Cal Football Can't Overcome Turnovers and the Texas Longhorns Defense, Lose the Holiday Bowl 21-10
by Kodiak on Dec 29, 2011 3:00 AM PST
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintMuch was made in the days leading up to the game about how Cal and Texas were almost mirror images of each other.
Those comparisons proved to be prophetic during the 1st half where the two teams appeared to be taking turns trying to one-up the other with giving the game away.
After Cal started strong by stuffing the Texas offense, they appeared to make a horrible mistake when Marvin Jones attempted to field a bouncing punt which was subsequently recovered by the Longhorns.
But for some strange reason, the refs were asleep at the wheel and ruled that Texas had illegally touched the ball prior to the scrum. Cal ball...really?
The Bears then rode a mix of runs and Maynard's clutch passing down the field. Their drive stalled in the red zone, however, when a well-thrown slant route was deflected by Texas frosh-phenom Quandre Diggs.
Despite an illegal formation that negated a made kick and moved it back to 47 yards, Giorgio Tavecchio was unfazed and gave the Bears a 3-0 lead.
And that's when the game got more than a little sloppy. A Maynard interception on an ill-advised 3rd and long pass gave Texas all the momentum it needed to go 3 and out in style. Then, a fumbled exchange on the zone-read between CJ Anderson and Zach Maynard was turned into a missed 37-yard field goal by their 80+% kicker.
The next Cal drive was killed by a low snap that created 3rd and forever. Then, Texas executed a brilliant fake punt conversion on 4th down...only to have the play called back due to illegal formation.
"A beautiful game" this wasn't. With seven minutes and change to go, it was still just a 3-0 Cal advantage. Bear fans everywhere were holding their breath. Surely Texas wouldn't continue to struggle? And they didn't. Although the Bear defenders continued to shut down the run, Texas dialed up back-to-back mis-direction plays. First, it was a play-action lob to their wide-open TE to get them in business at the goal line. Then, a throw-back pass to their QB from Shipley resulted in a walk-in touchdown. Just like that, it was 7-3 Texas.
How would the Bears respond? Could Tedford, Maynard, and company find an answer to the Longhorn's speed on defense? Unfortunately, a tough run back by Mike Manuel to the 42 yard line was wasted with a 3 and out.
Texas squandered another opportunity of its own by negating a 3rd down conversion on a quarterback keeper with a holding call.
With three minutes to play late in the 1st half, the Cal offense went back to work. And promptly moved backwards with a false start. But a 10 yard run by Isi Sofele followed by a PI call drawn by Keenan Allen gave the Bears a little momentum. Unfortunately, poor clock management and another botched snap doomed this drive to triage and sent the teams stumbling into the locker room, 7-3 Texas.
Wrap your head around this stat: At half, both teams had combined for 10 total rushing yards on 29 carries. With penalties, turnovers, botched snaps, and overall sloppiness setting the bar lower than low, the 2nd half had to be better...right?
The Bears received the opening kickoff and promptly put themselves in long yardage with a hold on 1st down. But then Maynard dialed up his inner Honey Badger and converted fourc consecutive third down completions to Keenan Allen. A well-timed sweep play with great blocking out front allowed Sofele to finally outflank the stout Texas run D and he managed to dive his way for the go-ahead score. 10-7, Bears!
Texas struck back quickly, however, gashing the Bears with several effective runs before dialing up the play-action deep ball to their speedster Goodwin. What had previously looked to be defensive trench warfare was now a barn-burner at 14-10, Longhorns.
Cal looked to counter-punch, using consecutive passes to Jones to move steadily down the field. But then a Sofele run turned disastrous as Isi had the ball stripped in the backfield and the ensuing recovery went to Texas.
Once again, the Bear defense stepped up and salvaged momentum with consecutive three and outs, including driving the Longhorns back to their own goal line with a near-safety sack by Trevor Guyton.
After a great return by Jones, it looked like Cal was in business with the ball on the Texas 32. But a personal foul on Anthony Miller knocked the Bears out of field goal range and set up a backside blitz on 3rd and 27 that resulted in another Maynard fumble.
This time, Texas used the turnover to good advantage using an end-around by Goodwin to run all the way to 1st and goal. Two plays later, converted fullback Cody Johnson lumbered in to make it 21-10 Longhorns.
By now, the Texas defense could smell blood in the water. Their relentless pressure confused our Oline and clearly started to rattle Maynard. It looked bad as they rung up their sixth sack with just minutes to play. When they punched the ball away from Jones for the 5th Cal turnover of the game, it was all she wrote. Cal had their chance to mess with Texas and fell far short, 21-10.
Give all credit to the Texas Longhorns defense. They were fast, nasty, aggressive, and absolutely swarmed the ball. It would have taken a Cal offense firing on all cylinders to make this one a contest. Instead, we had the equivalent of a burning jalopy on cinder blocks. Too many blown opportunities with penalties, botched snaps, missed blocks, and gut-wrenching turnovers.
It was another fine effort by the defense that went to waste. One could quibble over a few blown coverages, particularly on trick plays, but make no mistake; the Bear defenders more than held their own and played well enough for this to be a winnable game.
Sadly enough, this disappointing performance leaves more questions than answers headed into the long off-season. With so much time to prepare, why was the execution so sloppy? Is the shotgun snap really such an impossible task to master? Will there be another quarterback competition?
We'd be remiss without a final tip of the cap to so many great senior players. No more Anger smashes or Tavecchio torso-twists. We've seen the last of Jones tiptoeing the sidelines, or Guyton bursting into the backfield. Kendricks won't be flying around the field next year, and Holt won't be in the thick of things exactly when we need him. After rehabbing from countless injuries, Michael Calvin will finally be moving on.
