the facilties is partly to explain…you need more than a few good players. Is there any team that has won the Rose bowl in recent years without an NFL draft pick QB? The coaches are all pretty good, I think; it’s the ones with all the right chess peices in place, the QB being the Queen. Not sure if Chip keely could have done any better at Cal with the same players.
This year wasn’t supposed to be a great year anyway, and no one expected wins from the big three games (or UWub, for that matter); this is good one to put way, way behind us…at least we didn’t fuck the dog for four quarters, only two.
Uwub is rising; Oregon will be on (or very near) the top this year, but recruiting changes, graduation and the nosy Oregon Law enforcement will eventually take it’s toll. No way Stanfurd does as well next year. At least I hope to hell not.
I'm Batman
I personally believe Kelly would be successful at Cal
His system is very much plug and play when it comes to players. I bet Cal has had more talent and players drafted to the NFL than Oregon has over the last three years. Plus look how easily both Masoli and Thomas were able to step into that offense with very little experience and succeed. While Oregon didn’t win the Rose they did get to it with Masoli. Wisconsin went to the Rose bowl with a QB who is now on the Niners practice squad. OSU won it with a guy who is a project at QB in Pryor.
I also disagree with UW. I expected a win over them this year.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 1:04 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Partially
I personally believe Kelly would be successful at Cal
I believe Kelly would be successful in terms of wins and losses at Cal, but let’s not forget that he runs the dirtiest program in the conference (maybe excepting ASU? $C?). Tedford has run a very clean program that fits wonderfully with our academic standing, and he deserves a ton of credit for that. Kelly is about the absolute opposite.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I meant only his offense and win/loss record
I think Kelly could have made his offense with one of the QBs that we had had on our roster over the last four seasons.
As you said in another post, we will develop another QB some day!
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 1:22 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
totally agree
I would love to have a plug and play offense like Oregon has. Their star qb gets kicked off the team for whatever it was? They just throw in his backup and off they go to the rose bowl!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
No you have it all wrong, Oregon threw in their backup QB and went to the NCG
The pillar of NFL talent Masoli only took them to the Rose Bowl.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 1:39 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Besides Cal must not resort to these gimmick offenses!
We must run a pro style offense that demands all our QBs to have a minimum 65 percent completion rate in order to compete on any given day.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 1:42 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, CBKWit, if your mods don't ask you to cease and desist with this type of diatribe, I will certainly suggest it.
Form your opinion, back it up with facts and/or personal observations and please, let’s try to discuss this because from everything which I see close at hand (and I’ve been around) you are not only wrong, you are being cruel about insisting that you are right, IMO. If you speak for CGB, I’ll have nothing to do with you if you maintain your position. If you want to back up your position with something other than innuendo, I am willing to listen. You could be right but I need to be shown.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
maybe you didn’t watch the game last night… where the announcing and production crew created a blotter of all the Ducks’ myriad off field problems, crimes, run in with the laws etc… for the entire nation to see. That’s good pub and must make any Oregon alumnus damn proud. But hey, you got a good football team (in conference, regular season) so all is good.
Can I turn this into a sig?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I think you’ll need to edit it down to just “QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK!”
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Is this where I get my “CBKWIT SPEAKS FOR ME” bumper stickers?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
by TwistNHook on Oct 7, 2011 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
No one speaks for CGB. All of the writers/mods are entitled to have their own opinion.
IMO, CBK didn’t say anything that requires a cease and desist. I’m not sure if I entirely agree with him, however. Kelly might run an incredibly dirty program, but I think it’s unfair to Lane Kiffin to leave him out of the conversation for top honors in the conference.
I might suggest that a Cal board immediately after being curb-stomped is not the place where you’re going to find a lot of people willing to give your school the benefit of the doubt.
Even on our most reasonable day, many of us are highly suspicious that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Old Toothwrangler
I included Kiffin!
but let’s not forget that he runs the dirtiest program in the conference (maybe excepting ASU? $C?)
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
At the end of the week
We lost a football game and won a Nobel Prize…
by MV Bear on Oct 7, 2011 4:33 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 5 recs
Just a thought... Oregon 2011 = Tennessee 2006?
We were doing fine until MA got hurt and was replaced by a true freshman and that’s when they picked us apart…
Just like Tennessee was painful but laid the groundwork for some great defense, maybe this is the same.
