Palms of Victory: Cal beats Colorado 36-33 (OT) in a memorable football game
by Ohio Bear on Sep 10, 2011 9:33 PM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
Print
Golden Bears vs Buffaloes coverage
Golden Bears vs Buffaloes boxscore
Okay, Cal fans: fess up. With Colorado leading Cal 33-30 in overtime and the Bears' offense facing 1st and 30 at the 35-yard line, how many of you were preparing for a not-so-happy ending? How many of you were thinking that the best we could hope for was Giorgio Tavecchio attempting a long field goal to send the game into a second overtime? Raise your hands.
(My hand goes up.)
Well, you know what? WE WERE WRONG. And why were we wrong? Because Cal had a play for 1st and 30. It was Zach Maynard throwing a strike to his brother, Keenan Allen, along the left sideline for a gain of 32 yards and a first down for Cal at the Colorado three-yard line. Two plays later, the same duo connected again -- this time, on a fade to the right corner of the end zone for the game-winning touchdown.
From 1st and 30 to celebrating on the Folsom Field turf three plays later. Wow. And whew. What a game. Exhale. Deep breath. Exhale. Cal is 2-0.
This game was certainly full of reasons why Cal should feel fortunate to escape beautiful Boulder, CO, with a win in this nonconference matchup of Pac-12 conference members. The Buffs did not let Cal reprise its 52-7 rout in Berkeley last season. And a big reason for that was the passing game -- specifically, the deadly combination of Colorado quarterback Tyler Hansen and wide receiver Paul Richardson. Hansen threw for 474 yards and three touchdowns -- two of them to Richardson, who caught touchdown passes of 66 and 78 yards on his way to an 11-catch, 284 yard performance. In all, Colorado amassed 582 yards of total offense to Cal's 370.
Colorado moved the ball well from the get go. On its first drive, Colorado kept the ball for 13 plays, driving 66 yards to the Cal 9-yard line before the Bears' defense left the Buffs empty handed with a stop on a 4th-and-1. But after a Maynard interception on the ensuing series, Colorado again moved the ball against the Cal defense. Aided by a beautiful 36-yard pass play from Hansen to Richardson, Colorado drove to the Cal 10, where they settled for a 27-yard field goal from freshman kicker Will Oliver to take a 3-0 lead.
It was then that the Cal offense shook off the cobwebs and got it going. A 10-play, 81-yard drive -- highlighted by the trickeration double pass from Maynard to Allen and back to Maynard -- was capped off by fullback Nico Dumont's first touchdown reception of his Cal career. Continuing a theme that Cal fans have grown tired of already, Giorgio Tavecchio's extra point attempt was blocked, leaving Cal's lead at 6-3.
After the teams exchanged field goals, Cal got a big lift going into halftime. Taking over at their own 38 yard line with 4:02 left in the first half, the Bears drove 62 yards in seven plays to take a 16-6 lead. Maynard found his brother for a 37-yard gain on the drive and tight end Anthony Miller (who was plagued by the dropsies at other times in this game) snared 7-yard touchdown catch with one hand on a beautifully designed pass play in the red zone to cap the drive.
So at the half, things were looking good for the Bears. Cal had a 10-point lead and, notwithstanding the Buffaloes' success at moving the football, the Bears' defense had kept the Buffs out of the end zone. And the Buffs were self-destructing, committing seven first half penalties for 68 yards. (Colorado finished the game with 12 penalties for 98 yards, while Cal improved on last week's penalty-filled performance by committing 5 penalties for 50 yards.)
But Colorado's offense made a game of it in the second half with the aid of a questionable, momentum-changing call by the officials. After Miller caught his second touchdown pass of the game from Maynard to answer a Colorado score, Cal had a 23-13 lead with 4:38 left in the third quarter. Things looked even better on the next series, when Mychal Kendricks dropped Buffs running back Rodney Stewart for a five-yard loss on a 3rd and 4 play. But D-lineman Trevor Guyton was called for a personal foul, as the referee ruled Guyton hit Stewart after the whistle had blown. The sound-and-visual replay showed that call to be questionable at best.
Old Mo put on a Colorado jersey immediately. Three plays later, Hansen found Richardson on a 66-yard touchdown strike. And on the first play of the fourth quarter, Hansen and Richardson dialed long distance again for a 78-yard score, giving Colorado a 27-23 lead.
But the Bears didn't take Old Mo's jersey change seriously. Cal answered with a gutty, gritty, clutch 11-play, 80 yard drive. You want clutch? How about Maynard to Mike Calvin to convert a 3rd and 3 and then Maynard to Calvin again to convert a 3rd and 10. And how about C.J. Anderson running angry, breaking tackles, and scampering for a 19-yard touchdown run on 3rd and 1? Gutty, gritty, and clutch. And a 30-27 Cal lead with 9:55 remaining in the fourth quarter.
Cal could not put the Buffs away, however, and Colorado engineered a late drive that ended with a 32-yard game-tying field goal to send the game to overtime. On both the last Colorado drive in regulation and in the overtime, Cal cornerback Steve Williams broke up pass plays to Richardson, as the Bears finally had an answer for the deadly Hansen-to-Richardson combination. The Williams play in overtime was particularly key, as his pass breakup in the end zone forced Colorado to settle for a 22-yard field goal, which gave the Bears the opportunity to win the game with a touchdown.
And from 1st and 30, the Bears came through. It's good to be 2-0 heading to the "home" opener at AT&T Park next week. Look out, Blue Hose: the Bears are on a roll!