In his words:
Mike_Calvin11 Michael CalvinThank you to you all for the years of support. It's been a pleasure playing for the Golden Bears. I love you all. Signing out. Mike Calvin
There are too many others to list here, but they will be missed. Gentlemen, thanks for representing our school, and best of luck to all of you in the future.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but Cal fans just need to shake this one off and look ahead to The Return to Memorial. We'll get our shot at Texas again in a few years. Clearly, we have to get a whole lot better between then and now.
Is anyone else ready for spring ball?
Go Bears!
181 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Most accurate assessment of the game I've seen.
It wasn’t pretty at all was it? I really did enjoy the pre-game banter with all of you. It’s so refreshing to find intelligent, articulate, enthusiastic fans. Kudos to the Cal alums and fan base. Let’s do this again?
If a man is alone in the woods and he speaks, if no one hears him,,is he still wrong?
*and/or whenever the Pac-24 is formed.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
oh please pretty please oh pretty pretty please,,,,
If a man is alone in the woods and he speaks, if no one hears him,,is he still wrong?
Didn't we just "from" a Pac-24 with the new scheduling deal with the Big (10+2)?
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Dec 29, 2011 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
reply fail...
…should have “form” a Pac-24…
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Dec 29, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
we’re real lookers, too!
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
You know, as bad as the turnovers were, I honestly don’t see them as the cause of our loss.
The cause is much simpler than that. Texas was just better. Their defense drank our OL’s milkshake on almost every play. MSG was absolutely PWNED the entire game. Maynard was getting abused and had to constantly run for his life. There were almost no running lanes, and the receivers were very well covered on almost each pass.
That’s not to say the turnovers didn’t matter, but something tells me that even without them, the Texas D would have ended up stopping us.
On the other hand, as strong as our front seven were, our DBs had an absolutely pukeriffic game. I mean, they flat out were clowned by the Texas receivers, even on plays that didn’t work for the horns. Every time they threw the ball, their receivers were behind our guys. Our secondary was just flat out stink.
Anyway, big credit to the horns, they were better.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
I agree Texas played better....
…..but they had the chance to because we kept giving them the FREAKIN’ BALL !!!!!!! You can’t score if you don’t have the ball (for the most part….), so I think the turnovers were monumentally huge. HUGE.
Crap. Someone wake me up when Dick Solo is back on the court.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I have to disagree about the turnovers
We had 14 drives.
Two of the drives resulted in points.
Five ended in turnovers.
The remaining seven drives: 28 plays, 52 total yards
Explain to me again how those turnovers would have changed things?
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Well, maybe not for the better.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Two of the drives resulted in points.
this is the answer to your question.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
o rly
The remaining seven drives: 28 plays, 52 total yards
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I feel like his comment is saying “Except for the drives we scored, we couldn’t score at all.” To be fair, that s true; but why take out the drives we scored?
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
So you’re going the 2/9 success rate angle?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
That, in combination with keeping the D off the field and letting them rest longer — it looked like they got tired and/or were mentally not as sharp towards the end of the game.
To be fair, 10 points over 9 non-turnover drives isn’t impressive. Hmm, that’s 1.11 points per drive, without the 5 turnovers maybe we would’ve scored 6 more points, and that doesn’t really change the outcome either.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
My point was that, aside from those two drives, we were completely, utterly, hopelessly, uniformly, unequivocally impotent on offense.
I saw absolutely no reason to believe that not turning the ball over would have resulted in a sudden and unexpected efficiency that was absent from almost all the rest of our possessions.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Yeah, I agree we looked horrible on offense for most of that. I’m just sensitive to people cherry picking data, since the other two scoring drives DID happen. Granted, only the first drive of the second half did look good, and even then it took some long 3rd down plays.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
I didn’t mean to cherry pick data or to discount the two scoring drives. I really wanted to highlight the fact that our offense was incapable of moving the ball (7 drives, 52 yards) and that the two scoring drives were more anomalies than not.
Given such poor offensive performance, the five turnovers likely wouldn’t have changed much at all.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Their offense was just as bad as our offense. The only difference was, they were gifted 5 turnovers and we weren’t.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
You are absolutely correct. And one should not build offensive performance ratios that omit the turnovers. Those are unsuccessful drives. Worse than punts. We did look pretty good on both opening drives though.
by Old Blue 1975 on Dec 29, 2011 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Their offense was also stifled. They scored 14 points off the turnovers. We lost by 11. THAT’S how those turnovers changed things.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
I mean, only 1 of their TDs was a real offensive drive where they marched down the field. That was it.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
I think Maynard had like another 3 passes nearly picked, and he somehow threw into quadruple coverage at least once.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Quandre Diggs was clearly their best DB, head and shoulders above the others. I don’t know why we kept throwing to his side of the field.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
cuz he was open!
"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 Dec 29, 2011 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually the other CB, Byndom, is better but never gets thrown at
As is Vacarro, the S/CB who typically covers the slot and will likely be a Thorpe candidate next year if he returns.
Diggs has been the one picked on all year and has acquitted himself nicely in every game except OU and Baylor.
by Horncasting on Dec 29, 2011 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure I agree that the D played very well; we gave up 21 points to what was considered a 1 dimensional offense. The first TD drive in particular featured overaggressivenes/overpursuit type of recklessness that has plagued us in other losses. The game clinching TD drive needed a major stop, holding them to a FG attempt, and instead we give up a TD on 2 running plays. We were very close to giving up a 99 yard passing TD on 3rd and long. And that wasn’t the only time the secondary got burnt like toast.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
The run D was decent, but I agree about the pass D. We didn’t necessarily give up a ton of yards, but DBs were constantly out of position because they bit on the run/playaction. With a front seven as solid as ours, it’s bizarre that our DBs are so focused on stopping the run.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
California Golden Blogs
[our] DBs were constantly out of position because they bit on the run/playaction.
This.
It absolutely amazed me how every Texas pass had their receivers so far behind our guys.
It was very troubling.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
What’s most frustrating about this is that it has been happening all year. From Polk’s 70 yard TD reception to Toilolo’s Big Game TD to last night, it’s as if the secondary’s discipline has not improved at all this year.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
California Golden Blogs
Galas and the lost art of the shotgun snap...
