Cal vs. Arizona State Post-Game Thoughts
(1) What a wild game. In some football games, it seems like just a few aspects of a team impact the game. For example, maybe one team's offense just blows out the other team leaving little else to be a factor in determining who wins the game. Or maybe one team's defense locks down the opposing offense and the game ends up being a snoozefest. But this game... this game. Everything came into play. Everything was a factor in this game. Cal's offense blew up all over Arizona State's defense. But then Arizona's State's offense struck back behind all-too-easy deep passes. But then Cal's defense managed a few crucial punts and forced turnovers. But then Cal's special teams turned the ball over. And then the (crappy) Pac-12 refs continued to aid Arizona State's defense with some horrific penalties. If it wasn't one thing, it was another. It was a roller coaster. Seemingly, anything could have happened in this game. I feared at any moment the tide could turn for the worst. And for a period of time in that second quarter, it seemed like the tide had turned. But then...
(2) Maynard Has A Great Game. Statistically, he was 19/26 (73.1% completion rate), with a 9.1 yards per attempt, and zero interceptions. Great game, statistically. But I think what was most impressive about him was just his demeanor and decision making. He was nailing most of his throws. He looked decisive. He bought some time with his feet. He ran when he needed to. In fact, he had 40 yards of rushing, 25 of which came on a fabulous zone read QB keep for a touchdown. He threw the ball away when he needed to. When Cal ran one of those fake WR screen plays, and the intended WR wasn't open, Maynard saved the play from a sack and to get rid of the ball. Maynard looked like the QB we all imagined he could be that Tedford imagined he could be.
By golly, was perhaps... Tedford right about the QBs once again? I'm not sure. Maynard's performance in the last four games have been nothing short of good if not great. He surely hasn't been perfect, but he's been doing well enough to help Cal win games. Barring any sort of disaster in Cal's bowl game, if Maynard can repeat his performances as of late, then I think it might be safe to say... once again... Tedford was right. When are we going to learn to just trust this guy? He is after all, a very knowledgeable football head coach. He sees the kids in practice day after day (but it is *just* practice! [sarcasm]). He knows what they can do. Who are we to question his judgment? In Tedford we trust?
(3) In Ron Gould We Trust. Once again, Sofele demonstrates his ability to be the #1 back. It's almost a little silly that this is something which needs to be brought up considering Sofele has had prior performances this year (both in terms of the number of carries per game, and in the number of yards per rush) which should have silenced all the doubters. Against the Sun Devils, he ran the rock 21 times for 145 yards (6.9 yards average). He did it with some good blocking from the offensive line, and he did it with some bad blocking from the offensive line. One of the most memorable runs from the night was when Cal was facing a 3rd and inches. Cal ran a toss sweep (if I recall correctly) to the right side. The OL blocking wasn't great, and it looked like Sofele was surely going to be tackled for a loss (by no fault of his own, really). But then he somehow powered through the mess of defenders to gain a first down. Amazing! On other plays, when there wasn't something inside, Sofele bounced the ball outside. He then used his speed to get around the corner for large gains.
What is it about Sofele which didn't inspire people's faith in him? I personally think it's his size -- or lack thereof. It's such a cliche that a RB has to be either stupid-fast or BEASTMODE to be good. Sofele is neither. He's probably decently fast. He's not going to truck people. But the kid plays tough and hard. Just ask Arizona State's cornerback #1 (Deverron) Carr. Sofele took him out of the game with a hit. Yeah, that's right. An *offensive* player took out a defensive player. Usually, it's the defensive players who hit offensive players. Not in Sofele's case. He's done this quite often. Sofele is often the one who INITIATES the contact.
Sofele still has to work on a few things though. His ability to catch passes needs some work. I'm sure most people have noticed that when Cal does want to pass the ball to a RB, Sofele usually isn't the one they're throwing to. Either Anderson comes in (Cal RB #9) or Deboskie comes in (Cal RB #33). Secondly, Sofele has to work on ball security. I bring this up not just because he almost had a game-killing fumble this last game, but he does have a tendency to sort of let the ball get away from his body at the end of his runs when he's getting tackled. Nevertheless, Sofele is a serviceable RB at the college level. I'm not sure he's going to see playing time on Sundays, but I think Cal fans will be glad to have him back next year.
(4) Anderson Is a Mover and a Shaker. He had 10 carries for 48 yards (4.8 yard average) and two rushing touchdowns. That's very good. But I think most of us are probably remembering him for that wondering TD reception. I'm beginning to wonder how Anderson and Maynard seemingly have such a great connection on those scrambles. Was Anderson getting in practice time with Maynard during the off-season? If so, it seems to be showing. And this isn't the first time Anderson has made a great catch from Maynard off a scramble either. I think he's had a few others this year which have just Cal fans with their jaws dropped.
Overall, Anderson has been progressing nicely. As the year has gone on, he's gotten more playing time and has basically asserted himself as Cal's #2 RB. He's demonstrated his ability to be a power guy, and even (quite deceivingly) being a guy who can occasionally make a guy miss. In fact, if my memory serves me correct, he did make a few guys miss on a couple of his runs.
I think Cal has its two top RBs penciled in for 2012. It'll be interesting to see where Bigelow falls into the lineup. Cal has never really had a three RB rotation before. But if Bigelow progresses during the off-season, then Cal just might have to work him in more. The problem is, where? Sofele is the starter, speed guy, and outside guy. Anderson is the backup, power guy, inside guy, and a pass catcher. Bigelow might become that RB that Cal throws to instead of Anderson. This year, Cal has already shown its willingness to throw to Bigelow out of the backfield.
(5) Offensive Line Has Most Complete Game of the Year. I think this might just be the offensive line's most complete game of the year. On the rushing side of the ball, they were opening up some good sized holes for Sofele and Anderson. There were a few runs when things didn't go well, but for the most part, it was full steam ahead for both RBs. On the passing side, the offensive line didn't allow a single sack. Amazing! A little credit goes to Maynard for using his feet when he needed to, but even so, there didn't seem to be much pressure on Maynard (credit given to Maynard too for getting passes off on time too).
Has Coach Michalczik's magic finally started to settle in and unwound the mess left behind by Coach Marshall? Maybe. I mean, Arizona State's rush defense is average (ranked #64 out of 120 teams for yards allowed per rush attempt). They're certainly not the toughest rush defense Cal has faced. But the Cal offensive line seems to be coming into their own. The one area of concern is still a few penalties here and there. And more microscopically, Arizona State was getting a great jump on the snap with their defensive tackles. On a number of occasions, their DTs perfectly timed their get-offs (reacting to the snap) to the point where they were probably actually anticipating the snap. And thanks to their great anticipation, they were shooting Cal's A-gaps leaving Galas (Cal's center #65) with a tough assignment.
(6) Cal's Pass Defense Has Up and Down Night, Cal's Rush Defense Has a Down Night. The secondary gave up a 37 yard completion, and then a 17 yard touchdown pass for Arizona State's second touchdown of the game. But then the defense bounces back with a great interception by (Marc) Anthony (Cal CB #2). But then on the next drive, (Steve) Williams (Cal CB #1) draws a pass interference penalty. And then the secondary gives up a 35 yard touchdown pass. And then they give up a short touchdown pass to the tight end. But then they bounce back again and seal the game with a fantastic INT by (Josh) Hill (Cal NB #23).
I think part of the problem was that McClure (DB #21) was out. He got injured midway through the game, and thus (Kameron) Jackson (Cal CB #9) saw some playing time. Jackson actually did pretty well and only gave up two passes, I think. And actually, it was (Steve) Williams (Cal CB #1) who probably had the worst night. Despite being Cal's best cornerback, he seemingly gave up pass after pass. Part way through the game, I think Pendergast got sick of it to the point where they started playing Williams off the WRs basically as a safety, and instead having (Sean) Cattouse (Cal S #11) playing as a bump and run CB.
As for the rush defense, usually, Cal's rushing defense is pretty darn solid. Not last Friday. ASU's RB rushed for a 6.8 yard average on 23 carries and two touchdowns. Ouch! Luckily, though, Cal's offense kept the game manageable for the defense with plenty of points.
(7) Miller's After the Whistle Scuffles. One thing I've noticed over the year is that Cal's tight end (Anthony) Miller (#80) is always always always scrappin' after the play is over. I'm not sure if it's because he's taking that whole "play snap to whistle" mantra a little too far, or he just doesn't know when to stop, or he's a bit of a hothead. But I'm pretty sure it's probably a mixture of the three. Either way, it makes me nervous that Cal will get flagged for a personal foul. And indeed, on one particular play, Miller could have been flagged for that (he continued to block a player out of bounds to the point where they were practically in the stands... okay, not quite that far, but close enough).