Some noteworthy "firsts" in today's win:
* Cal's first overtime win since 2006 (31-24 over Washington)
* Cal's first road overtime win ever
* Cal's first win on a walk-off touchdown since 1996 (3 OT win vs. Oregon State)
* Cal's first win after trailing in overtime since 2000 (vs. Ucla)
555 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
America!
Alright, and after it's all over, you say "Ooh, what a lovely tea party"
by Redonkulous Bear on Sep 10, 2011 9:36 PM PDT reply actions
Honest: Who is afraid Cal is going to lose to the Blue Hose? DON’T DENY IT! IT’S PART OF YOUR CAL HERITAGE!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Fear the Hose.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
True pimp knows how to keep his Hose in check. NO FEAR.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Sep 10, 2011 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
WE DON'T LOVE THEM HOSE
"Well, if that ain't a show, I'll kiss your ass." - Gov. Jim Folsom Sr. (D-AL), 1948-52
by VandyImport on Sep 10, 2011 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I am scared to death of a Blue Hosing.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
Come on, seriously? There’s normal Cal fan paranoia, and then there’s delusional paranoia. I’m not saying it’s impossible, because of course anything can happen, but I think we have a 99%+ chance of beating them. Fans of respectable programs do not irrationally fear schools like Presby, and neither should we.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I should have put a #sarc tag on that.
But there is a bit of paranoia. Cal finds new ways to lose every year.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
We are true innovators in the field of heartbreak.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 5:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I am afraid of an injury occuring during an otherwise meaningless play.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
That’s fair.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 5:39 AM PDT up reply actions
BTW
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
Not bad :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Packers!
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
You say "not bad" I say terrible
Why would somebody come on a Cal blog and mention a bunch of other sports teams particularly garbage like the D*dgers (wh0 are the answer to the trivia question: which team in the NL West has gone the longest since appearing in the World Series).
Keep that junk off here…THIS IS BEAR TERRITORY!!!
"Dying is not so tough....A lot of people younger than me and older than me have to face up to this sort of thing. I'm nothing special. I'm Joe Roth, a student and a football player." - Joe Roth.
by Oski Disciple on Sep 10, 2011 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
He was quoting cldpc’s signature.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I may be new here, but I thought this was a Cal blog, not a Giants blog. If you want me to leave, then I’ll leave. But I’m not changing my sig unless there is a legitimate reason, and that isn’t legitimate.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
I know everyone else is fine with it. Thanks, everyone else.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
i’m not ok with it, i hate the dodgers
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
by GoldBlooded on Sep 10, 2011 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Relevance?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Went to the 2006 game, and was completely disarmed by their hospitality. Plus, a cousin of mine is now a freshman at UT.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
If we beat USC AND UCLA this year, will you drop the Dodgers and Lakers from your sig?
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Why? Dodgers and Lakers are not USC and UCLA.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
I think hes just joking.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
This all sounds like a big miscommunication. There’s no reason for anybody to leave.
We welcome all here. If we let USC and Oregon fans on here, it’s great to have Dodgers/Lakers fans here.
We have Dodgers and Lakers fans on the moderation team, for Tedfords sake!!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I hope this didn’t start from me, because I’ve been careful to keep any pro-Dodgers or anti-Giants talk limited to TBLA.
If indeed I’ve brought it into here, then I apologize.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
Just relax, dude, its not a big deal. I’m no Giants fan. You can talk pro-Dodgers or anti-Giants.
What we do try to do is keep the front page threads moderately on topic. So, this is about the Cal-Colorado game, lets try to focus on the Cal-Colorado game. And other things relevant to that.
We have a daily open thread called the DBD in the fanpost section, where we discuss all the Cal sports (and general sports) news of the day. In there, its much more free form and there is a lot of Giants/As/Dodgesr stuff going on in there. Wed love to see any and all in there!
We welcome the readership of all. As long as you are reasonable and dont start flame wars, welcome!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
ruh-roh
"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 Sep 10, 2011 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Dump. Its a link dump. Based off of SBNation’s Oakland Athletics’ Daily Link Dump. Every Cal link of note will be in there (along with other sports links relevant to Cal fans, such as As/Giants/Dodgers/Niners/Raiders/Sharks/Warriors etc etc).
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Once you step in, you’ll never be able to leave.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
anti-Giants is fine
everyone knows real Cal fans like the A’s
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - R. Feynman
There must not be many real Cal fans.
by sycasey on Sep 11, 2011 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
BOOM!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I’m afraid we may not score 70 points. I really hope there is a discount at the student store the following Monday.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
:)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Do they have a limit for Touchdown Mondays? :) I’d love to see 90-100% off… :)
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 10, 2011 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it maxes out at 30%
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I was there!
What a game. Man.
It was a completely ass-backwards game for the Bears it seemed like. But it was a thriller and I’m so glad we won.
Anyway, I haven’t read any commentary and I gave up on cell reception in like the third quarter, but it was a bit of an odd game. Our vaunted defense was very mediocre today. We didn’t get ANY pressure on Hansen all game; he could have pitched a tent and camped in the pocket, he had so long to throw. So much for all the pregame jibes about Steve Marshall and the Buff O-line. Meanwhile, the Buffs also got back into the game with a number of scores set up by “big-play offense” … of the type that Cal has been largely known for over the past several years. Cal didn’t have too many big plays (over ~30 yards anyway), but we were able to consistently get chunks of yardage for most of the game it seemed.
Anyway, very strange. The game was closer than it should have been because of the BS late hit call on Guyton, which turned a 3-and-out deep in Buff territory into a Colorado touchdown drive. and the phantom incompletion on the pass to… Coleman Edmond I think? Anyway, it seemed pretty clear that it was a complete pass, but for some reason the stupid Pac-12 refs reviewed it and still called it incomplete. Anyway, that would’ve put us deep in Colorado territory and instead I believe that drive went nowhere.