Is there any possibility of a replacement next year?
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
Brazinski was a highly touted recruit…
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Paging Cali49a to the white courtesy phone please…
(he seems to be in the know on these things)
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Not as knowledgeable as Cali49a, but Brazinski had moved to guard over the past few games.
It was Adcock (highly rated linemen from HS) who took snaps as backup center when Galas was briefly injured.
If Galas can’t improve his snapping, I hope we promote Adcock and shift Galas over to guard to replace Cheadle.
Old Toothwrangler
I wonder if they tried the Brazinksi at centre, Galas at guard experience?
Anyone know how many times Galas was penalized per game?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Automated phone message:
“Thank you for calling the Pac-12 Officiat Rules Center for Excellence. If you’re Dominic Galas, press 1 for a detailed explanation on what can and cannot be done on the football field. If you’re a skill player on Cal’s offense, please press 2 for a detailed explanation on legal formations and motions. All other callers, please press 3.”
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
^^^lol needs special Vontaze Burfict direct line & emergency #, and an option for ASU.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
hahaha, Pac 12 issues a special pager for Vontaze.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
"Thank you for calling the Pac-12 Officiat Rules Center for Excellence. If you’re Dominic Galas, press 1 for a detailed explanation on what can and cannot be done on the football field. If you’re a skill player on Cal’s offense, please press 2 for a detailed explanation on legal formations and motions. All other callers, please press 3."
Dude, way off. Galas would have immediately been put on Hold.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Just one of the reasons I love Cal fans,,,you're so freakin clever.
If a man is alone in the woods and he speaks, if no one hears him,,is he still wrong?
if only our football team’s success matched our wit.. :\
by the federer express on Dec 29, 2011 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
Gallows humor is our specialty. This situation is really just right in our wheelhouse.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Not positive, but I thought Braz was at center during the spring and was really struggling with his snaps.
That might be why they made the change.
Old Toothwrangler
I'm not particularly optimistic about next year
I think the team looks an awful lot like it did going into this year, with possibly a slightly better defense. However, Memorial will be open for business, and that’s a great, great thing. So I’m choosing to focus on that.
Go Bears.
For the sake of the Bears, I should probably stop attending Cal games
In the last three games I have attended, the Bears piled up 13 turnovers.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
California Golden Blogs
THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT.
Of course, every game I’ve attended starting in 2003 have been Cal wins, so I’m also at fault for not attending this game.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Dec 29, 2011 8:40 AM PST up reply actions
No, it's my fault
Cal has lost every game I have been to where they have been designated the “road” team (2010: Nevada, USC – 2011: UW, Ucla, furd, and Holiday Bowl)
www.LosAngelesRams.org
CALIFORNIA ANGELS . . . ANAHEIM DUCKS . . . CALIFORNIA GOLDEN BEARS
1920 • 1921 • 1922 • 1923 • 1937 • 1947 • 1951 • 1957 • 1959 • 2002 • 2007
by AndyHogan14 on Dec 29, 2011 9:04 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
This was more of a home game for us than for Texas.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
wellll there were more Texas fans than CAL fans, especially in the forth quarter ;^)
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
was that before or after 2 Isis Sofele runs down 11 with 6 minutes to go?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
That was it for me. Walked out just after that. No, wait, it was after the 5th turnover.
by Anchorsteam Bear on Dec 29, 2011 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
don't remember any sofele run that long in forth, more like after the second punt
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
Oh they weren’t long it all…Cal fans were angling for a quick strike with, I dunno, one of our 2 awesome WR’s and instead we get the unsurprisingly ineffective runs on back to back downs. The football equivalent of the white flag, in my opinion.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Not even close to true. There were far more Cal fans than Texas fans. I’d say it was at least 60-40 Cal fans. By the late 4th quarter it was close to even.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
Point being, the Cal contingent showed up. I think we were way louder as well, but that’s hard to say for sure because you always hear the side you’re sitting in louder.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
peeps on the texts watching game said texas was louder on TV...
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
You see, we have many Asians who, quite unfortunately, don’t possess the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase. Therefore, if they knock a few back, a buildup of acetaldehyde can form which is quite terrible for exposed amino groups and all other types of nucleophiles. I personally prefer enolates, but whatevs. Therefore, a medication of sorts may or may not involve medical marijuana, which tends to not make us wild n crazy but extremely hungry and thirsty.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
just pop a TUMS, that is what my texas asian peeps do. gets rid of that red asian face thang...
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
That may be because the LHN tended to only show Texas fans, band, sidelines, highlights, etc.
Seriously, that was the absolute most lopsided, biased TV coverage I’ve ever seen. Not the announcers, the televised images. I mean, watching the game you wouldn’t even know that Cal brought fans or the band or even had a full team suited up on the sideline.
Horrible.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Texas was home tean, thus the camera crews were on our sideline...
they even placed the Holiday Bowl trophy behind the Texas sideline around the end of the 2nd quarter.
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
alright peeps... gotta get off this horridle hotel computer and catch a plane back home....
great game CAL. if not so many fumbles, would have been much closer. Next year…
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
Indeed.
Next year…
2015. I’ve got my calender circled. We’re coming for you in Austin.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
What’s our Qualcomm record? 1-4 in the Tedford era? Have we ever played SDSU there before?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Yes, mid-1990s.
Gilby era teams. Worst. Experience. Ever.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Dec 29, 2011 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
San Diego needs a new football stadium!
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
That's why there's talk of the Chargers coming back to their ancestral LA home...