But as the saying goes, it's always the retaliator who gets flagged. On one particular instance when Miller was scrappin' with another ASU player after the whistle, Arizona State linebacker Vontaze Burfict came over to stop Miller and Burfict ended up getting flagged. While I'm glad the penalty was called on Burfict, it probably should have been called on Miller. And I just think that Miller has got to stop this stuff. Penalties can stall drives. Just look at that one Cal drive where the team accumulated a 10 yard holding penalty, then a 10 yard block in the back penalty, and finally another 10 yard holding penalty which negated a couple of fabulous plays and resulted in Cal punting the ball.
But on the whole, Cal didn't penalize itself too much this game. Cal only suffered five penalties for 60 yards, and a couple of those calls were pretty questionable too.
(8) Forza Italia. Cal doesn't win this game if Little Italy doesn't nail field goals from 48 yards, 27, 19, and 30 yards. And not to mention he was also 4/4 on PAT attempts (which is also a testament to special teams blocking). For a guy who has had his fair share of troubles, but also taken some flak for stuff which isn't his fault (poor blocking on his PAT attempts), I think Tavecchio definitely deserves a round of beers from all us Cal fans. The kid was clutch.
(9) Tedford Achieves This Season's Expectations. I don't think I've seen (in my relatively short time as a Cal fan) so many Cal fans so happy to hit 7 wins. And I don't think these people are apologists or satisfied with only getting 7 win seasons. But I think it's safe to say that for everyone who is (more or less) happy about this season, it's because Cal, under the guidance of Jeff Tedford, met season expectations this year.
Every year, Cal should aspire to go 13-0. But I think we all knew that this season probably wasn't going to be that magical 13 win season, or even a 12 win season, or even an 11 win season, or even a 10 win season. Most of us figured Cal would probably have anywhere between 6 to 7 wins this season with a fair shot at 8 wins. So with this 7th win, we're right where we should be. 6 wins would have been a mildly acceptable season given the current team and because we'd also be bowl eligible, but we all wanted that 7th win because it's a legitimate winning season.
So can we be happy with this season? For the most part, I think we can be. I think the only difference between how most Cal fans predicted the season:
FSU - W
CU - W
PRBY - W
UW - L
UO - L
USC - L
UU - W
UCLA - W
WSU - W
OSU - W
SU - L
ASU - L
and the way the season ended up:
FSU - W
CU - W
PRBY - W
UW - L
UO - L
USC - L
UU - W
UCLA - L
WSU - W
OSU - W
SU - L
ASU -W
is the fact that the win and loss against Arizona State and UCLA were switched. I think most of us thought we'd cream UCLA and then get pummeled by ASU. Aside from the fact that the UCLA loss was one of the worst losses of the Tedford era, if you look at things from a sheer W/L viewpoint, then I guess Cal did just about as well as we thought they would do. They'd drop a game they should have won (ucla game), and they'd win a game we perhaps shouldn't have (ASU game).
But what if... oh, what if. This Cal team isn't the most talented team in the Pac-12 but I think not a single game that we lost was not winnable. The UW game was winnable with a little better offense and a little better defense -- we certainly weren't crushed. The Oregon game was winnable with more offense and if our defense could have held out for the second half of the game (they might have had a better chance if the Cal offense had done better that game). The USC game was totally winnable if we just avoided turnovers and instead scored points. The UCLA game should have been an easy win, but alas wasn't that winnable thanks to a non-existent run defense and turnovers galore. And finally, the Big Game was another winnable game if our offense just got a few touchdowns instead of field goals.
Call me crazy, but this team could have gone 11-1 with some better execution in those losses. The talent is there. The coaching is there. The execution... isn't always there. And if only it was...
So with this season coming to a close, and after a day of careful consideration, I find myself endorsing and supporting Coach Tedford for the upcoming 2012 season. Regardless of how the bowl game goes (and assuming it isn't an epic disaster), I think Tedford has earned himself the right to play for the 2012 season. He exceeded my expectations of this team. I had predicted this team going 6-6. Clearly, I know nothing about football and am a huge negabear. But in the last few games of this season, I liked what I saw from their play, the development of the QB, and the upward trajectory of the team.
In Tedford I Trust. Tedford for 2012.
223 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bowl predictions
Have been exceeded. Looks like we’re heading to Alamo or Holiday, with Sun a possibility. Most folks had us pencilled in for much lower. I think that’s a good sign of a successful season compared to expectations, especially as it takes into account conference standing and our strong finish.
From the preseason poll:
Which bowl, if any, do you see Cal attending?
Rose Bowl
62 votes, 9%
Alamo Bowl
7 votes, 1%
Holiday Bowl
18 votes, 2%
Sun Bowl
54 votes, 8%
Maaco Bowl
87 votes, 13%
Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl
192 votes, 30%
New Mexico Bowl
53 votes, 8%
No Bowl
153 votes, 24%
LOL at 62 Rose Bowl votes
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I'd Prefer the Sun Bowl...
…payout is almost the same as Holiday (4 mil vs. 4.3), we’ve never been there, have been to the Holiday twice in the past seven years, and, and I hate to say it, we’re likely to face an easier team there (Virginia as opposed to Missouri).
normally I would LOVE the sun bowl… i’m just worried as a fanbase we won’t rep well this year. I am really hoping for the Holiday Bowl.
Great post. I really love reading your work and appreciate the time you spend on it.
I disagree, a bit, with your tone on Tedford. You have to remember we’re Cal fans, with equal emphasis on ‘Cal’ and ‘fans’. Because of this, we aren’t mindless Bama fans (“WINSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUH!”) and we critically evaluate all so-called experts. Jerry Brown. The BCS. Barrack Obama. ESPN. Our military efforts. Jeff Tedford. Illegal immigration. Bank bailouts. The SEC’s Team Speed. Nancy Pelosi’s Visa investments. The quality of the dish at nice restaurants.
My point is, it’s not just criticism of Tedford…we’re laregely critical of “experts” because, well, they make a lot of head scratching decisions that don’t make sense.
Regardig Tedford, yes he did great work with Rodgers, and made the right call with Levy late in the 2005 season. Longshore was great, before he got injured.
But I felt my BS meter rise when I heard Tedford, in the month before the 2010 season, say that Riley “had turned the corner” (perhaps not the exact quote but that’s how I interpreted things) after having some truly awful games against good Pac10 defenses in 2009. Prior to getting injured, I think Riley improved slightly, but by no means would he have been an All-Conference QB in the Pac10 let alone the WAC. Teford’s preseason comments felt over-stated.
I also felt that meaningful backup QB snaps were absent in many games where they couold have been in the 2009 season. I was told these snaps had little value to the backups, and that substantial practice goes into the position for backups. Sure enough, when we needed the RS Jr backup Brock Mansion, he looked terrible. Tedford has never publicly acknowledged blame for this, but we had QB coach shakeups in the 2010 offseason.
Finally, when Maynard’s appointment as Starting Quarterback began so soon after a training camp where Bridgford played equivalent to Maynard (roughly) yet Maynard got a majority of the snaps late in the spring, I assumed we had a QB that could hit receivers and complete passes. Basic FBS-level stuff. Hell, good FCS teams can do this. SINCE THE 2007 OREGON GAME OUR COMPLETION % AGAINST DECENT DEFENCES SUCKS. How long must fans watch this? I was slightly skeptical about the seemingly quick decision, as I thought it was for other reasons such as 1) needing to establish The Leader ASAP and 2) our OL sucks so we need to scramble. Surprisingly, 2) hasn’t really been an issue this year. After the first 4 games featured erratic yet frequently exciting QB play, we witnessed meltdowns from Maynard in the Oregon, USC, and UCLA games. After watching horrific unforced errors, it was very natural and completely warrented for Cal fans to be questioning the QB decision and asking if anyone can complete a forward pass. Again, critical yet extremely fair and just.
What transpired in the post UCLA era was amazing. It wasn’t just that we were beating bad teams, like Fresno St and Presby early in the year. Maynard looked a lot better in these wins. He had fantastic road performances in his last 2 games against teams with defenses that have yielded mixed results (not sold on Furd’s d at all). Tremendous praise is deserved for this seemingly unbelievable change in events: an inaccurate QB became pretty accurate. The offense became tailored to the strengths of our athletic QB.
It’s very exciting, moving forward, yet I’m cautious. We graduate our LT and an NFL-caliber receiver. Can this excellent QB play show up as “serviceable or better” against decent-good defenses? Is all of our success on offense against bad passing defenses where Keenan and Marv cause freaky mismatches? If we lose to USC and Oregon next year, will it be because of poor QB play?