The offense performed about as expected, but the defense being largely ineffectual is a huge mystery to me. Anyone have any explanations??
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
The game was closer than it should have
I think that we were closer than we should have been. Their offense gashed our defense… but their penalties killed them. Thankfully.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
Well, our offense was able to score pretty consistently I thought, but they gashed us on a few big plays. There’s a reason why we were able to stop them in the red zone in the first quarter and kept them out of the end zone in overtime and they weren’t.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I duno man, they had 210 (!) more yards than us, no turnovers … they were just unclutch on third down (or our D stepped up), and we were a little more successful on 3rd down. I still think their offense significantly outplayed our offense.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
They did aight on some 3rd downs
The TD pass to the wide open TE on the first drive of the 2nd half was on a 3rd and 6. And the 66-yard TD to Richardson (3 plays after the Guyton penalty) was on a 3rd and 8.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Great, Great Game.
Unbelievable comeback win, and no I don’t know why, but as soon as we won the toss in overtime, and held them to a field goal, I was sure we were going to win. First and 30? hey, no big deal, I got this. I love this team.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
4-0 heading into Eugene
A win is a win is a win…
If the Bears are any good this year though, they had better be 4 and oh heading into game 5 vs the (roasted) ducks. And SC looked eminently ordinary and beatable today. This could be the year the bears get a W vs the trojans…
I would also give the game ball to CJ: thunder to Sofele’s lightning.
don’t tempt juju.
we are 2-0, and heading to ATT to play the blue hose. that’s it.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
I’m not afraid of the Blue Hose. I’ll give credit to any Pac-12 opponent, but if Presby isn’t a win, then something is majorly wrong.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel that you are overlooking the Washington game. Washington has struggled this year, no doubt. However, any game is tough on the road (as we saw today!). I don’t hav ea good feeling about that game.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
We would have won that game with Zach Maynard. I’ve seen enough of Zach to believe that.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Agreed. We would have won that game with even a mediocre qb and Maynard is above mediocre at this point.
However, that was home and this is road.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
We’ve lost our last two games @ Husky Stadium. I’m very fearful.
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m a first-class sunshine pumper. I’m always positive about the team. It’s a game, and I love it!
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions
PUMPITY PUMP PUMP!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
And in painful, embarrassing fashion at that.
"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
We are DEFINITELY losing at UW
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 12, 2011 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions
You feel correctly. If one can still overlook in-conference road games at this point, then nothing will get in the way of that man’s self-inflicted sunshine. You were correct to fear the Colorado game — all games not against the Hose should — and I’m sure you have your reasons for not drawing more attention to that rational intuition of yours during the week. At this point, being at home, UW has to be the favorite in that game. I mean, ESPNs Miller technically lost his pick, but he was essentially right in that the overrated Cal was going to come in and struggle and put Colorado in position to win.
I’m not sure what is going on here. Cal blows out OOC opponents last two years with a QB they hate and gets slapped in the face with reality once conference play rolls around. We now under perform against FSU, squeak by the Buffs, with a QB and defense we love coming off a 5-7 season and we don’t seem to think this is a problem. What is going on here? (serious question)
I don’t remember blowing out Nevada… or Minnesota…
I think people are just happy to get a W in a close game. It’s fun not to be on the bad side of Lady Luck. And I love that Maynard annoys the shit out of other teams’ fans. That’s one of the best parts of college football: trolling the other fanbase. (in my opinion, at least =D) Just think of BruinsNation complaining about Maynard converting a 3rd and 14 with some off-balance, on-the-run throw!
Feel free to self-abuse on sunshine!
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Lady Luck? I don’t remember too many favorable bounces today. We mostly made our own luck.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Thinking more macro here.
If I told you Colorado outgained our offense by ~200 yards and didn’t have a TO… would you guess we won?
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
And
their QB and WR set school records for yardage… LOL
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Always liked this one
In Hue We Trust
by LouisMurphy'sLaw on Sep 11, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I guess not, but I certainly don’t feel like it was a “lucky” win. It felt plenty hard-earned.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure, sure. I’m just talking about the element of luck inherent in all games of football
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
We had many favorite bounces today. Mostly in penalties from Colorado.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Those penalties against Colorado were deserved though… I’d they had been BS penalties or missed calls, I’d say we got lucky with the officiating. As it was, I think we got the shorter end of the stick yesterday from the refs.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 5:49 AM PDT up reply actions
I havent done an analysis of al the calls, so I dont know who got the shorter end etc etc etc, but I feel like Cal had some lucky bounces. Like the roughing the passer thing on Keenan Allen. And the non-call on the roughing the kicker on a punt.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
That was not a roughing the passer call on Allen. It was a roughing the passer on Maynard by the CU defensive end. The ref in the backfield threw the flag when the DE gave Maynard a one handed shove after he lateraled to Allen. It was not a big shove and the ball was clearly gone and the DE could have pulled back easily. It was ticky tack but rules are rules.
I think the non-call on roughing the kicker is the one where Cal got a piece of the punt. That was the reason why it was a no call. Call got a hand on the punt while CU did not when they smashed into Anger.
I like all of your analyses! Criticism of refs absolved
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I think the non-call on roughing the kicker is the one where Cal got a piece of the punt. That was the reason why it was a no call. Call got a hand on the punt while CU did not when they smashed into Anger.
Re-watching the game right now. You are correct – Cal hit the ball, so it was not roughing. That’s not a lucky bounce or a non-call.