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Dec 29, 2011 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
I believe Tedford is now 1-3 in San Diego with losses to TTU, Utah, and now Texas.
by SDBear on Dec 29, 2011 10:22 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
…and yet I don’t think that’s really meaningful in any way.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
True . . .
but we were still designated the away team. I didn’t count the Fresno State game because we were the “home” team despite the large Fresno contingent.
www.LosAngelesRams.org
CALIFORNIA ANGELS . . . ANAHEIM DUCKS . . . CALIFORNIA GOLDEN BEARS
1920 • 1921 • 1922 • 1923 • 1937 • 1947 • 1951 • 1957 • 1959 • 2002 • 2007
by AndyHogan14 on Dec 29, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
Being designated the away team is meaningless. The only thing it affects is which sideline you’re on and whether you wear a white jersey.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 30, 2011 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
`
solution: move out of Socal so you don’t have to go to the Socal games anymore…
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
Solution: move to Modoc county where you not only can’t get to a game, but you can’t watch, listen, or read about it either.
"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 Dec 29, 2011 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
A negative whirlwind is commencing.
Similar feeling to the fUCLA disaster.
I wish to point out the positive.
The weather was FANTASTIC!
by Anchorsteam Bear on Dec 29, 2011 9:01 AM PST reply actions
I think the difference between the Uclol disaste and this was that last night Texas just beat us soundly, while at the Rose Bowl we just didn’t come to play.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Kodiak offered an excellent executive summary at the end of his piece
Too many blown opportunities with penalties, botched snaps, missed blocks, and gut-wrenching turnovers.
It was another fine effort by the defense that went to waste. One could quibble over a few blown coverages, particularly on trick plays, but make no mistake; the Bear defenders more than held their own and played well enough for this to be a winnable game.
Frustration once again. Texas was the better team…..I think. Wish I knew for sure.
by Anchorsteam Bear on Dec 29, 2011 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Agree, as a Texas Alum, our perspective is Cal came to San Diego ready to play.
We were very lucky to have won last night. Your team came expecting to see Colt McCoy, who has difficulty throwing anything longer than 20 yards (which is why your secondary was so close to the LOS….in addition Ash is our running QB). We were as surprised as your secondary when Ash started completing passes, as he has been an interception machine all season.
That being said your D was excellent in slowing down our very good running game…..but our D, which is number 1 in the Big 12, was just too powerful for your O.
Your team should be better next year and we will meet again in a few years. You are an enjoyable group to interact with and we look forward to the next time.
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
by MeatchickenHorn on Dec 29, 2011 9:21 AM PST up reply actions
No fair, Colt received clearance to play?
That would have really caused a ruckus!
by mathghamhain on Dec 29, 2011 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry...Case not Colt..we get confused sometimes with all these legacys...Anyway.....
The Big 12 was very unusual this year with Okla State, Baylor, Kansas State and Oklahoma all flirting with Top 10 rankings during the season. This coupled with Texas having to start a vast # of freshmen and sophomores with a new defense and offense, caused our 5 losses. We will have 17 starters back next year and some real superstars will be gone from the competition (RGlll, Brandon Weeden, Blackmon, Broyles etc) so we are very optimistic.
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
by MeatchickenHorn on Dec 29, 2011 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
CGB Explosion
I was laughing to myself on the thought of Colt McCoy coming under center at the start of the game, with the ESPN announcer citing some obsure NCAA rule allowing him to play followed by a reference that such rule would not allow Aaron Rodgers to play, etc.
by mathghamhain on Dec 29, 2011 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
We're Cal fans
Are we ever optimistic about anything?
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
California Golden Blogs
Apparently you're not to optimistic....the D O O M comments that repeatedly popped up were hilarious to us
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
by MeatchickenHorn on Dec 29, 2011 9:31 AM PST up reply actions
They have reason to be.....
…….On our first drive we used basic, quick-hitting plays to get into the red zone and kick the field goal. On the second drive, Cal tried a trick play and then Maynard took a little time to do a fake (that little time being time he actually needed not to get sacked. Another example of Tedford outsmarting himself on offense. Furthermore….ONE called run for Maynard? Really? And no zone reads? Absolutely ridiculous. Against the Texas defense we needed to make them worry about Maynard running. By the second half they weren’t worrying about it anymore. Then we tried it, it worked for 10 yards, and then never tried it again. Very head-scratching.
Our defense played very well. The offense should have been able to put up 22 points easily with no turnovers.
Oh, and to the point...
…..before I got off on my rant, other than strategic botch-ups and the turnovers, the physicality of both teams was very similar. Since Texas always has top talent, there IS reason to be optimistic.
And no zone reads?
I thought the botched handoff for fumble was a zone read.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
Oh, right...
…..well considering that he fumbled I forgot on what kind of play it was. Better stop doing that in the future, then, eh? :)
Actually, it looked to me like they ran zone read many times, but after that one fumble by Maynard on the exchange, where it looked like Maynard tried to pull the ball back for a keeper but pulled it back WAY too late, Maynard decided not to try pulling it back anymore. There were many plays where he could have kept it and run around to the left for at least 5 yards but he handed it off to the RB.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 30, 2011 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Well, actually Maynard did run it a few times after that, so it’s not like he stopped 100%, but it seemed like he was less inclined to pull the ball back after screwing it up and causing a fumble.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 30, 2011 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Oline lost the game for us, period. tOther than turnovers, play calling.
There has already been great and simple analysis of why our Bears lost this game. I agree with the great majority of what has been said. My favorite post was when someone showed that Cal D was better than Texas O, but Texas D was WAY better than Cal O.
Our Oline was horrendous. I can’t believe that Texas has a better D line than USC, but man, we could not stop them at all. The turnovers weren’t all on the oline, but even with the turnovers, we were in this game because of our D. If we could have sustained a few more drives, we could have won. And this was on the Oline.