Hey, there’s a reason “SunshinePump” is my middle name.
While it sure felt like it at the time, Tennessee 2006 wasn’t nearly the same level of blowout that last night’s second half was. And least not from the perspective of the Cal defense. SQT gave up the two big plays on either side of halftime, otherwise Tennessee had to work for the rest of its points—just 35 for the whole game. It was Cal’s thoroughly anemic offense that day that was most responsible, IMHO, for the blowout. That said, Cal’s offense didn’t exactly provide much support to the D last night either.
I’m optimistic that the Cal defense can play, and will play, much better the rest of the year. Hopefully, they can put in a full 60 minutes against USC and Stanf’rd, because I sure would like to see the Bears win at least one of those.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 7, 2011 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
HUH?
Tennessee 2006 wasn’t nearly the same level of blowout that last night’s second half was.
It’s a sad, sad day when FiatLux is the voice of “it was worse than that” on these boards…
SQT gave up the two big plays on either side of halftime, otherwise Tennessee had to work for the rest of its points—just 35 for the whole game.
Funny how wrong we can remember things (I include myself in that). Because man, are you wrong about what Tennessee did.
Tennessee had 514 yards in offense… 450 of those coming in the first three quarters. SQT giving up those two big plays is exactly what I am talking about.
But, Tennessee had to work hard for the rest of its points? Not remotely at all in any wildest way did they have to work hard…
1st possession second half, 3-play 80 yard TD drive (capped by 80 yard pass).
2nd possession: 3 play 72 yard drive capped by Foster’s 50 yard TD run.
3rd possession, 1 play 43 yard drive capped by Hardesty 43 yard TD run…
21 points in 7 plays and less than 4 minutes on the field.
That is 35 points, 7 minutes into the 2nd half and then they went on cruise control.
That’s my point. As painful as that loss was, as bad as our young defense looked, also on national ESPN… they got some valuable experience in a hostile environment and it laid the ground work for some very good results down the road.
I stand corrected. I had forgotten about touchdowns four and five—not that they were scored, but the big-play suddenness with which they were scored in the 3rd quarter. The parallels with last week’s game in Eugene are indeed close. Still, while I think the gap between Cal and Tennessee in 2006, overall and not just on that one afternoon, was small, I think the gap between Cal and Oregon in 2011 is huge.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 9, 2011 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Some largely unrelated comments and observations:
1. I was really pleased to see so many of the frosh getting playing time on defense. McClain, Jalil, McClure were all very noticeable. Not so obvious to me to see Whiteside, Moala, and King. The youth missed some assignments, but I saw them around the ball and even make a few plays. This should help down the road.
2. I am curious to hear the explanation on why Oregon was able to turn it around on offense in the second half. I saw a lot less defensive line penetration and it seemed that Oregon was able to open larger holes (instead of just running away from the defenders or breaking a tackle, which is how they seemed to get their first half big plays.) Disappointed by lack of edge rushing, still. I have a hard time believing it was fatigue – Cal rotates a lot and the defense was not on the field all that much, at least when the second half started. Was it an Oregon adjustment?
3. I wonder what the story was on the short kick-offs in the first half by Cal. Designed?
4. In the Tedford v. Oregon comparison, it seems like Cal has recruited as well or better than Oregon over the past decade and has placed more players in the NFL. But, at least the couple of years, Oregon has had better success. I wonder if part of that is related to Oregon’s offensive scheme – maybe more effective at the college level, and takes advantage of the kind of kids Oregon can recruit well (flashy ballhandlers, small linemen), but does not translate well to the NFL (where everybody is big and fast).
5. I don’t think Cal will ever be like Oregon. Two of the key elements I thought of watching the game: Phil Knight is sui generis (sort of, there is T. Boone Pickens) and Cal will never generate the obsessively obnoxious fanbase for college football that Eugene does (pro sports, other things to do, Cal culture, etc).
6. I think Oregon looked very vulnerable, particularly the success Cal had early on in penetrating the offensive line and in running the ball. As we saw with Auburn and LSU and Ohio State, teams with large and talented linemen and the discipline to stick to assignments can disrupt the Oregon offense and can push the defense back. That is why I wonder what the second half success (which is apparently is a sem-regular event) is attributable to: fitness, adjustment, scheme to set up second half plays, etc.