Old Toothwrangler
just curious
Do we know for sure that Cal got a piece of that “blocked” punt? I was unable to tell from the replay whether Cal deflected the ball, or if it was simply shanked.
And speaking of punting, it used to be standard practice to have just one man in the backfield protecting the punter. Now many teams, including Cal, have switched to a formation with three guys in the backfield. What’s the rationale for this? It seems to guarantee that there will be at least one or two guys free to blast into that wall of three with a lot of momentum, which at a minimum clogs up space for the punter’s follow through.
Forgive me, but I grew up watching the likes of Ray Guy and Reggie Robey and (at Cal) Scott Tabor stand back there with acres of space around them free to take a couple steps and just blast the hell out the ball, as if they were in a Punt, Pass, and Kick competition. Now it seems like Anger is always trying to kick in a crowd.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 11, 2011 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I was there in the end zone area directly downfield of the punt, so the punt was towards me. It was quite clearly deflected.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal got a hand on the ball
I saw a deflection on the replay.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
in addition to what cali49a said, the other tghing about the roughing the passer call, even if it wasn’t a good call (which I’m not saying though I would probably be annoyed if they called that on CAL) is it wasn’t a game changer… it just ADDED 15 yards on to an already first down.
the late hit on us was an absolute game changer. the worse kind of bad call by a ref.
It added less than 15 yards because the fumble was recovered at the CU 7 so Cal got half the distance to the goal: a whopping 3 yards.
Major ups to Schwenke who recovered the fumble. Says a lot about an OL who hauls ass 30 yards downfield
If you were referring to the Allen to Maynard pass, and which I was commenting on, the personal foul called on that play only added half the distance to the goal at the end of the play sine the fumble was recovered at the CU 7.
It did extend the drive, but Cal could have easily stopped Colorado on any later play on that drive. They simply did not.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I think you’re being too dismissive of the impact. It was the equivalent of a turnover. We already stopped them. We shouldn’t have to do it again thanks to the officials. Not sure why there’s any disagreement on this.
I’m just saying that ya it sucked and ya it was the wrong call, but Cal could have easily stopped them on D. They didn’t. It is just a factual statement. Nothing more than that, really.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
except we actually couldn’t “easily” stop them on D ;-) So when we finally did and then get screwed it was a game changer.
Thats true. We def had troubles on D yesterday.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
What you’re missing is, Cal DID easily stop them on D. It was 3rd down deep in their own territory, and we had them stopped behind the line of scrimmage. The drive The penalty gave them a first down, continued the drive, and they scored a TD. So it literally turned a 3-and-out into a TD drive. Yes, Cal should have stopped the drive on the next set of downs after the penalty, but then they shouldn’t have had to.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
whoops
scrimmage. The drive was over at that point
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
All the Buffs
fan I talked to after the game were quick to say the was the BS call they had ever seen; and they were right.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Well, Colorado is kinda sorta not OOC. Cal typically struggles once conference play begins cause their conference foes are better.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
sir
your constant glass-half-full line of commentary is getting old.
fans are excited because for the first time in ages it seems we have a qb with some sack who is flashing great potential and just won a tight game on the road, a defense with a cadre of young talent that will only get better as the season progresses, newly inspired and innovative play-calling.
His commentary is generally of the glass-half-empty variety.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
(Just sayin’!)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I tend to leave my Bear goggles tucked away
when assessing Cal. If they give me reasons to be half-full, 1/4 full, or 2/3 full, or 100% full, or empty, that is what I will express. I’m really surprised a fan base coming off a 5-7 season can be so willfully indifferent to their demonstrated shortcomings.
I don’t know what you mean by a QB with “sack,” and I don’t know what the QB has done to show that he has “it.” I don’t know what you mean by “potential” without you being less vague and more specific.
Really?!
…a QB with “sack” is one who has the balls to make an otherwise risky play, someone who is willing to take a chance…
I thought that is part of why so many people hated Riley — too many risks, too many bad plays because of it. The main upgrade I see at QB is the mobility aspect, which cannot be understated. So I guess I’m saying that he has “sack” (as a compliment) and previous Cal QBs didn’t is not accurate or fair.
I don’t think people hated Riley for taking too many risks. (His most (in)famous risk notwithstanding.) I really don’t even think people “hated” Riley. I think we were frustrated by inconsistency and inaccuracy. It had nothing to do with whether he had “sack.” He had that and I liked it.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Sometime in 2007
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Why do you hat 2005?
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Not as recent
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Seriously
We have NO reason to assume we’ll beat Washington which grinds my gears as I’m jealous they get to have a live animal mascot (much like Colorado)
I support the NBA player's union.
What if we get ourselves a large Husky dog and name him Ralphie Bear? Will you then admit we have at least some reason to hope that we will beat Washington?
I think we should get a massive steer and call it Reveille.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
by TwistNHook on Sep 11, 2011 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
ARUAHRAHRHARHGBHGHGHGGHGHGH!!*&(@)*&@(!)&!()!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
"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 Sep 10, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
whoops, forgot a header
oh well
"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 Sep 10, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Haha I know. They ran that play SOOOO many times and we still couldn’t sniff it out. wtf. Even I started to recognize when it was coming.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Id get really excited, too, for a second.
WERE GETTING TONS OF PRESSURE ON THE QUARNO WAIT ITS A TRAP NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
…..fuck
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
ARE YOU IN MY BRAIN?!?!?!?!?!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Can you pick up some food, I’m hungry!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
No way
Not anymore, gone way downhill in the past couple years.
by HelloBowlesHall on Sep 10, 2011 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Try it next home game ... in a year :-(
Not nearly as good as Fat Slice anymore, and I was a loyal Blondie’s guy for 15 years or so.
by HelloBowlesHall on Sep 10, 2011 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The owners of Gregs were family friends of mine. Real nice people. I liked their pizza the best
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Sadly it has.