For next year, I do not have higher hopes. Our Oline is not studly. I do feel bummed, and am really not satisfied being a middle of the Pac12 team that loses to every single team that has a winning record…
being a middle of the Pac12 team that loses to every single team that has a winning record…
Ouch! Kinda the heart of the matter.
by Anchorsteam Bear on Dec 29, 2011 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
satisfied being a middle of the Pac12 team
Neither am I, but most of the Cal fans on this board seem to be very comfortable with ‘middle of the pac’. At least they are unwilling to make the changes necessary to take the next step.
by Old Blue 1975 on Dec 29, 2011 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
Dude, I’m sorry, but that’s straight up bullshit. Nobody is satisfied with a “middle of the pac” team, so you are arguing against a total strawman. We were a freaking 5-7 team last year. You just don’t go from 5 wins to 10 wins overnight. That’s just not realistic. We want to see progress, and I think we’re making it. If the progress stalls out, then fine, make some changes. I was expecting 7-8 wins this year, and that’s what we got. I want to see 8 or 9 wins next year, and I think we have a good shot at that. I think the arc of the program is trending in a positive direction. We’re not where we want to be yet, but things are looking up, long term. Our recruiting classes have been getting better, we have a newly renovated stadium that we are coming home to, we have new facilities, and I expect us to continue improving.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 30, 2011 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
CAL fins (and probably Tedford) wanted revenge on Mack, but...
looks like Mack got revenge on Tedford. Harsin went all Tedford ala Oregon 2000 Holiday Bowl, and receiver to QB for TD.
Revenge is sweet.
San Diego was beautiful, people were great and CAL fans were gracious and pleasant. it was a great game to go to.
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:00 AM PST reply actions
Mack got revenge on Tedford for… what, exactly?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
My Austinese-to-English translator tells me that this pertains to when Tedford was an assistant coach at Oregon in 2000, and there was a trickeration play where the receiver threw a TD pass to the QB.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Dec 29, 2011 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
in 2000 holiday bowl, Tedford was Oregon's OC. he called the same receiver to QB play with Joey Harrington.
thus, Tedford now at CAL, Texas does same play to get go ahead score..
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
I thought it was because we didn’t recruit Gale Gilbert’s kid to come to Cal.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Dec 29, 2011 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
LOL that was a blessing...
Everyone hates Texas, even though every college team has a player from Texas.
by hornyaustinite on Dec 29, 2011 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
They showed it on ESPN this morning. More tasty cheese.
by Anchorsteam Bear on Dec 29, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
Ahhh
Well, I’m sure Mack is really bitter about that 2000 Holiday Bowl against Oregon. I’m sure our bitterness towards Mack pales in comparison.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2011 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
Actually King Mack's revenge was for you even questioning his lobbying in 04...that is just not done.
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
by MeatchickenHorn on Dec 29, 2011 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Bah....
……the point of the play was to get the ball into the hands of someone who the Texas staff actually thought might complete a crucial pass. Ash hadn’t really shown that yet. It also showed respect for the Cal defense more than anything else.
Tough game and loss but in the end it's just an exhibition game
What is important is we got those extra practice days and hopefully they will pay off next season when we make a run at the P12N.
Maynard still concerns me, I know he had a lot of pressure but he threw three passes that Texas defenders should have intercepted.
On the bright side, I thought our KO return team did a great job last night in the return game and giving us good field position.
Quick question for fellow Cal fans, did Wilkerson play last night? I don’t seem to remember seeing him on the field.
by SDBear on Dec 29, 2011 10:34 AM PST via mobile reply actions
What I don't get
is it seems Texas came into the game saying, “we gonna have trouble moving the ball against Cal so let’s creative on our playcalling”. Tedford had to know we would have trouble moving the ball also so why didn’t he get creative?
I’m sure Tedford didn’t quite expect our o O-line to get manhandled and the turnovers were killer but the offensive gameplan did not optimize our chances of winning
We tried a few end arounds with Allen
One worked well, the other went for a loss.
I agree that Mack and Texas were a bit more aggressive on offense than Cal. They ran more trick plays or plays with misdirection, they ran a fake punt and they also went for it on 4th down in their own territory.
by SDBear on Dec 29, 2011 10:49 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
There was a 4th down, I believe in the 2nd quarter, where I fully believe we should have gone for it. If there’s ever a time to roll the dice a little, it’s in a bowl game where you have nothing to lose.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 30, 2011 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t think trickeration would have worked, since most trick plays require more time to execute.
The Texas d-line was getting penetration just rushing 3. They sacked Maynard rushing just 4 into max protect. They set up camp in our backfield all game long. And it isn’t even like they had to blitz. When they did blitz, it was even uglier.
The only thing that I thought might have worked would have been more quick hitters to the A gap.
by slaphancock on Dec 29, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
Wake up Cal Fans
Come on man. Let’s get real here.
Texas was 7-5 because they are just okay. Vince Young graduated. They are now just okay, far from world-beaters. Their defense is good, not the 1984 Chicago Bears.
Cal was BAD last night. That was pathetic, horrible. There are no excuses.They couldn’t get lined up and had to squander timeouts; a disorganized mess. The offensive line was used by Texas. The hated Mack Brown outcoached Tedford. Maynard is not a Pac 12 quality quarterback. (Cal hasn’t had one for a while, despite the arguments that can be made for a healthy Longshore.) They don’t protect the ball. The wide-outs have awesome skills but they have trouble getting the ball from Maynard, ergo the handoffs to them. Et cetera and so forth.
Cal’s defense played well. Particularly given the field position the inherited from continued turnovers. But they have been far from awesome this season. Do the numbers 33, 31, 43, 30, 31, 31, 47 ring a bell? They may have been good half the time, but that’s simply not enough to take the next step.
Cal’s special teams were okay. But if not for big breaks on a muffed punt return and a Texas fake punt, their grade would not be good. I guess Anger is being groomed for a career in Aussie Rules, not the NFL. Giorgio “False Start” Tavecchio has developed into a legit kicker, maybe the strongest part of the team.
This is NOT a one-time occurrence or an aberration. It has all become a trend. Somedays good, somedays bad, overall mediocre. I was at the UCLA game this year … unfortunately … and last night was like I never left. Pathetic really. (You know it’s bad when you are getting whupped by UCLA.) We muddle along with Jeff Tedford and think that a re-modeled stadium is going to magically change things. It is not. Coaches change things, not stadia. Successful teams remodel to enlarge their stadiums, not to down-size.