In short, Tedford’s praise AND criticisms are largely deserved. To ask Cal fans to think like middle American Republicans is not who we’re all about.
I think it’s safe to assume that Ohio St, USC, and Oregon will have good defenses in 2012. Will we be 0-3 against these teams with 50% completion or worse? Can we outscore the ASUs, UDubs, Stanfurds, Utahs, and UCLAs of next year? These latter teams might have NFL caliber talent at a few positions (a la Tevin McDonald), but through and through Cal should roll.
Really, really good coaching, Jim Harbaugh level coaching, and Cal could be excellent next year. My question to you is, do we have that?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Y’know, a lot of Cal fan criticims can be avoided with better communication. This can occur via:
1) Tedford being more honest/direct (Zach’s still working on things, he’s a progressing nicely but we have a ways to go" not “here’s a guy who can throw all the balls”)
2) Opening up access to the media. This is the 21st century. We have the twitter and smartphones. Let the media tell the fans what they see. Maynard looks inconsistent in 11-on-11’s? Great, I won’t be expecting much.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Great posts carp and I agree that there is a benefit to be skeptical/critical etc.
However, I don’t necessairly agree with you on how the coach should communicate with the media/fans. What benefit is it to Maynard or the team to have a quote that “(Maynard) has a way to go…” Or taking it to the absurd, “(Maynard) is not an accurate QB, but the back-ups are terrible and give us no chance to win. So Maynard will be playing unless he is injured.” I don’t see how that is beneficial to the team or the player (clear priorities to the fans/media).
Also, I have heard some chatter from some fans that Tedford is too critical of players- kind of a no win situation.
In the end, I would prefer to let Tedford be circumspect, let us fans watch, enjoy/suffer, and comment on the perfermance. Lastly, we need to remember that we are watching 18-23 year old young men that are away from home for the first time, juggling college, practice, social commitments, etc and playing a sport on a big stage- we are going to see highs and lows, but isn’t that one of the terrific things of college sports?
by mathghamhain on Nov 28, 2011 9:24 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Also agree with this
I think openness to media wrt critiquing players does more bad than good.
That sort of critiquing should take place behind closed doors. Airing out your dirty laundry in public would not be great for morale.
In reply to...
1) I think Tedford does this for a few a reasons. (a) If he was more honest, and said, “Zach’s been sucking lately, and he missed some throws he should have, and that’s why we lost,” then fans would perceive that as throwing a player under the bus to save his own hide. That would not go over well with fans. Coaches are (whether it’s truly right for them to or not) never supposed to blame players. Fans hold coaches accountable for this rule. People have already criticized Tedford for throwing other people under the bus. (b) I think Tedford isn’t more honest and direct with fans/media because… quite frankly… they don’t understand. Not saying this to be condescending or anything, but I think that’s what he thinks. Does he really want to provide a 5 minute explanation as to why Maynard might have made the right decision/read but his throw was off? Are fans really going to believe him if he did? Isn’t it possible a QB makes the right decision/read but his throw is just off? Tedford has been a coach for 10 years now. In that time, one thing he’s learned, and I have learned as well, is that regardless of how much you might explain something, some fans/media are going to believe what they want to believe. So I think Tedford isn’t always direct/honest because he gets tired of the shit. He gets tired of dealing with QB questions, and with people questioning his decisions. Especially since those people – in comparison to him – don’t know squat about football and don’t see the QBs in practice. So
2) Opening up the media probably would lower expectations if fans knew beforehand that Maynard wasn’t doing well in practices. But then again, these evaluations are coming from people who, again, may not know what’s really going on out there. But then those opinions are used as proof to question Tedford. It’s happened before. Tedford knows it happens. I’m sure he’s tired of it.
by HydroTech on Nov 28, 2011 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Agreed
I wouldn’t expect any coach to tell the absolute truth to the media; the goal is to win, which I would think – especially based upon what Aaron Rodgers said – means keeping the QB’s confidence level up, along with everyone else’s.
Rodgers had a lot of confidence, but didn’t have any truly terrible games, and got better and better as his college time went on (except for that little trip to the H-bowl). I would think that scenario is more of a anomaly than the norm; most of our QB recruits aren’t going to have mad skills from the git-go, and the weekly how-little-can-I-get-away-with-saying dance with the media will often have to be done on a tightrope.
(b) I think Tedford isn’t more honest and direct with fans/media because… quite frankly… they don’t understand.
I agree with your answer with regard to the technical aspects of the game…few layman fans would understand Tedford’s reasoning and explanations when it comes to QB decisions. But I think what many yearn for is simply a greater openness to/from the program. Being able to interact and stay connected with one’s alma mater is a huge draw not just for Cal, but for college football itself. Keeping a Defcon-style secrecy lid on practice is a huge barrier to keeping tabs on the progress of the team and watching players develop and get better, and ultimately is a barrier to being “invested” in the team, which is without a doubt what Cal football needs right now.
I, personally, feel that there’s a big emphasis on “family” and togetherness within the athletic department, but it stops at the SAHPC walls. Whether or not fans are distracting or wrong or misguided, they are Cal alums and supporters nonetheless, and ultimately the reason for the existence of the program. For this reason, I think they (we), imo, deserve a little more access to the team and program.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 28, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
I see your point and I agree with the idea that more openness would be a huge draw for Cal fans (promoting pride, support, etc.). But the original topic of discussion was opening up practices to avoid Cal fans criticizing Tedford. I’m not sure that opening up practices would reduce criticisms of Tedford. In fact, I think it would increase criticisms. Even this past year, with limited practice report info leaking out, tons of people concluded (whether they were right or wrong) that Bridgford was better than Maynard. When Maynard was named the starter, tons of people thought Tedford had lost his mind, that he didn’t know what he was doing, or that Maynard being named the starter was some sort of guarantee for getting Allen. Now just imagine if even more information was coming from practices. I think we would have had even a more full blown revolt on Tedford’s hands at the beginning of the season.
I see your point, but to me this is sort of a perfect example of why open practices would be beneficial. There’d be 3-4 reporters in the stadium every day watching with their own eyes which QB was better…my guess is they’d have noted Bridgford’s strengths but ultimately agreed that Maynard was more complete, and their reports could have exonerated Tedford on their own. The open practices are the proof in the pudding… This would prevent Tedford needing to “defend” himself after flaky leaks from the dweebs on BI say the opposite. Otherwise it’s just “my word vs. Tedford’s,” and of course internet people are going to defend their word to the bitter end. Pro reporting would most likely lend credence to Tedford’s press statements.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 28, 2011 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
I think this is a very very good point
I, personally, feel that there’s a big emphasis on "family" and togetherness within the athletic department, but it stops at the SAHPC walls.
A couple of years ago after one game, we were exiting down on the field through the north tunnel. The fans were all mingling with the players and it created an INCREDIBLE sense of community. I think it was 2006 or 2007 because I remember Hawkins giving a kid some arm bands and the kid was so excited and Lavelle was so phenomenally charming with this kid. THAT is a Cal fan for life.
At the hoops game on Saturday all the players were available for autographs after the game. More of the same. Just awesome.
We have wonderful student athletes and we have terrific coaches. The coaches just (especially Tedford) need to be coached to work with the fans and to open up. Monty is pretty good with this but he could do more.
Anyway, I really hope this aspect of what going to a Cal game is doesn’t get lost and in fact gets strengthening.
The informality of what I posted about the football game above was, I think, in part, what makes it so special.
on throwing players under the bus
I agree that Tedford doesn’t usually do this explicitly, but he also doesn’t take responsibility either. His postgame quotes following losses are usually something along the lines of “the players didn’t execute”. Now he usually doesn’t name a particular player, but he also rarely (never?) takes responsibility for the lack of execution that his teams display. Blaming all of the players is certainly better than singling people out, but to my ears, Tedford rarely points the finger at himself.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
“they [opposition] played really good football. they executed.”
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 28, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
2) Opening up access to the media. This is the 21st century. We have the twitter and smartphones. Let the media tell the fans what they see. Maynard looks inconsistent in 11-on-11’s? Great, I won’t be expecting much.
Mega agree here.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 28, 2011 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
It’s an interesting post Carp, but I wish you’d say ‘I’ instead of ‘Cal fans’. Your opinion does differ from mine.
You wrote: “Maynard’s appointment as Starting Quarterback began so soon after a training camp where Bridgford played equivalent to Maynard…”
I don’t see how Maynard and Bridgford were playing equivalent. After going to spring and summer practices, it was clear that Maynard was on a higher level than Mansion or Bridgford. Where Bridgford and Mansion were equally mediocre, Maynard was scrambling and completing long balls. There was not much of a comparison. Beyond any doubt I see why Maynard was chosen. If Bridgford was chosen, we’d have another Brock Mansion debacle out there…
I do believe Tedford, by and large, knows what he is doing. He’s done pretty well for us so far, I think we should stick by him.