If you like NY style head to Arinell’s.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - R. Feynman
Great minds, my friend, great minds.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Both!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
You’ll have La Diarrhea, and you’ll like it.
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh man
Fuck you man. Fuck you.
I have an insane craving for Fat Slice and/or Top Dog right now. Maybe even a La Burrita. Shit I won’t have a chance to go to those fine eateries until Fall 2012 when Cal plays at Memorial again!
I haven’t eaten at a Berkeley place other than Top Dog or Oscar’s since early 2009. Jeez
In other words, Go Bears!
so a cal alum has a top dog joint called berkeley dog in orange county. i’d so like to watch our games there if they had a television.
is it the place that’s combined with froyo? i think i read about that place.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
No froyo, but it is a pretty cool place. It’s decked out with Cal gear including a helmet signed by the entire 2010 team and an Aaron Rodgers signed Green Bay helmet.
"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
by Berkelium97 on Sep 10, 2011 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Something to bug the local OC Alum club about…I hate the fact that the club has gone to a chain Dave & Busters when it had used local establishments in the past. It’s definitely kept me away from game gatherings…
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 11, 2011 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I went there last game, but I was late. I foolishly didn’t realize the main group was in a side room so I sat down at the bar with some obvious CAL fans for some nachos and beer. Then I realize there is no sound. I ask the waitress about it, she says they don’t do sound. Say What?! Then the guys next to me said they had sound earlier, but they turned it off at a certain time. Say What?! Then I asked a manager about putting it back on, he said he would work on it. Resulting in bupkis. The guy next to me had ordered a raspberry pecan cheesecake that came without raspberry’s or pecans (kind of funny, I gotta admit). Then they bring the raspberry sauce on the side, no pecans. After complaining again, the busboy takes the whole thing away. It finally comes back with the pecans. He takes a few bites, remembers his sauce on the side and pours it on. As he is gagging he realized they game him raspberry vinagrette instead. Oy!
I’m sure I just missed the experience with everyone else, but not to impressed on first visit.
by YleeXOtee on Sep 11, 2011 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ok, this is just sad. I’ll just save the gas money and suffer in silence in my living room instead. :oP
I gotta hope there’ll be internet streams I can look at if Verizon Fios ain’t showing the game.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 11, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Speaking of screen plays
I think it is amazing we haven’t run a screen pass to Isi yet. Perhaps, we haven’t established the other components of the offense yet, but getting Sofele into space seems like a better plan than running him up the middle.
I support the NBA player's union.
Cal ran one with him on the very play of the Fresno State game but the illegal formation and dropped pass wiped it out.
ah yes, but it was a wide receiver screen type play, hence my confusion. I consider those more like regular passing plays, rather than traditional screens (like the ones Colorado was using). I haven’t seen a traditional screen yet this year.
I support the NBA player's union.
BTW
Any thoughts on Tedford’s decision not to try to drive for a game-winning FG at the end of the 4th quarter? We had 26 seconds and 2 timeouts left, which was plenty of time. I know we’d just roughed up the opposing QB a bit with a hard hit in the previous series, but generally, going into overtime on the road isn’t a recipe for success. I know we won and all, but at the time I was wondering why we didn’t at least try to get into FG range.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 10, 2011 10:40 PM PDT reply actions
Just 1 TO because the refs made us burn one with that janky Marv PR jersey mess.
I didn’t agree with it. I would have VEHEMENTLY disagreed if we were at the 40 or something, but I think Tedford would’ve gone for it if we were that far up.
Former players didn’t agree with it on twitter either.
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions
What was that jersey thing. I was so confused.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
They called it illegal substitution cuz he took it off while still on the field. Woulda been fine if he had gone all the way to the sideline
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 10, 2011 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions
The distinction seems dumb to me. But, then again, I have long felt we have too many double numbers. And getting burned by that rule only solidified my disdain for them.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
During the Fresno broadcast, Paws said that there’s so many double numbers because one of the facets of recruiting these days is giving the kids the numbers that they want, before they even get to Cal.
reminds me of Reggie Bush attempting to trademark the number 5, a move rejected by officials and the NFL
I support the NBA player's union.
do you trademark a number? what a crotch head that Bush is.
Samuels said. "That last-minute shot at halftime sums it up. Shooting off one leg? C'mon, man."
by ikoolykedat on Sep 11, 2011 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
If you start selling lumber and you call it 87, your ass will get sued quick. But Bush was indeed being a crotch head because there have been many football number 5s.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Sep 11, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, I’ll just start selling lumber and call it “Eighty-Four.”
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
OH SNAP!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
He took off #47 before he got to the sideline, so there were two #1’s on the field?
I can see that as a violation. I also see that as something that needs to be let go.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
Hmmm. Had the play been whistled dead? If it wasn’t during live play I don’t see why that should be a penalty. Dumb rule.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:08 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess there’s a rule on the books saying a player can’t wear different numbers on consecutive plays without leaving the field? It was stupid and pointless and I was very angry.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
I like your version of chaotic yet controlled anger.
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not angry anymore, even if we had lost I would be too exhausted.