Cal Fan, Tedford appears to be Charles Manson to you Squeaky Fromms. Really. Either he as not recruited true 5-star players, or he has not coached them up. One or the other. Other schools have Freshmen and Sophomores at QB who can perform. Why are we stuck with Maynard? The answer is Jeff Tedford. Why do we see illegal formation penalties and timeouts wasted to figure out what to do 13 weeks into the season? The answer lies with Jeff Tedford (and his 5 foot by 3 foot playcard).
This loss is not Maynard’s fault (he should not be playing), it is not the D’s fault, it is not the special team’s fault. It likes with the head coach. Tedford has had his run. The trend was up, way up, for the first half of his tenure, now the trend is DOWN. Some Cal fans claim we are “just a few players away”. Maybe so, but if so we’ve been that way for 5 years. We are NOT just a few players way from Oregon, $tanfurd, $C, etc. I wish we were, but sorry, we aren’t.
The rest of the Pac 12 is trying to get better. No one can say that the new guys at Wassu, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, will get it done for sure, but the schools are living in the real world and trying to get better. Cal and OSU seem to be satisfied with mediocrity. Maybe the administration is okay with riding Oregon’s and $C’s coat tails to big BCS payouts. But I’m not. I don’t want to seem unreasonable, so I’ll trade you two entries in the period table of the elements for one Rose Bowl victory before I die. Just one. It’s time for Tedford to go back to being an offensive coordinator. We need a new head coach if we are ever to take the next step.
I say all this not to hate on Cal, but because I want us to be better (much better) than mediocre. Let’s get real and access where we really are over the last two seasons. Then look for real answers, not just the latest 5-star recruits who will save us.
by Old Blue 1975 on Dec 29, 2011 11:40 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I’m gonna put on my best diplomatic veneer here and say that I think you’re not really being reasonable, and to just chill for a couple weeks to let things sink into perspective. Suffice to say we’re all frustrated right now, but try and see the bigger picture and focus on the positives, of which, believe it or not, there are many. Many many many.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I was there for the Holmoe era it was disaster
Having said that I am starting to tire of the “We were nothing before Tedford” argument. It’s like accepting a medicore husband because the last one was beating the hell out of you.
Old Blue wasn’t very diplomatic but I think his overall point is correct. We are a medicore program and at this point there is ZERO empircal evidence to suggest Tedford will ever turn it around.
Generally, hyperbole never helps one’s argument and is by definition not reasonable. For example, suggesting that there is ‘zero’ empirical evidence that Cal can be beyond a mediocre program is overstating the case by far.
FUTBALL IZ SRS BUSINESS GUYZ // ONLY HAVE FUN WHEN ROZ BWL
--Thoroughbred
Also, pursuant to his post, Cal played “BAD, pathetic horrible” but the defense played “good.” Also the fact that some days we play “good” “bad” or “mediocre” is a “trend,” somehow. Also, the administration is satisfied with mediocrity, along with OSU, which explains why we just spent like eight trillion dollars building a gigantic student athlete center and completely gutting/renovating the stadium.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Hyperbole?
Cal Fan, Tedford appears to be Charles Manson to you Squeaky Fromms.
What hyperbole?
CGB: The Strangest Blog
Amen, brother ...
We were nothing before Tedford
You’re right. That is getting very old. We were not bad with Mike White (should have been in the Rose Bowl in 75 and delivered the worst Big Game Beat down in history with Joe Roth, right up until Jimmy H gave it to us even worse last season.). We were damn good with Bruce Synder, just could not get by some awesome Fuskie teams. It has been done before Tedford and it can be done after Tedford. Unfortunately most recent evidence seems to indicate it can’t be done WITH Tedford.
by Old Blue 1975 on Dec 29, 2011 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, 1975 is the fifth worst beat-down by Cal of Stanfurd. The top four are:
1918: California 67, Stanfurd 0
1920: California 38, Stanfurd 0
1921: California 42, Stanfurd 7
2004: California 41, Stanfurd 6
If you also count Stanfurd blowout of Cal in your “worst Big Game beat downs,” then 1975 ranks as number 8.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
What you choose to ignore is that after the departure of Mike White, Cal had two terrible coaches. And after the departure of Bruce Snyder, Cal had a terrible coach, a coach who damaged the program by leaving after one year, and the worst coach in Cal history. So, from Mike White and Jeff Tedford, Cal has had a total of eight head coaches. Each of those coaches was hired with the expectation that he would be the right guy to do big things for Cal football. As it turned out, only three of them were good. One of them left after a year. Four of them were terrible. Bringing in a new coach is not the automatic guarantee of success that you seem to think it is.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
I want to cut!
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Cal was also an average 7-5 team and Texas was favored last night
I understand you are upset about the loss but both teams played an even game with the difference being the TOs.
As far as Tedford is concerned, I think next season is going to be a very important season for him and this team. Beating the “Fire Tedford” drum after last nights game is a bit premature.
by SDBear on Dec 29, 2011 11:58 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I've been one to stick by Tedford
but more and more I’m seeing what you describe. Tedford is the problem.
I’m not a football expert and I can’t provide any deep analysis, but I have a sense of what a two-minute drill is supposed to look like and what I saw my team do before the half last night is not it.
We looked like the Keystone Cops tripping over each other, Maynard just standing, looking back and forth, clueless, as the agonizing seconds tick, tick, tick away. I think that kind of thing absolutely comes down to coaching.
I’m tired of faceplanting every single time we get in the big stage. It seems to me that Tedford just doesn’t know how to prepare this team to win.
by C98 on Dec 29, 2011 12:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Are you referring to the one he ran against Oregon State one evening in Berkeley?
by Old Blue 1975 on Dec 29, 2011 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
That was actually a very good 2-minute drill until the last play.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Dec 30, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
Wake up
Stopped reading there.