I feel like people were all over the place on spring practice. Some people thought Maynard really outshined Bridgford. Others felt that Bridgford was even enouhg. ALthouhg I watched both, I’m not smart enough to really make a clear determination.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
exactly
In short, Tedford’s praise AND criticisms are largely deserved. To ask Cal fans to think like middle American Republicans is not who we’re all about.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Is that automatic or automatonic? :)
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
It’s still not right, because we’re all special and unique flowers, obviously!
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
…like Stepford Hippies or something? :)
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
I think I found some!

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
Well you can’t go wrong with any of them but my preference would be #1 and #3.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 7:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Was that photo from an American Apparel ad?
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 5:56 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Random Google Image search :)
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 6:00 PM PST up reply actions
And more microscopically, Arizona State was getting a great jump on the snap with their defensive tackles. On a number of occasions, their DTs perfectly timed their get-offs (reacting to the snap) to the point where they were probably actually anticipating the snap.
I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that Cal was basically telegraphing their snaps by having the guard tap the center to indicate when Maynard was ready. That sort of makes it easier for the defense to time their jump.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
I was wondering about this too. It seems like having the guard do that is announcing to the world when the snap is coming. But this wasn’t unique to the ASU game I believe Cal has been doing this all season. Also I believe a few NFL teams do this.
I personally saw it in the Big Game
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Defensive offsides
I noticed a couple of times that ASU’s d-line had jump into the neutral zone. If Galas had snapped the ball, we would have gotten an easy 5 yards. Why didn’t he do this? Was the risk too high that the penalty wouldn’t be called and we’d have fumbled or made no gain?
I think the plays you noticed were actually Check With Me plays. On those plays Cal hard counts to try and get the defense to unmask their defensive play. No play is actually meant to be run right off the bat, and thus that’s why the center (Galas) doesn’t snap the ball. Instead, the players look to the sidelines for a new playcall.
I know what you mean, but the plays to which I’m referring weren’t those. A couple of times, I believe the DT jumped pretty hard (hard enough not to get back quickly) and Galas didn’t snap.
Yeah - isn't that a 'plan' for the center?
If you see an obvious off-sides, just snap it to get the free 5 yard penalty. Don’t worry about there being a QB behind you or anything. Take the 5!
Maybe Galas has enough on his plate, they don’t try to coach this nuance. Maybe it’s part of getting him to false start less (clear your mind – focus on only a few things). Center is a tough position, and he has struggled sometimes.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
You also risk fumbling the ball, is the call doesn’t go your way. If it’s not any NFL quality line, it’s probably not worth the risk.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Yeah, 'obvious' off-sides is a judgment call
and if you blow that call and snap it to no one with no flag, it’s a big downside vs. 5 yard upside.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
So with this season coming to a close, and after a day of careful consideration, I find myself endorsing and supporting Coach Tedford for the upcoming 2012 season.
hilarious!
Anyway, great write-up, let’s pump some more sunshine. I’d love to see Cal finish strong with a solid bowl win, leaving an appetizer of victory over the offseason.
Also, I’m not sure how much the numbering equates to importance, but I’d rate the defensive performance (or lack thereof) as one of the 2-3 keys to the game. The D did come through when it mattered.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
What is it about Sofele which didn’t inspire people’s faith in him? I personally think it’s his size — or lack thereof. It’s such a cliche that a RB has to be either stupid-fast or BEASTMODE to be good.
I wasn’t doubting him based on prior season stats or his size, it was that early in the season he looked a little slow to hit the hole, didn’t always utilize his blockers, and didn’t always keep his feet under him.
However, all that has changed over the season (UW was when it looked like he really started to get it going to me) and the last few games have been phenomenal. While he doesn’t have the ‘take it to the house’ speed that Cal fans simply assume everyone has after the Best/Vereen era, he’s as quick as anyone else out there during a 20 yard run and that’s really all you can hope for in a Pac-12 RB, anything else is a bonus.
Then, I’ll make a big ruckus, because I am a hypocritical asshole.
-TwistNHook
Slow to hit the hole isn’t always bad. In fact, sometimes patience is required. While you may not have doubted Sofele for his size, I still think the majority of doubters probably still based their doubts on his size.
I agree that picking the right time to hit the hole is important, from my non-expert observations it was more that he looked tentative and not playing at full speed. But like I said, after the UW game that was no longer an issue. It seems he just needed a few games to adjust to the feature back role.
Then, I’ll make a big ruckus, because I am a hypocritical asshole.
-TwistNHook
Is it the RB or OL?
Early in the season, I think Isi didn’t have an immediate opening and was optimistically waiting for something to develop. As the season progressed, both immediate holes opened up and later developing holes opened up.
Even his reverse-field runs wouldn’t have worked if the OL hadn’t stayed alert and kept blocking on the backside.
OL improvement helped - but he also had issues earlier in the year...
Sometimes he just wouldn’t get up to speed quick enough, and the D would close on him too early (should have gotten 5-6, instead got 2). Other times, he was going down too easily on first contact or on very little contact – get away from those hand and arm tackles, please! Don’t fall down on non-wrap-up contact – I think that’s what HT meant by keeping his feet under him.
But that was the past – he has really improved and it’s great! Though I did notice how often he fumbled after hitting the ground vs. ASU (which is not a fumble) – but it is an indication of ball security issues.
I have been very impressed with his ability to run up the middle the second half of the season – I wasn’t sure he had it in him, but he became a serious threat. And the development of CJA and others makes me feel most secure about RB going forward of all positions. Mike Manuel and CDJ should be in the mix, too, which is awesome depth. Gould for President!
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, I noticed similar things. There were some plays where he either chose the wrong hole or ran into contact rather than taking what was there. I think he was having some “field vision” problems quite apart from the OL blocking issues, but we’re not seeing them anymore.
it’s like you and I discussed this…
also you just hate Isi, or something.
Then, I’ll make a big ruckus, because I am a hypocritical asshole.
-TwistNHook
But I remember Best had some of the same problems as well. Sure, he always had the great speed, but that only counts once you get in space. The important point for any RB is reading your blocks, having vision for the hole, being able to make people miss occasionally, holding on to the ball, and fighting for extra yards on the way down. Sofele has all this now; he’s a quality college RB.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
100%
Agree with this, wholly unscientific, but I heard maybe 6-8 times from random Cal fans at games how Sofele couldn’t be any good because he was too small. Even corrected a few of them who thought he weighted 150 pounds or so.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
had friends say the same thing about forsett.
also like watching sofele play. his measurables (height/weight) are similar to mine.
forsett has played well in the nfl at times
I doubt Isi will, but hopefully I’m wrong!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
i’d love to have another forsett on the team and i think late season sofele can do it all year next season.
now listen, i love me some justin forsett… his senior year he had 1546 yards rushing for an average of 5.1 yards per carry.
Isi this year has 1266 yards rushing averaging 5.5 yards per carry.
Isi’s doing just fine.
Part way through the game, I think Pendergast got sick of it to the point where they started playing Williams off the WRs basically as a safety, and instead having (Sean) Cattouse (Cal S #11) playing as a bump and run CB.
Interesting. I thought they were playing Williams/Anthony off as more of a zone look so that they could help with run support. In the slot, they had Cattouse, Hill, Kendricks up closer to the line of scrimmage also for run support.
I think we assumed that our Dline + Holt/Kendricks would be able to contain their running game better than they did.
Nice post, Hydro.
Old Toothwrangler
It's hard to call going 7-5 in a down year for the Pac-12 a sucessful season.
Conversely, based on some of your points I wouldn’t call this season a failure either. To me it’s one of those shrug your shoulders, no real opinion seasons that nobody will remember in 10 years.
It may have been a “down year” in the P-12 overall, but it was also a “down year” for our Bears. Consider we had a new qb with no experience against this level of competition, a new RB who hadn’t really shown he could be the guy (based on last year’s results), and the loss of significant defensive personnel.
Besides that, if it weren’t for completely throwing up on ourselves at ucla, this team would be 8-4 overall.
Given that, this absolutely was a successful season. Not spectacular, to be sure, and (as you say) nothing that will stand out as memorable 10 years down the line, but also not a huge disappointment like last year. Further, it really does set up the potential for really good things next year. At least, the overall perception will be that the foundation is in place for an 8 – 10 win season next year.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Down year in the Pac-12 though it may have been, we did still play three AP top ten teams.
"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
Really? A down year?
How long have you been watching Pac-10 football? As AERose says, the Pac has three top-10 teams, all of which we played (two on the road!), so I disagree that this is a down year. What baseline are you comparing to?