And in the game threads? Again: I was halfway to emulating some of my evolutionary precursors w/r/t projectile feces.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
I was midly upset
although I wanted to drive to the zoo and punch a fucking zebra
Samuels said. "That last-minute shot at halftime sums it up. Shooting off one leg? C'mon, man."
by ikoolykedat on Sep 11, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
How did that cost us a TO? I just rewatched the game and didn’t understand why we were forced to burn it. Was it just a timing matter for us getting MJ’s replacement out there (since he had to sit out one play)??
I think we took the TO to prevent the 5-yard penalty.
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 11, 2011 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks...
Okay, so that’s another thing: We have an option now of taking either the yards or burning a TO? This happened in another game during week one and I forgot all about it until you just wrote that…
(I don’t remember having this option in the past, did we?)
I don’t remember the incident you’re talking about. All I know is that the refs in this game were… confused, to say the least. It really was not a well-officiated game for either side.
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 11, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
It was a penalty called in a different game last week (not FSU-Cal game) where there was a penalty called in the last minute of the first half and the on-air guys said they were “opting to take the TO” rather than the 10-second run-off.
I didn’t realize there was the option of using a TO instead of taking a run-off or losing yardage.
/MDWMs in the general direction of anyone trying to make an issue of this.
"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
MDWM?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
makes dismissive wanking motion.
Seriously, if going into overtime on the road isn’t a recipe for success I don’t know what the fuck a 40 second drill on the road is.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
I have a whole joke about that, but I dont think this si the time or place for it.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
It’s…a shot at winning in regulation?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes. A completely miniscule shot at winning in regulation that entails just as much possibility of everything going pear shaped as points actually going on the board. Stop, you’ll give me the vapors.
"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
Do you need a fainting couch?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
A completely miniscule shot at winning in regulation that entails just as much possibility of everything going pear shaped as points actually going on the board
Well, I sure am glad you took the time to crunch the numbers there before you passed out! Thanks, dude.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Discussing/questioning what Tedford’s thinking was doesn’t necessarily mean I’m making an issue of it. I just thought it was slightly curious.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Whats funny is I came down here to post the SAME question and then got bothered by taht whole LA sports kerfluffle above and toads forgot.
I have no thoughts. We won. I’m happy.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
"Down here"?
Are we all in some virtual cellar somewhere?
We’re all in our mother’s basement.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
TBH, I had no problem with it.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Thank you for being honest. I’d become concerned you were lying repeatedly to us.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
It did seem VERY curious. But I’m wondering if it had to do w how gassed the team was? Let’s reserve our remaining energy for a final drive to the end zone from a higher percentage spot like the 25 yd line?
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
by since1997 on Sep 11, 2011 7:46 AM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
At that point, how gassed was the offense? They hadn’t been on the field in 4 hours given that immediately prior Colorado had a 1,200 play drive spanning the entire Pleistocene Era.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Ugh I forgot. MARSHALLLLL!
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
by since1997 on Sep 11, 2011 10:32 AM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
This is Cal:
1. Marshall coaches for Cal. We suck.
2. Marshall coaches for opposing team. We suck.
MARSHAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
obvi, whenever Marshall is concerned, there’s a lo of suck going on
Samuels said. "That last-minute shot at halftime sums it up. Shooting off one leg? C'mon, man."
by ikoolykedat on Sep 11, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes - I have thoughts!
It was a totally lame, “play not to lose instead of win” call. He just has a conservative spine in him. I hate how it comes out at these clutch times. He is great, great coach in many ways, but he has a lot to learn about the last 2 minutes of a half. He doesn’t study that part of the game, IMHO.
This is a big pet peeve for me, obviously – but if we lose that coin flip, we probably lose the game – and he kneeled to get to a coin flip on purpose. Just a dumb call.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Sep 11, 2011 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Take a look at some stats and scenarios I posted below and it might change your opinion
Tedford’s Decision to take a Knee at the end of the regulation.
Red Zone (inside opponent’s 20 yard line) success in regulation:
Colorado inside the red zone: 0/2 with 1 Field Goal made
Cal inside the red zone: 4/4 with 4 TDs scored
This should tell you two things:
1: Colorado relied more on the big play to score but when the field shinks, there is less real esate to use and scoring becomes harder.
2: Cal was extremely efficient inside the red zone yesterday.
3: The odds favored Cal in OT. Taking the knee at the end of regulation eliminated the possibility of a turnover and CU possibly exploding for a TD
by Cali49a on Sep 11, 2011 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great, Cal had a better shot to win in OT
That doesn’t mean you give up on your last shot to win in regulation.
I went back and forth on that… on the one had i say go for it and see what happens… on the other, I was like, do i really want to put our fate in the hands of special teams (old fear habits die hard)… see last play of Utah / SC
I can see your viewpoint but what if Cal turned the ball over on the next play and gave CU 2 shots that endzone with 24 seconds left on the clock? Or throw a pick 6? Then everybody would be bitching about how stupid Tedford is for being so aggressive and reckless in his playcalling decisions.
I think a lot of Cal fans are pissed off because they feel Tedford is not trying to win. I get that but he played the percentages and at the end of OT, Cal was 5/5 for 5 TDs inside the red zone while CU was 0/4 with 3 FGs in the red zone.
I would have said it was the right decision and the players screwed up. Seriously.
Personally, I do not think giving up a shot at winning in regulation is “playing the percentages.” That’s only if you think your offense is more likely to have a disastrous turnover than it is to gain 30+ yards in a couple of plays; in other words, you think your offense is going to suck. If you have even a moderately competent offense, I’m willing to bet that your % chance of winning goes up if you go for it, even accounting for the slight possibility of a bad turnover.
by sycasey on Sep 11, 2011 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
even accounting for the slight possibility of a bad turnover.