Do not use these words if you want me to take you seriously.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
by Swamphunter on Dec 29, 2011 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
But you really were asleep!
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
Only because I didn’t want to wake up with a hangover.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
by Swamphunter on Dec 29, 2011 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
I think “Pull your heads out of your asses” would’ve been more diplomatic. Also, there should have been more ALL CAPS and the repeated use of “clearly” in the text. Then I’d have been convinced.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Dec 29, 2011 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
Conflicted
I’ve been watching Cal football since before I was a Cal student — going on 30 years now. In that time, Jeff Tedford has been by far the best coach. (Although when I looked back at the history, there isn’t nearly as much breadth of other coaches to compare him to as I was expecting, because Tedford has been head coach for fully a third of my era).
But I’m not satisfied. I hate when a Cal team doesn’t seem prepared. When we make fundamental mistakes. When we don’t show up on the road. I can live with losses, but sometimes the ways we’ve lost in the last several years is hard to watch. And then there are the results. It goes without saying, I want to see Cal in a Rose Bowl before I die. Before. I. Die. The Tedford of the first five years gave us every opportunity to get there. But since about mid-07, it has not even been a realistic hope. Five seasons is not a short amount of time, guys. I only have maybe half a dozen of those left before I die (knock on wood).
So what I’m struggling with, is what my expectations are, what they should be, and what I can live with. Like I said, he’s the best Cal football coach I’ve ever seen. Even his second five years has been better than anything I’d seen previously. Plus, he runs a clean, solid program that represents my alma mater well. I’m proud of the players.
But with every year that goes by without even competing for a conference title, the evidence seems to be mounting. With every bad turnover, missed assignment, silly penalty, abysmal road game, I can’t help myself. I wonder if this is the guy who can lead us to Pasadena.
I don’t know what’s fair. This board seems to deal in extremes: either Tedford is mediocre and needs to be fired immediately, or the future is bright. I can’t get really comfortable with either. I wish I had clearer answers. I wish we’d go out there and play consistently well, like we did in ‘04, so I can just sit back and enjoy. I want that Tedford back. Right now I don’t want to be another one of those guys calling for the head of a guy who’s been terrific for the program, and who is a good man. At the same time, I’m looking at next year and I have no reason to believe it won’t be more of the same.
Sigh.
Basically....
….Tedford has lowered our expectations below what is acceptable, and there are very few seasons left for him to turn that around. And we hope he does it, because by all accounts he’s a good guy, and he stuck with us when he was hot property and he didn’t have to.
it is simply not OK to be so thoroughly and horribly mediocre in our own conference
Tedford cannot lower our expectations, only we can. And apparently we have. For all the great things that Tedford has done, that’s becoming history behind a string of mediocre seasons.
by Old Blue 1975 on Dec 29, 2011 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
Reef, I disagree that people on CGB tend to deal in extremes about Tedford. I think the overwhelming majority of people here are also conflicted. I certainly am, this being the first year when I have seriously wondered if it might not be time to start thinking about a new coach, but at the same time, believing that it is certainly possible that Tedford may have some outstanding seasons in the next couple of years, with the new stadium, new facilities, and the great recruiting classes we have been pulling in recently. I think most people here are still generally supportive of Tedford, but they are also willing to entertain criticisms of him, and even calls for a new coach, provided the comments are thoughtful and well-reasoned.
On the other hand, I think most of us have a lot of respect and appreciation for what Jeff Tedford has done for Cal — and he has done more for our football program and our sports programs in general than any coach since Andy Smith. So when people post vitriol, comparing Tedford to Charles Manson, claiming that this season is worse than anything in the Holmoe era, and similar nonsense, many people here will defend Tedford. Not because he is perfect, and not even necessarily because they don’t think Cal might need to find a new coach within the next few years, but because Jeff Tedford has earned the right to be treated with respect by Cal fans, even Cal fans who think it might be time to replace him.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
by CalBear81 on Dec 29, 2011 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Well, I didn’t mean it as an indictment of the board. To be honest, I spend way more time in basketball threads than over here. What I was immediately reacting to was OB1975’s rather aggressive post. This was immediately followed by a Spazzy response that included four, count’em four "many"s to describe the Tedford positives, and people piling onto the response. I find both of those extreme. “Wake up” and “let’s get real” is excessive, but so is saying there are many, many, many positives right now, when I might generously use the word “some” as an adjective.
But that’s neither here nor there. The more important question: is it reasonable to give Tedford a few more years based on performance that does not seem to have merited his salary and reputation for five-ish years? Has he earned that based on a terrific 02-06 that exceeded all reasonable expectation? Does he deserve that? Or, as ososdeoro suggests, are my standards too low, and will that just be more wasted time? I want to see signs of hope. I really do. But where others see many positives, I see a potential defense that could be the conference’s best, but an offense that will likely be P12 average or worse at every position except KA.
Thinking about it, maybe the way to look at it is this: the reality is Jeff Tedford is our head coach for 2012. That’s not going to change. So I might as well root for him to succeed, because this discussion is moot for at least another year. There will be a beautiful new stadium to enjoy, and that is something to be grateful for regardless of how next season goes. Hopefully some good young players will emerge on O. Hopefully the team exceeds expectations. If not, we’ll have given a good man a fair chance, and things can be revisited then. In the meantime, beat $C.
Couldn't have said it better myself
This is the position I am in with Tedford right now.
by SDBear on Dec 29, 2011 4:09 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
it is simply not OK to be so thoroughly and horribly mediocre in our own conference
It is a “what have you done for me lately world”. And the answer unfortunately, is not much.
by Old Blue 1975 on Dec 29, 2011 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
I was referring to positivity about our overall situation, not necessarily Tedford’s coaching.