Pac-12 vs. Big Tenwelve
Oregon >> Michigan State
Stanfurd >> Wisconsin
USC >> Michigan
Cal << Nebraska
Washington << Penn State
Utah < Iowa
UCLA << Ohio State
ASU > Purdue
OSU << Illinois
Wazzu << Northwestern
Arizona > Minnesota
Colorado >> Indiana
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
I’m not sure Furd > Wisky.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 28, 2011 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
Furd’s only loss is to Oregon. Wisconsin lost a close one to Michigan State, which isn’t a bad loss, but losing to 6-6 Ohio State isn’t very impressive. I probably should have used only one > though.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Cal had one of the toughest conference schedules
But yes, I call it a down year for Pac-12. People talk about U$C ‘if they didn’t have sanctions’ – well they do, and I’m counting the fact that they can’t go bowling. They also lost a couple bad ones and showed weakness. They looked weak when they played us!
See my other post – I’m not saying we are a BAD conference – I’m saying that considering all 12 teams, we are a middling, but above average conference. We were wildly inconsistent this year and that takes our stock down. A few more OOC wins, less true doormats (I’m talking to you Colorado/Wazzu/OSU), and I will change my tune.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
They also lost a couple bad ones and showed weakness.
I wouldn’t qualify a Triple-OT loss to Stanford a “bad loss” for USC. Their loss to ASU is probably the only one you’d describe as “bad” (and ASU was playing much better at that point in the season).
also, it was their first road game of the year playing a bunch of underclassmen. i don’t think they’d lose that game anymore, even if asu was healthy and playing well.
Oops - they lost only one bad one
I exaggerate on U$C, they do have a very strong W-L record. I just felt they looked really shitty all through the first half of the year, and they were lucky to get away with many of those wins. Minnesota 19-17. Arizona 48-41. Utah 23-14. The game against us, actually.
Overall saying they are ‘down’ isn’t exactly logical, given their W-L, but I hold U$C to a high standard because they are drenched in athleticism and depth and $$$.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Athleticism and $$$, yes. Depth? I thought not since the scholarship reductions and transfers and such?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
Call me crazy, but this team could have gone 11-1 with some better execution in those losses. The talent is there. The coaching is there. The execution… isn’t always there. And if only it was…
Isn’t that on Tedford and the coaches a little? We got better over the course of the season, so we seem to be moving in the right direction, and that’s great, but to say we could have won 11 games but instead we only won 7 is kind of an indictment of the coaches, because it means that they aren’t getting as much as they can out of their players. If the team is capable of winning 11 and only gets 9 or 10, well, shit happens and you won’t be perfect all the time. But to drop 4 games because of your own mistakes seems something is pretty seriously wrong. Hopefully it’s mostly stuff that will be better next season (Maynard improving, OL starting from a higher level, etc…).
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It could be on the coaches, because they certainly are responsible for teaching the players and prepping them for the game. But it could also be on the players themselves. The reality of the situation is that it’s the players who play the game, not the coaches. The coaches can only do so much. At some point the players have to take responsibility for their actions.
And can you really fault the coaches just because… the QB let a pass get away with him? Or the RB slipped on the turf? Or the WR just dropped a gimme? Or a DT got beat once? Or a CB got beat by a faster WR? Some times, it’s just bad luck. Sometimes it’s the players just not playing well DESPITE perfectly fine coaching. That happens. Sometimes players make mistakes DESPITE perfectly fine coaching. So I don’t think it’s easy to say just because a player messes up that it’s a coach’s fault. If there is a consistent pattern, then it probably is a coach’s fault. But isolated incidents here and there? It’s probably more on the player.
Sure, that’s why I said “it’s on the coaches a little” rather than “on the coaches completely”. I will point out, though, that other teams manage to win 9, 10, and 11 games without their players making as many mistakes to cost them so many victories. Or maybe they perform well enough so that one slip or dropped pass doesn’t cost them the game since they already had a safe lead. I think we showed that we have the talent to hang with Stanfurd. Maybe they’re a bit better, and obviously their QB is phenomenal, but we showed that they aren’t THAT much better than we are. They certainly didn’t look 4 wins better. So why are they 11-1 while we’re 7-5?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
So why are they 11-1 while we’re 7-5?
They consistently execute better than we do. Why is this so? Could be coaching. Could be the players.
I imagine it’s some of both. Coaches do choose/recruit the players though. So do we not have the right guys? I know we have a lot more talent coming up the pipeline so hopefully it won’t matter, but I feel like my question is at least worth thinking about.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Well, I hope you don’t feel like I’m dismissing your question. I’m not trying to. But I’m not sure there’s an easy answer to your question. I think the most accurate explanation I can provide is that we just don’t execute as well, and as consistently as Furd does. Could be because of coaching; it could be because of the players. It’s probably both. To what extent is it coaching or players? I don’t know.
No, I know it’s a tough thing to suss out. I mean, at its root, it’s a question of two thing: 1) How talented are we, really? and 2) Are we getting the most out of that talent?
…and then if the answer to 2) is “no”, how do you identify the causes of that?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
*two things.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
Inconsistency and Coaching
Are what holds us back from our ‘potential’. But that is extremely hard to distinguish from a lack of talent.
You have to see a player and team execute really well at least one game, or part of a game, to believe they have top level talent. Then you try to understand why they don’t do it all the time or in other situations. If they never show it – you don’t have enough data.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
I think we have shown it, though. The Big Game showed it, as did our domination of Utah, WSU, and OSU, and the way our offense played against ASU.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
I would contend that teams failing to execute consistently is absolutely on the coaches. As you said, a play here and a play there? That happens. Coaches can’t play the game themselves. But a pattern comes falls to the coaches.
Put it this way: Can you really give Tedford complete credit or blame for any one win or loss? Probably not. But doesn’t he deserve the bulk of responsibility for Cal’s record over 10 years? Absolutely.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I agree. Looking at a specific incident, it might be on the player. If its a pattern, it falls on the coaches.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Is this what it’s like when doves cry?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Let me be clear. If its a pattern, it can stil be the player. But at that point, you have to look at whether the coaches are putting the player in the best position to succeed. That is their job.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Yeah, if there is a pattern then it is probably on the coaches. But not always. Some players just under-perform despite perfectly fine coaching too.
And if there aren’t better players behind them (which certainly be the case), then there is a question about recruiting.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
eh
you can bench players even if the ones behind them are of lessor quality (which they probably are, else wouldn’t they be starting?). Marshawn was benched for fumbling. DeSean was benched yesterday. Even the great 8 was benched earlier this year, and the caps ended up coming back and winning that game (saying something because they are 5-10 in their last 15).
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I dont understand your last sentence
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I agree that it is worth discussing
I feel like certain issues continued to plague this team throughout the season.
Namely penalties and red zone issues. How much of that is on the players, how much is on the coaches?
I suppose we will never know.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:43 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Look at the stats
We’re better than Stanford on defense, they are way more consistent than us on offense (going into our game, they had scored 100% of the time they were in the red zone). Much of that is due to the QB. So, no, I don’t really think somehow their coaching is better – when you have a solid OL and a QB that never lets drives die, you are going to win lots of games.
Plus, their crappy turf is their 12th man.
It's funny
I agree with both of you (sort of). The team as it stands now could win ten games, but at the beginning of the season? That team was a 6-6 team. I have a strong feeling that this team is disappointed in it’s self, and collectively feels like they could have done better than they did. I think they will be strongly motivated to win their bowl game to prove this thesis.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
If there is a consistent pattern, then it probably is a coach’s fault. But isolated incidents here and there? It’s probably more on the player.
Completely agree. But as Atoms pointed out,
But to drop 4 games because of your own mistakes seems something is pretty seriously wrong.That seems to be a consistent pattern.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Along with not beating USC or losing in the Rose Bowl
To UCLA no matter how bad their team or coaches are.
I’m still not completely sold on Tedford being ae to lead this team to a pac 12 title or Rose Bowl and I think next year is going to be another 6-8 win season
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 12:11 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
We obliterated UCLA in 2009. 2007 it was part of an overall Cal collapse, In 2005 UCLA was actually pretty good (9-2) and we lost by a TD. In 2003 we lost by just 3 points. I don’t think UCLA has any magical Rose Bowl powers over us.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but sometimes players can consistently fail to perform despite perfectly fine coaching. And if this is the case, then you have to point the blame towards the players. Some kids have it. Some don’t. Some will be great. Some won’t. Not every rock is a diamond.