I think that the possibility of a turnover goes way up in these kinds of situations. Players start trying to do too much (sofele in the end zone, etc.), throw too far, etc.
And I think the point is that in OT Tedford could guarantee red zone possessions, which heavily favored us given the game stats to that point.
by slaphancock on Sep 11, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that the possibility of a turnover goes way up in these kinds of situations. Players start trying to do too much (sofele in the end zone, etc.), throw too far, etc.
I don’t see why it’s more likely in this situation than in overtime.
Time pressure
Even though it’s overtime, you’re not trying to milk 24 seconds so the team is slightly more settled and doesn’t make frantic, boneheaded plays as much.
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 11, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, look at the Michigan/Notre Dame game. I’m sure you can construct an argument either way based on what happened in that game, and of course it was a different scenario (I’m not sure whether they were ever actually tied), but the coaches trusted their guys to make the plays. I do recall that Michigan could have kicked a field goal to tie it, but instead went for the TD and made it.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Not entirely accurate, Michigan had the ball with 11 sec left. They took one shot at the endzone, but they had enough time to kick the FG if that shot failed, since they scored with 2 secs left. just FYI
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
Sure, but my point holds. They took a shot when they didn’t have to. They had 11 seconds left and they could have, I dunno, lined up the FG attempt better (a la Tedford centering the ball on 3rd down in the 2009 Big Game), or done a safe passing play or run for a few more yards to get closer (they had 2 TOs left), or you know, just run down the clock and kick the FG. But my point is, they didn’t have to go for a risky TD pass, when the FG was safely within reach, but they did, even though it could have been picked, because it was a chance to win the game right then and there. Tedford had plenty of time to try and get to FG range, but he didn’t want to take the chance. He may have had his reasons, and they may have been good ones, but I think there’s a contrast there.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
They were also at home. Not sure if that makes a difference, but it seemed like that crowd was really behind them at that point.
I suppose, but I think that in Cal’s case, you’d prefer to win the game in regulation if at all possible, because I think home field advantage factors in extra heavily in overtime, so you’d generally want to avoid overtime if at all possible.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Given that Hansen had looked VERY injured at the end of regulation, I felt very good about our chances in OT
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Yeah, that may have factored into it. He was crumpled in a heap on the field for several minutes.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
What if Colorado scored a touchdown in OT and then Maynard threw a pick on our ensuing possession? You can make worst-case “what if” scenarios for anything.
I think the red zone argument has some credence, but I don’t think you make vital game decisions based on “OMG what if we turn it over?!?”
FWIW, I’m not saying Tedford definitively made the right or wrong decision, but I think it’s worth exploring the pros/cons of the factors that went into it. I think I read somewhere that Cal had never won a road OT game before, EVER. And from being at the game, let me tell you, the Buffs’ crowd in Boulder was LOUD and disruptive at the end of the 4th quarter and in OT. So, I don’t think the OT chances were that great, and it’s not like it was some either/or decision. The game was tied, and even if we didn’t make it far enough or we missed the FG, it still most likely would have gone to OT.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the extended discussion - I stand by my analysis
This is conservatism, and I disagree with it for two reasons:
1) In my reasoned football analysis, attempting to win in regulation instead of kneeling puts the Bears in the best position to win. Hydrotech likes to basically counter-argue that coach knows better than me – and I’m saying NO HE DOESN’T. If you think Tedford has never made a coaching mistake or a game call mistake, you’re sadly wrong. N.B. this is not me claiming I can make better decisions all game long and replace him as coach. There are many hard decisions each game. I have been watching his entire Cal career and I can point with certainty and several decisions made in the final minutes of halves and games were he was just plain wrong. It’s because of his conservative attitude – which no amount of reason or statistics seems to get much headway against.
2) You send the wrong message to your Offense and your Defense. God I hate that phrase ‘sending the wrong message’, but you absolutely are suggesting you think that it is more likely we will turn the ball over in such a way that Colorado will actually score than it is likely we can either A) score a field goal or TD or B) merely maintain posession. That is playing not to lose, and I will go to the grave saying it’s wrong.
And yes, the stats are behind me, so nyah.
P.S. These discussions don’t even exist on most boards, and one of the reasons I love CGB and ALL you guys/gals – even the ones who think I’m full of crap.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Sep 12, 2011 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I have no problem with you saying that it was a bad decision to take a knee before the end of regulation. As so many of us have discussed in this post and elsewhere, there are risks to doing so. The issue is whether the risk outweighs the reward. That question really has no simple answer and any proposed answer is merely speculation. Since that is the case, at the most we can do as fans is to evaluate whether the reasoning behind Tedford’s decision is logically sound — and it is, as much as you and others may hate the fact that it results in Cal kneeling at the end of regulation.
I do often throw out the “coaches know better than us” comment, and I do that because it’s true. I’m not saying that coaches have never made mistakes — certainly they have. But when it comes to most aspects of football, they are generally smarter than the average fan. This is especially true when it comes to game planning and schemes. Nevertheless, it thoroughly annoys me when Cal fans try to say that the coaches failed to do this or that in game planning or scheme when (1) those fans can’t even recognize what plans or schemes the coaches were currently using; (2) can’t offer alternative game plans or schemes; and (3) just mindless spit out angry lines about how the defense should never rush 3 guys or should always blitz every down.
As for game management (going for it on 4th down and 1, whether to punt or not, etc.) sure, Cal fans can pretty intelligently critique the coaches since there are often not a lot of right or wrong answers when it comes to game management. Since what we’re arguing about (whether Tedford should have kneeled or not) is a game management decision, I don’t have any problems with the discussion.