Off the top of my head:
1. great young recruits
2. seven wins and a bowl game
3. Tosh and coach M
4. an awesome new stadium next year, and an awesome SAHPC just built
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with all that Spazzy and I don’t think enough people give JT credit for not only the new facilities, but the millions of dollars he has brought to the program…..at the same time, his salary (yes I know we only pay about 280k of it) is #2 or #3 in the conference when we are about #6 or so over the last 4-5 years on average… plus I don’t have the actual stats, but I think Cal is next to last in point differential in losses with Wash. St being last…so we’ve been blown out on average more than any team (old Pac 10 here) than every team but one. That is simply a fact and it is high time this stuff stopped being dismissed.
Kudos to all JT has done and is doing but accountability and a conference winning record is the least I’d expect from the #2 salary in the Pac 12….I think that is more than a fair statement.
It's a matter of perspective, I guess
I agree to an extent on the recruiting, and definitely on Tosh, although there’s some overlap there. I think the jury’s still out on Michalczik as an OC, but I tend to put his return into the net positive category. Obviously the facilities/stadium are terrific for Cal athletics as a whole (and I credit Tedford for a critical role in that effort). However, I have a hard time seeing seven wins and a bowl game (especially considering the performance in the bowl game) as particularly positive in the overall context of Cal football in the last decade. And as I mentioned, I’m kind of discouraged by the overall quality of play the last several seasons.
I’m pleased that the conversation has taken a more reasoned and rational turn. People are going to see thing differently; that’s the nature of sports. But it’s a much better community if we’re talking to each other rather than at each other.
My question to you is, what’s a reasonable expectation for next season? When I picture realistic scenarios, I have a hard time picturing any more than about 8-9 wins if things go well. Is our ceiling higher?
I’d say a reasonable “stretch” expectation for next year is 9 wins. 7-8 wins is more likely, but most importantly I want the losses we incur to not be so HERPDERPalicious. This year’s losses to USC, UCLA, and UT were just plain silly, while we looked semi decent vs. Oregon, UW, and Furd.
My overall point is simply that “there are positives and let’s focus on them.” I’m sure I skew way more positive than other people, but I just never really have bought into the “sky is falling” attitude when we have 7 wins.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 6:59 PM PST up reply actions
I think we see similar things
We just have different reactions to them.
For me, put simply, I want us to consistently play better. I can live with whatever record as long as I feel like the performance ever week is the best we’re capable of, and I haven’t felt that way lately.
Bowl practices
One difference between the two teams might be in the intensity of hitting during the bowl practices. Texas features a lot of hard hitting during practice. The down side is that there are more injuries but the up side is that it helps the defense polish their tackling and ball stripping skills and it helps the offense hone their ball security skills. That might be why Cal had more fumbles last night.
Generally in bowl games
The more prep you get, the more likely the more talented team will win. Just too much time to prepare for our limited offense, and Texas seemed to have every eventuality guarded.
by Avinash Kunnath on Dec 29, 2011 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Extra practice especially helps the well coached teams because they can study the opponent and figure out how to exploit weaknesses in that opponent (and how to protect their own weaknesses).
My focus was on the specific reasons why Texas did not fumble and why Cal fumbled so much (since the edge in fumbles was the single biggest reason that Texas won the game). I know that Texas had very physical bowl practices (which tends to improve tackling and ball security) and was wondering if Cal had less physical bowl practices. Many coaches have less physical practices because they don’t want to risk injuring their players in practice.
Top 5 recruiting classes every year...
……also helps the well coached teams. And even the so-so coached teams like Texas.
Force Majeure
I don’t see the connection between top 5 recruiting classes, fumbling, and physical bowl practices. Rather than treat fumbles (or the lack thereof) like a force majeure, I’d like to understand why Cal fumbled so much and Texas fumbled so little. My guess is that it is because Texas had very physical bowl practices and Cal didn’t. Does anybody know how physical the Cal bowl practices were?
I like the tenor of this conversation. It is entirely reasonable to be frustrated and disappointed by Cal football over the past several years. It is also reasonable to respect what Tedford has done for Cal football since taking over the program. If you ask me I thought we would play better with a different, quality coach, it would pain me to say “Yes”. Would I like to see Jeff given a graceful way to exit? Absolutely, and somewhat on his terms if next season is again like the past many.
My fundamental feeling is that it is simply not OK to be so thoroughly and horribly mediocre in our own conference, not to mention nationally.
Bottom line is, to me, we cannot win important games against even mediocre teams with winning records and have not won an important game in far, far, far too long. Beating Stanfurd with Vereen was the last time, and nothing else around it.
I support Sandy, and believe she will do what is best for Tedford and the Cal football family. And I suspect that will be goodbye to Jeff if we finish next year 7-5 and lose again to: U$C, Stanfurd, UCLA, Oregon, Washington and anyone out of conference who is decent.
The Pac12 has seriously upgraded coaching talent in the past few months, and I would not be at all surprised if Cal sinks further in the league next year.
Looking to the future, I know there are certainly a fair number of things to be positive about as a Cal fan, including the new facilities and the (hopefully) better recruiting classes to follow.
But, as we’ve seen from UCLA’s lack of success in recent seasons, great recruiting classes don’t mean much if the coaching isn’t there. This is certainly not to say that Tedford is comparable to Neuheisel or Dorrell. But, watching how woefully unprepared and flat the Cal offense looked (not to mention the turnovers and penalties) last night after having weeks and weeks to prepare, how can you not feel frustrated by the quality of play?
Yes, Texas’ defense is great, but Cal didn’t help itself with all the penalties and turnovers. And yes, Maynard was running for his life for most of the night. But even taking that away, he threw almost damn near 4 interceptions that game. Cal basically looked like it didn’t belong on the same field as our opponent.
We are probably going to get embarrassed against Ohio State next year. Our biggest win this season was against an average Utah team, and a struggling ASU squad. I don’t see how we can improve much next year at all, if any.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
Oline should live and sleep in the weight room and only leave to eat In n Out.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2011 7:01 PM PST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
Related FanShots on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