I mean, for example, do we really think that there was some sort of lack of coaching across the Oregon, USC, and UCLA games, on the part of Tedford or Arroyo which lead to Maynard’s bad games? Like, the coaches failed to coach him up enough on the schemes or what throws he should/shouldn’t be making? Doubtful. The guy faced some tough(er) defenses in that stretch, and he had some bad games. I’m more of the opinion that Maynard’s mistakes during those losses weren’t so much because of a failure of coaching, but just that the kid was going through some rough times. He was just more inclined to make bad throws during those times due to (perhaps) a lack of confidence, and facing some of the better and faster defenses of the Pac-12.
As for losing four games a season based on your own mistakes being seriously wrong. That’s just overblown. That can be said for every team in the nation who loses four games. I’m not denying that if a team loses, there are probably some things which can be improved upon. But to say things are “seriously” wrong? Eh… that’s just way overblown. We’re not 0-12. That’s seriously wrong.
I think Hydro’s statement about an 11-win season was kind of hyperbole, because (with all due respect to him), that oregun game simply was not winnable.
So, 10 wins? Maybe, but not likely. One could argue that UW, USC, and Ucla were all winnable if we got better play from the defense in some and offense in others. But by that same token both Colorado and ASU were losable by the same metric.
Overall, we could have garnered 8, 9, or 10 wins but there would need to be some pretty intense good luck involved to make that happen. Talent-wise alone, I think this team was a 7 or 8 win max team.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Overall, we could have garnered 8, 9, or 10 wins but there would need to be some pretty intense good luck involved to make that happen. Talent-wise alone, I think this team was a 7 or 8 win max team.
That doesn’t seem to jibe with what you said in the preceding paragraph, that UW, USC, and UCLA were winnable with a little better play. I don’t think it would have taken “intense good luck”, just a little better execution, to get to 9 wins.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
I see the confusion. Poorly stated on my part.
My belief is that the team didn’t have 10-win talent/experience, and that keeping the Colorado & ASU wins while also adding UW, USC, and Ucla would have been lucky in that we’d have needed to have played exceedingly well in each game to get it.
Perhaps “luck” isn’t the right word for it, as we didn’t actually lose any of our games because of bad luck, nor win any that way either. Nonetheless, when it comes to the sort of youth & inexperience we put on the field this year, playing good enough to take all five of those games without brain-farting in a couple would require a bit of good fortune.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
I agree about the Oregon game and everything you said
Of course I’m upset about the UCLA and USC loss but the team played so bad that in retrospect they weren’t winnable. I was not happy at all with those games and Cal has to beat both of those teams next season, especially USC if Barkley leaves.
The only game that we lost that really bothers me is the UW game. We should have won that game.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:09 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Good 7 wins vs. blah 7 wins
My feeling is that the 7 wins is slightly better than okay. Even given the talent, if we had played more competitively against UO & $C, I would be much more optimistic about next year. The loses to UW & furd were tough, but somewhat understandable. The loss to UCLA was unfathomable, but I’d allow one mulligan with solid performances otherwise.
The USC and UCLA loss were terrible
The Oregon loss doesn’t bother me because it was away and we played well for a half.
USC and UCLA makes me a bit of a skeptic with Tedford because we can’t seem to win games in the Rose Bowl and beat USC, even when UCLA is not a very good or well coached team.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 12:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Is this a down year?
Without the sanctions, the Pac-12 might have had three teams in the mix for BCS bowls; USC finished at 10-2 and beat #7 ranked Oregon. Oregon State was far worse, but U-Wub was far better. Arizona stunk, but Arizona state was far better for the first half of the season, beating USC. I think in reality we aren’t any worse than any other leauge save the SEC. Hell, if Oregon didn’t fumble 4 friggin times, they may have been able to beat LSU.
No way does the PAC 12 get 3 bcs bids
Stanfurd would get one, as they would benefit from not having to play in the PAC 12 championship.
The loser of a USC/Oregon championship game would be eliminated from a bcs bowl.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:12 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah you right, however I think the SEC
Is about to get an exception to that rule this year.
I also think that rule will be eliminated along with the Big East AQ bid after this current contract expires.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:29 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
If Georgia wins the SEC Championship Game
And LSU and Alabama are still #1 and #2 in the final BCS rankings (or vice versa), then all 3 would go to BCS Bowls. But that’s the only way 3 teams from one conference can go to BCS Bowls (conference champ plus #1 and #2 in BCS).
by Oski4Heisman on Nov 28, 2011 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
I hope OSU defeating Oklahoma can vault them to #2. :-/
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
I just hope LSU wins
So there’s absolutely 0 chance of the furd in the NCG.
by Oski4Heisman on Nov 28, 2011 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry, I'm a Pac-12 lover, and I'd call it a down year overall
Yes we have some top teams, but our OOC record is not impressive enough to call us awesome. And we have too many doormat teams, or semi-collapse teams (UCLA and ASU, I’m talking to you). No more than one doormat, plus two-three weak cousins who fight hard but lose is the sign of a strong conference.
Just like Cal is a very inconsistent football team, the Pac 12 is a very inconsistent conference this year.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
Again, what's your baseline?
It’s easy to talk about how the PAC-10 should be in theory, but I’d say that we lose OOC games every year, and there’s always a “muddled middle” in the conference.
Anyhow, I was curious about this, so I decided to compare our BCS standings vs the historical average. Here are stats for the PAC-10, 2004-2007 (our glory years):
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=5548401
Average ranking of a conference team: 40.17
It’s a bit tricky to compare now since we’re a larger conference (and the newcomers are below the median for conference play, IMO). Also, since USC is not listed in the BCS standings – but if you stick them as just behind Oregon (similar to their position in the polls):
This year (total): 50.08
This year (ignoring Utah/Colorado): 46.1
So, yeah, we’re a little down this year, but it’s not clear that we’re dramatically down.
I think we see it the same way
With my ‘feeling’ and your stats. Ranking 50 is how I see it. I’m including Utah and Colorado in my overall evaluation. I’m not saying we’re dramatically down.
I just wanted to season the bright yellow sunshine with some Old Blue-ness. It’s how I prepare for the next game and the next season.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
Is it a down year in the Pac-12? We currently have 3 teams in the top 10 nationally!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Again, I'm okay with the season we had
We ended the year as probably the 4th best team in the conference which is good especially when the top 3 are all highly ranked (Having said that outside of the top 3 there isn’t another team in the conference I would describe as above average).
I just wouldn’t call 7-5 sucessful when we didn’t beat a ranked team or a team that had more than 7 wins. It was an average season that fell just below or just above most reasonable people’s expectations.
I give Tedford a C+ for the job he did, if we beat a decent team in the bowl game I would knock it up to a B+.
I'm pretty much right with you
The ASU win moved him up to B- for me. I am giving credit for playing at AT&T and having a weak fan base, made worse by the Athletic departments gaffes.
I expect nice things when we come back to Berkeley. If he wins the bowl game against a decent team and we have a Top 20 recruiting class, he will be B+. But he still has a lot to prove to me.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
the bottom of the league looked a lot weaker than normal. usually, it always looks like our conference cannibalizes itself/everyone can beat everyone. but this year, it felt like teams like arizona, osu, wsu, colorado, ucla, would only win if the opposition threw up on themselves (like we did against the ’ruins).
Pac 12 is down?
I’m sorry, but bullshit.
3 teams in the top 10.
All three of which we had to play, 2 of which we had to play on the road.
It’s always the opposite of where we are that some people use to define us. If it’s one team in the Top 10, but 5 in the top 25 it’s USC and the nine dwarfs. if it’s 3 in the top 10, it’s what have the others done.
Well if fiatlux disagrees with me, I'll just have to change my mind.
You’re like a god to me.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
go tedford
I was calling for tedford’s job last year and was not even optimistic that we would make a bowl this year. I am very impressed with the coaching job this year, pending the bowl game result. I know people say that this is a down year for the PAC, but is it? It’s ranked the third best conference in the computers, and I mostly agree with that. There are 3 top ten caliber teams in the conference this year, so can we really call it a down year? Other than those brief few seasons of glory in which the PAC was better than the SEC, 3rd/4th is pretty much right around where the PAC normally is, so while there are a bunch of terrible teams in the conference, I wouldn’t call it a down year for the PAC 12. I am excited for the 2012 season and the bowl game. You have earned another year Tedford.
FTFY
Nevertheless, Sofele is aserviceablesolid, above-average RB at the college level.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
And not to mention he was also 4/4 on PAT attempts (which is also a testament to special teams blocking).
Is it? We’re still leaving 1 guy on the edge completely unblocked (which I really, really don’t like btw). Is the reason that our PATs have been more successful of late [knock on wood] maybe because we’re spreading the line out more, so the corner guy has a slightly longer distance to run to get the block?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
The guys who have been blocking our PATs are coming up the middle, and not from the side. So the problem isn’t really the edge defender. So leaving one guy unblocked is fine — and yes, we can leave him unblocked because we’ve required him to run a longer distance. In fact, by leaving that edge guy unblocked, you can reallocate that one blocker (who would normally be blocking the edge defender) to block someone else.