Jason Hafemeister
It seemed to me in the 2nd half Oregons offense decided to attack
The interior of the defense a bit more and run between the tackles as opposed to the perimeter.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 7:28 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
without re-watching I suspect that’s because we had to cheap in coverage, thus not having the extra men up front. not sure.
Not sure I entirely agree, I think they started to run inside more
Because our DL, especially our DEs were doing a better job of getting penetration on the edges and taking that outside run away from Oregon.
That long Barner TD, IIRC was between the tackles and Cattouse who was playing up on the LOS for run support either missed the tackle or was blocked and DJC couldn’t recover fast enough on the other side to tackle him.
by SDBear on Oct 7, 2011 8:57 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This is what happens
when you wear your longjohns on the outside of your uniform.
Joe Nobody: The slugging speedster the Giants need, at an irrationally low price.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"That one's on me."- Madison Bumgarner
by natteringnabob on Oct 7, 2011 8:28 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Time to get this party started
Can we start calling gruesome injuries like the one that LaMike had last night a Bogutting? Like, he got Bogutted last night? That was my first reaction. As for the rest of the game, it was pretty much what I expected. Oh well.
Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team owned by a Russian oligarch.
My two cents
1. I also thought that we abandoned the run too quickly in the second half. Oregon seemed to be vulnerable. Running also slows down the game some. In two down territory and 3rd & 3-5, i would have liked to see some runs. Of course, if those runs were stuffed, I know everyone would be moaning about playcalling.
2. Very disturbed that, on obvious running situations, we can’t get positive yards. On third and short and in the red zone, we must be able to generate a better push.
3. Maynard seemed to regress last night. I’ve commented previously that he seems to be more accurate on 3rd down than 2nd in the past. Last night, he looked like Riley.
4. Red zone! I think we all knew that those three field goals instead of TDs would doom us last night. We’re not going to beat anyone unless we can complete drives.
5. Can we shut up about Georgio and Isi now? CJ’s runs in the red zone proves that it all starts with the O line.
6. I thought the ESPN crew was pretty naive. It didn’t sound like they had watched any film of us; no comments on Cal’s red zone woes, running inconsistencies, pass defense woes. In vacuum, without doing any research, they did call a pretty good game, however. I would have liked one of those charts that showed ZM’s completion percentage in the different zones on the field since he made the comment that Maynard passes better to his left.
by cal85 on Oct 7, 2011 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Jesse Palmer and Craig James: The Keanu Reeves and Chris Kattan of college football broadcasting.
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 7, 2011 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Two of the worst brodcasters in the game.
Ask anybody at ATQ. They’re just straight terrible.
Quack Quack Bitches!
by Quack Addict on Oct 7, 2011 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
In two down territory and 3rd & 3-5, i would have liked to see some runs.
Yeah, that occurred to me as well.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Oct 7, 2011 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
5. Can we shut up about Georgio and Isi now? CJ’s runs in the red zone proves that it all starts with the O line.
Giorgio was our offseason whipping boy. Sofele has been piledrived into the ground enough this season. Playcalling has been beaten to death. Blitzing has run it’s course. What else are people going to complain about?
On a serious note, after the UW game, there was too much focus on which RB should have been used and playcalling on that last drive. The issue was blocking and you hit the nail on the head: " it all starts with the O line."
Question
My knowledge is concentrated more on defense so I’m wondering about Maynard’s ‘happy feet’ stutter-stepping he does while standing in place and scanning the field (before he finally seems to plant and throw)—-does this affect his accuracy or not so much since most of the happy feet seems to take place prior to throwing?
[Cal is] a fabulous university with a football program that typically has precious few and very fleeting brushes with success but a great many unions with failure.
--Monte Poole, Oakland Tribune, 11-30-2010
by SonofCalifornia on Oct 7, 2011 10:21 AM PDT reply actions
I can’t comment on the 2nd half last night because I got distracted by my friend named Jack Daniels, but a big issue with Maynard in the 1st half was that he was getting rid of the ball too quickly even when he didn’t have to. Some of those 3rd down incompletions in the 1st half were a result of , to put if frankly, his fundamentals going to shit. It’s understandable that a QB wants to get the ball out as fast as he can and that’s not a bad thing but Maynard’s mechanics last night were so hit/miss in those situations. On some throws, he just needed to take that fraction of a second to plant his feet and step in the direction of his throw and the pass would have money.