OK, that’s good to know. I did see an ASU guy coming off the edge and get very, very close to making the block on one kick in the last game, though.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
Wasnt the Italian 5-5 on PATS on Saturday?
We scored 47 points. 4 FGs by the Italian = 12 points, 47 – 12= 35. 35/7=5 TDs, so he successfully kicked 5 PATs.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:03 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Great post as usual. In regards to the RB situation going forward
When you asked where does Bigelow fit in, I believe he becomes the speed guy out of the backfield next season.
I say this only because I disagree with you that Sofele is the speed guy. Don’t get me wrong, I like Sofele and went from a Sofele skeptic/doubter to believer. However, I believe Bigelow is faster than Sofele and Anderson might be just as fast or even faster than Sofele.
As you said, Sofele is a solid back. My feelings on Sofele is he does just about everything well but is not really exceptional at anyone one thing. Well, Sofele might be our best pass blocking back.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 9:32 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Yes please.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
I’ll take 2
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
On to the comment about trusting Tedfords QB decision
On who starts is fine, Tedford has proved he knows who should start each Saturday.
However, my issue in regards to Cal QBs is it seems like we have had a lot of misses with our QB recruits lately.
Mansion, Sweeney, Bridgford, and even Riley never really developed into an upper echelon PAC 12 QB. So while Tedford is picking the best QB to start each week, we are picking the best QB out of a bad/underachieving bunch. Those recruiting misses at QB does reflect badly on Tedford on how Tedford and his staff evaluates and selects HS QBs.
Hopefully Maynard continues to develop into a top PAC 12 QB and hopefully one of theyounger QB recruits coming in can develop into an elite PAC 12 QB.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 9:58 AM PST via mobile reply actions
I see your point, but I don’t hold it against Tedford.
Not every single guy he recruits is going to be a superstar. I know a lot of people are going to point to the fact that a lot of our guys are Elite 11 dudes, but a lot of Elite 11 dudes don’t go on to do anything in their careers. I’ve done the research in the past, and I should probably update it, but last time I checked it was something like 2/3rds of Elite 11 dudes don’t go on to have great careers. Some never even started, some did and sucked. So I think it’s unreasonable to expect that every guy a QB coach recruits (I’m speaking for Tedford and every other coach in the nation) will pan out.
I understand your point about not every QB recruit and
even elite 11 recruits not working out.
It seems like every elite 11 QB we have gotten hasn’t worked out at all.
Was Longshore an elite 11? He had a good season and a half but he did not work out long term for us.
I hope Maynard works out and if he does I will certainly give Tedford credit for helping develop him, however how much credit do we give Tedford for recruiting him when Maynard was part of a package deal with Allen? Certainly we had a need for a QB and that is why we took him, however it isn’t as if we targeted and recruited Maynard out of HS.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:26 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Longshore was Elite 11. And he did work out until his ankle injury in 2007, and his pectoral injury in 2008. I think his injuries were mitigating circumstances which makes it harder to say that he was a bust or he didn’t work out.
Fair enough and I agree that injuries played a major issue in Longshores career
Not just the injuries in 07 and 08 but also the broken ankle in 05.
With Longshore at QB in 05, I believe Cal wins two more games that season and is at least a bit more competitive with USC at home.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:36 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Superstar is one thing, but it would be nice to see even mere competence from the backups. Tuel went down for WSU, but Lobbaestal filled in quite capably. Then when he got hurt, the 3rd string guy Connor Halliday stepped up and performed admirably. At OSU, last year’s starter Katz had performed well in 2010, but he suddenly stopped playing as well, and the next guy Mannion was ready to step up. At UW, when Keith Price was dinged up, Nick Montana came in and while he didn’t light the world on fire, he was much better than Brock Mansion. At Utah, Jon Hays hasn’t been great in place of Jordan Wynn, but again, much better than Brock Mansion.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Fair point. But even expecting mere competence from the backups might be a bit much to ask considering the track record of Elite 11 recruits.
…aren’t Elite 11 recruits supposed to be…. elite?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Yes but they don't always work out, just like 1st round QBs in the NFL
Dont always have success.
I do think we should try to do a post about the elite 11 QBs that Tedford has brought in and what happened in their careers, why they failed to live up to their expectations.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:50 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Since there’s so much Elite 11 talk, I think I just might do an Elite 11 history post which looks at every Elite 11 recruit from the past 6 years or so, and how they’ve done in their career.
I think Cal fans think we’re abnormal — in that our success (or lack thereof) with Elite 11 recruits is below the norm. But I’m honestly not so sure that it is.
That would be an interesting post.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Well, my point is less about Elite 11 per se than about the coaches being able to correctly identify and develop guys who will thrive in their system. I bring up other Pac-12 schools who seem to have decent QB depth, and they’re not bringing in higher-rated “talent” than we are, so why have we had so many misses since Longshore?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
Looking at the timeline, either we:
1) Whiffed on our talent evaluations (Sweeney, Mansion)
2) Failed to develop the players that we had (Riley).
This also coincided with the time that Tedford stepped away from coaching the quarterbacks and running the offense. My suspicion is that it’s multi-factorial – Tedford has missed pretty badly on some QBs. (cough Ayoob cough) But, failing to develop any semblance of a competent backup has to be on the QB coach/OC.
I suppose you could ultimately push it up the line and say that Tedford is responsible for hiring the wrong coach(es) and giving them too much of a free hand when they weren’t getting it done.
Old Toothwrangler
How bad was Sweeney that he didn't even get one meaningful snap
Last season despite Mansion being a Sun Belt quality QB.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 10:33 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, I tried to give Tedford the benefit of the doubt on Sweeney (that Tedford really thought Sweeney might be good), but it looks more and more like Sweeney’s scholarship was a favor since Tedford and the Sweeney family have a history.
Sweeney wasn’t Elite 11 though, so we can’t include him in this whole “Tedford can’t develop Elite 11 talent” discussion.
So, are we pretending that *every* Cal backup == Brock Mansion?
I mean, I get that fans are scarred from last year, but Tedford has had capable backups every year except last year.
Are you going to take the worst backup of the Tedford era, and hold him up as the example of what Tedford is capable of? Aside from Mansion, I’d say Tedford backups have played quite well (Levy, Robertson, Riley, etc). Bridgford looked shaky, but not terrible, in his outings this year – certainly no worse than Hays or Nick Montana.
I’m more concerned with the recent quality of our starters than I am with the quality of our backups – it’d be nice to have the top passing QB in the conference again, and I think this isn’t an unreasonable expectation.
technically Ayoob was a backup, and he was godawful
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 28, 2011 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Well, no, every Cal backup does not = Brock, but Brock and Sweeney were the primary backups pretty much throughout the Riley era. It’s hard to say if Bridgford is worse than Hays or Montana, because we haven’t seen enough to say, so the jury’s out on 2011, but in 2009 and 2010 the cupboard was pretty bare.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
So I think it’s unreasonable to expect that every guy a QB coach recruits (I’m speaking for Tedford and every other coach in the nation) will pan out.
I agree. But, by the same token, I think there’s a problem if none of them pan out.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
In my worry closet, I fear that Maynard will get hurt in the bowl game or next year, and we’ll find the cupboard bare.
I haven’t seen enough of Bridgford, Hinder, Boehm to feel one way or another. I do think that they’re getting much better position coaching from Tedford/Arroyo.
Put it this way – do you think Maynard would have turned things around in the last four games under Ludwig?
Old Toothwrangler
I don't know
I think it’s a bit useless to play the what if game. We have no idea how Bridgford would look now if he had started all year. Maybe he’d be better than Maynard, maybe he’d be worse.
What we do know is that Maynard was pretty inconsistent for a while, and better QB play would have gone a long ways to at least winning at UW and at ucla. We also know that he’s put together a few very nice games. So we can give blame to him and the coaches for some rough times earlier this year, and credit to both for his performance in recent games. And we hope he continues to play well. Certainly there is more reason for optimism than there was a month ago.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
No joke, if he’s not injured in 2007 – NCG for us. (sigh)
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I seriously doubt that, we didn't have the defense in 07 for a NCG run
Sure without the injuries to Longshore we probably don’t have the collapse that we did but our defense was a step below 06 and our DL injuries that season didnt help things.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 3:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Umm I think we had enough to win out
OSU: We almost went to OT with a backup QB. A healthy and confident Longshore could’ve won this one with just one more TD.
UCLA: That 4th Q pick six fucked us.
ASU: We were leading until near the end
USC: Again, close game
UW: Really the only game where it didn’t seem close but if the Oregon or Tenn Longshore had played… who knows?
Furd: If the Hawk hadn’t dropped that ball in the EZ we would’ve won with a gimped Longshore.
In other words, Go Bears!
I think even with a healthy Longshore we still lose at ASU and UW
If I remember right, ASU had taken the lead early in the 3rd quarter.
In regards to UW, it is hard to beat a team when you kickoff to them to start the game and the 2nd half.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 3:53 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
100% disagree
It’s not that the team was perfect; it’s wasn’t. But rarely are college teams complete, even the ones in the NCG. LSU got there with two losses that year. We a a dynamic offense capable of scoring on anyone. The flip side of the collapse is the boost teams get when they feel that the year is “special”, everyone plays harder and is more focused. I’m guessing we still would have lost to UW in a let down after an epic win over USC, taken our revenge out on ’furd and gone to the NCG 11-1.
But of course this is all just conjecture.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
true enough
I meant of the guys he mentioned above. Longshore 06 was definitely plenty good. Still, that’s only 1 of 5. I hope we could bat .500 at least! Hopefully some of the other elite 11 guys we have now pan out.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Yeah whether a QB is elite 11 or not Tedford needs to do better than 1 for 5
Price and Mannion have looked good for first time starters and as far as I know they weren’t elite 11.
I have said this before and I will say it again, Tedford still hasn’t recruited a kid from HS and developed him to all PAC 12 1st/2nd team honors as a senior.
I give Tedford all the credit in the world for helping turn Boller and Rodgers into very good CFB QBs but he didn’t guide then from HS recruit to 1st round NFL QB and he hasnt shown he can do that at Cal yet.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 3:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I fail to understand how that’s a valid criticism, does it matter that Rodgers was a transfer? Also, I think Longshore is drafted but for the injuries; I recall him being the highest rated junior (start of 07) IIRC.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I think it is a valid criticism because
Both Boller and Rodgers were older, more mature, had post HS coaching and development. I believe the experience that Rodgers got at JC helped in his development and gave him valuable experience. If Rodgers was getting good coaching and development in JC Tedford proba my doesn’t offer him a scholarship.
I also think it is valid because Tedford hasn’t taken a single HS recruit and turned them into a nfl draft pick.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 3:29 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
All sorts of grammar fail in that post
I hate posting from my iPhone.
If Rodgers isn’t getting good coaching and development at his JC, Tedford probably doesn’t offer him a scholarship.
While Tedford has developed HS recruits to nfl draft picks in the past he hasn’t done so while at Cal.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 5:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Those other schools...
Tedford was the “QB guru” before he came to Cal, due in part to Dilfer, Akili Smith, etc. (all those first round picks). Weren’t some of these guys developed by him from HS? Could it be that his HC duties don’t allow him to spend the necessary time with the Cal QBs?
by mathghamhain on Nov 28, 2011 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
I’d be happy with either Texas or Mizzou. We owe Mizzou one after that basketball game last week.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
I think it’s down to Texas/Baylor
Then, I’ll make a big ruckus, because I am a hypocritical asshole.
-TwistNHook
Ugh. Say no to Bear on Bear violence!!!
I don’t want to face RGIII :-/
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 28, 2011 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
But we can put up 70 on the Bears
and party like it’s 2002!
by Oski4Heisman on Nov 28, 2011 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That would be so awesome!!!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Bigelow
CJ has shown that he’s got good hands but Bigelow looks to have even better hands plus he has explosive speed. I think Biggie would make a dangerous receiving RB while CJ excels at being our red zone pounder.
Yes we could have been a 10-11 win team...
But we also could have been a 3-4 win team. Think of the mistakes we made in some games – and how some other teams just lay eggs for us.
Thanks for the re-cap – but I think you’re setting expectations too high now. I was super-happy to come up with the ASU win. Very satisfying.
Tedford and co. definitely displayed some second half of the season coaching prowess, and actually developed their game and the players post-UCLA. That pleased me.
We’re losing a lot of players for next year, and we have a bowl game against possibly stiff competition this year – let’s see how those go.
I really don’t want expectations set too high for next year. I want Tedford and the players to be fighting from the underdog position – proving themselves as better than the haters say, and pushing themselves to improve.
There were tons of errors, both on coaches and players, in the ASU game (and the Wazzu game, too). And ASU is a mess. Awesome that we came up with the win, and awesome the good things that we did do in that game – but we have NOT arrived.
Keep working, Bears, and keep cheering, fans – but the last thing this program needs is to be ranked pre-season (though we probably will be if we win our bowl game).
Keep working, Bears, and keep cheering, fans – but the last thing this program needs is to be ranked pre-season (though we probably will be if we win our bowl game).
I don’t like talking too much about our potential and where we should be – I’ve said this before – the way you should get ranked is after quality wins against tough competition. You gotta earn it. We can earn it. But we haven’t earned it yet.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 10:53 AM PST reply actions
I thought our penalties and D and conservative coaching..
..were all serious issues that nearly cost us the game, and I was surprised you didn’t focus on this as much as you were pumping the golden rays. It was hard to believe the football gods allowed it to go our way – so much fear when we were sputtering on offense up 6 points late in the 4th. Glad to see it go our way.
And the refs were crazy in that game. I didn’t actually count, but I felt it was something like 4 atrocious calls against us, plus 2 atrocious calls against them. Something similar in non-calls (though of course I’m looking at it with Golden Bear eyes). So we were minus 2. Some of them were big, drive killing calls. So many ref issues this year – really hurts the fan experience.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
I thought the refs were awful, too. I was beginning to wonder why each QB didn’t just throw long on each down because they could almost be guaranteed to get a pi call.
Friday's Defense
Great points and great post. I think the point about the pass defense was especially spot on. There were times when it felt like they were earning a 0 rating, but the INT in the 2nd quarter, and the way they tightened up in the 2nd half definitely salvaged the night.
The run defense is a little harder to gauge. While the stats don’t sound great (200+ yards and over 6 YPC), most of that came on 5 runs of 20+ (one of which ended in the key 4th quarter fumble). Watching the game, it felt like the run defense did fairly well overall. It seemed for the most part the run D held them on 1st down, and most of the time they were dealing with 2nd and even 3rd and longs (which would turn into first downs on long 3rd/4th down pass plays…ugh). I found it extra interesting that Cal was running 5 DBs basically all night (side effect of LB injuries and/or response to Osweiller?), and ASU spent most of the 1st quarter running the ball to middling success.
Finally, I’d also like to toast Tavecchio’s efforts Friday night. When Tedford was opting for field goals late in the 4th quarter, the horror of last year’s Arizona game weighed heavily on the brain. His perfect kicks were the difference this year. Go Bears!
If we would have scored a TD instead on at least one of those drives...
The game wouldn’t have hinged on him – but it did. And thank God he came through, but I was terrified. I wouldn’t expect any kicker since Doug Brien to hit all 4 of those on the road, and some of them were high pressure situations. We shouldn’t have put it all on his leg.
However – kickoffs were not as amazing. Giorgio has won games and lost games for us, and it’s awesome he won this one.
But I will take a guy who can consistently hit long and/or high kickoffs that are kept behind the 25 yard line by average Special Teams coverage units, along with great consistency on field goals under 35 yards. And 98% PATs. That’s all I ask. I’m tired of excitement on special teams when we kick!
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 28, 2011 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
RB's & Bigelow
2012 looks bright with the RB’s. My only issue is why Bigelow was not Redshirted???
I pre-game @ Barclays Pub
In case Deboskie and/or Yarnway were not ready to go?
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 28, 2011 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
IMO Bigelow wasn't redshirted in case of injury
Or CJA didn’t work out.
If CJA is able to get enrolled on time and participate in spring practice I believe Bigelow is redshirted.
by SDBear on Nov 28, 2011 2:54 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
What's wrong with Williams?
He was picked on constantly by Mannion (and was beat a few times) and by Osweiler (and was beat quite often).
Our best CB isn’t playing as such.
I wonder if he’s getting frustrated. For one the refs seem to pick on him almost exclusively. That last PI where Williams was a mile away from the defender was outright pathetic.
In other words, Go Bears!
Is it just me or...
does anyone else thing that the caption on that AP photo is sort of off…
3 days ago: California defensive back Josh Hill (23) celebrates his interception with teammate Steve Williams (1) against Arizona State during the second half of an NCAA college football game Saturday, Nov. 26, 2011, in Temp, Ariz. (AP Photo/Matt York)

by 
























