Does “happy feet stutter stepping” affect his accuracy? QBs are all different so it’s hard to tell but to me, it’s a telltale sign of anxiousness which sets off the domino effect.
Does "happy feet stutter stepping" affect his accuracy? QBs are all different so it’s hard to tell but to me, it’s a telltale sign of anxiousness which sets off the domino effect.
I haven’t noticed whether he’s done the stutter-stepping in other games, but from what I saw last night I think you’re right, it did seem like an unconscious response to extreme anxiety. He looked a bit on edge the entire game.
[Cal is] a fabulous university with a football program that typically has precious few and very fleeting brushes with success but a great many unions with failure.
--Monte Poole, Oakland Tribune, 11-30-2010
by SonofCalifornia on Oct 7, 2011 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Why can’t Cal/Tedford, get middle of the conference QB play? We’re so far from being average, it is pathetic. Watching Price make accurate throws, Thomas, Barkley, Foles, Luck, Lobbenstal just bugs the hell out of me. It makes me admit that our QB’s and coaches, despite their high rankings, really don’t have it. And I put more of this on the coaches than even the players.
We. Just. Suck. At. QB. And. Have. For. Too. Long. Now.
exactly.
Hell, Jeff Tuel was better last year than anything we’ve had in a while, and he was Beau Sweeney’s BACKUP.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
That fact about Tuel and Sweeney just hurts so much and shows how bad Cal coaching
has been at evaluating HS QB talent.
IMO, this is the most legitimate criticism of Jeff Tedford
I defend Jeff Tedford about as much as anyone does. And I really do think the world of the man for what he’s done with the Cal football program over the last 10 years. But it’s obvious to anyone that quarterback play has not been to Tedford standards since 2007.
Just, like, my opinion — but I think what has occurred over the last few years has been a crisis of talent evaluation much more than a failure to “coach ’em up” once they get to Cal. Tedford’s track record of QB development success is too good for me to think he’s suddenly gotten dumb in the QB coaching department. (But, I will confess, perhaps his more “hands off” approach since 2007 might be a factor.)
The last “hit” Tedford has had in QB recruiting was Nate Longshore. Taking into account their full bodies of work, I think you’d have to call Kevin Riley, Brock Mansion, and Beau Sweeney “misses.” Even though Mansion and Sweeney had a small sample size as far as game experience as Cal QBs, it’s far from a stretch to say they looked unready in the opportunities that they had. (Compare, for example, Reggie Robertson, who looked far better than either Mansion or Sweeney when he played. Or even Steve Levy, who had a certain “it” factor in his two collegiate starts that Mansion never showed in his four starts.)
I consider the jury still to be out on Zach Maynard. I think we need to evaluate based on a majority of the season, if not the full season. And I may be in the minority on this, but I saw some things I liked from Allan Bridgford last night, his several near interceptions and his windup release notwithstanding. Dude could spin it — good arm.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Bridgford looked competent and confident enough, but really raw. I saw things I liked as well, but not enough for me to think about displacing Maynard anytime soon.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Oct 7, 2011 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
He was bordering on carelessness with the way he threw into coverage. And he really does have a long windup
In other words, Go Bears!
To be clear, I was not advocating for Bridgford replacing Maynard. I saw some things I liked. But I also saw things that made me understand why Maynard won the job.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
I thought QB play was perfectly decent in 2009. Man that season hinged on one game. We beat UW and that season is completely different.
It was inconsistent. Riley had his moments — e.g., Maryland, @ Ucla, @ ASU, Big Game. But he was forgettable in high profile games, @ Oregon and USC, and was not very good against Washington.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Sorry, I meant to say he was decent but just completely fell apart at Oregon and against SC
he was also a bit inconsistent against Utah in the bowl game.
I thought he looked lights out against Maryland and that he had “turned the corner” and was ready for a big break out season.
Perhaps with better OL/WR/OC coaching we might have had a better season.

by 




























