I raise a glass of beer to you, sir
I value your opinion highly.
Now what’s up with our Defense looking way different from last week? Any chance of one of your nice breakdowns comparing what we did against FSU vs. CU?
I’d also love to see someone breakdown the formations/playcalls in both games – I haven’t gone back to rewatch CU yet, but it felt like a much different mix vs. last week. I wonder if numbers would back my feeling it was a big change in plan.
If that is true…I’d like to think the reason is to give other teams a hard time game-planning against us: which Cal will come out today?
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Sep 12, 2011 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, I haven’t gone back and looked at either the FSU or the CU game closely. But from my initial viewing of the CU game, it appeared as if Cal was mostly just playing Cover 2 man and some various zones (perhaps Cover 4). Don’t take that for fact though, like I said, I haven’t gone back and reviewed the games closely enough.
I know Richardson had a lot of success against Cal, but part of the problem really could just be that he had a great day, and our DBs had a sub-par day. I say this because I think I do remember Cal playing a lot of man coverage (Cover 2 man) against FSU. If we’re playing Cover 2 man against FSU one week, and also doing Cover 2 man against CU the next week but the results are highly different, then to me it just seems to suggest CU was having a better day.
Of course, one big difference between the defensive gameplan against FSU compared to CU was the fact that Cal didn’t pressure CU as much as they did to FSU. So that’s part of the reason. But as I said in my post-game notes, it was hard for Cal to bring pressure because CU was doing such a great job beating the pressure. And when offenses are doing a great job beating the pressure it, it forces defenses to not bring pressure and just play the field.
I think CU deserves a lot of credit
Hard to swallow the “Marshall enjoyed success” pill, but I think we should recognize many positive plays for CU as more their success than our failure. There’s a football axiom (or is that maxim?) that says “perfect offense beats perfect defense”. On some plays, CU was just executing perfect. (Nice of them to then penalize themselves to death and give us some breathing room.)
I think this is also why I would say our defense was exposed – not as being pitiful, but as not being #1 in the nation. And we will face many good offenses, so brace yourselves for reality – doesn’t mean we’re bad, but sometimes the other guys are better.
I think Colorado has a lot to look forward to – right now they look like a lot like many “Cal” teams in games of the past 5 years, right? Lots of talent, but finding shocking ways to lose and rip the guts out of their fans…
Oh what relaxing joy to be on the other side of such a game’s outcome.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Sep 12, 2011 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
It probably doesn’t make any difference one way or the other. That said . . .
It was a terrible call. We had one timeout. The clock stops on every 1st down. We have good WRs who can win jump balls. Also, this was in Colorado, where the air is thin and your kickers become strong-legged supermen. There’s no defense for not at least attempting to pick up 30+ yards in a couple of plays and trying for a winning FG. The chances of that happening are much higher than CU coming up with some kind of disastrous turnover. And remember, it has to be a DISASTROUS turnover for the Buffs to do anything with it. A regular INT on a deep pass wouldn’t matter. A normal missed/blocked FG wouldn’t matter unless they could actually return it for a TD. Basically, it would have to be some kind of sack/fumble on the first play or a pick-6; those outcomes are way less likely than us coming up with a couple of big gainers.
You can’t make decisions based on extremely unlikely bad things happening, unless the game is already in hand and you just want to run out the clock.
extremely unlikely bad things happening
I think this is the heart of disagreement here. You see turnovers as being “extremely unlikely.” But the risk-reward is much more complicated than that.
(1) Turnovers are not “extremely unlikely.” They are at best “unlikely.” And when it’s on a final “must-have” drive, they go up to “not surprising.” I mean seriously, how many final drives have ended in interceptions—I’d say WAY more than regular drives.
(2) The risk is not just turning over the ball, but turning it over IN Cal’s territory, thus immediately putting Colorado in field goal range.
(3) I’m not sure why you think that completing a 30 yard pass has a better chance than a pick or a sack/fumble. Where are you getting this percentage? If you broke down hail mary type passes, I’d say that the chances are about even with respect to the pick and THEN slightly skewed negative for the chance for a sack/fumble.
by slaphancock on Sep 11, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
(3) I’m not sure why you think that completing a 30 yard pass has a better chance than a pick or a sack/fumble. Where are you getting this percentage? If you broke down hail mary type passes, I’d say that the chances are about even with respect to the pick and THEN slightly skewed negative for the chance for a sack/fumble.
If you’ve got stats to show me, I’m happy to admit I’m wrong, but for now I don’t buy it. When you have the ball in your hands, you control the outcome; interceptions happen on final drives when the team in question is LOSING, so they have to make risky passes. When the game is tied, the QB can throw it away if there’s nothing available. I will also say that an INT on a hail-mary pass usually makes no difference (because it’s not returned). It’s INTs on short passes that get returned for big yards (because there’s no one in the defender’s way).
So essentially we’re just talking about Maynard fumbling the ball and CU recovering. I don’t think that’s more likely to happen than a long completion, especially since CU probably isn’t bringing a big blitz (they don’t want to give up a long completion either).
I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before, but these things are not strictly numbers based. There are different values assigned to the outcomes that are somewhat subjective. In other words, going for something at the end of the game and having something catastrophic happen would cost Tedford his job. None of you would be reasonable and say how smart it was to go for it after it cost us the game. It would leave stain on the whole season.
So in balance are jobs and putting a bad flavor on the season versus a more controlled situation in OT
going for something at the end of the game and having something catastrophic happen would cost Tedford his job
Wait, what??
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
In other words, going for something at the end of the game and having something catastrophic happen would cost Tedford his job. None of you would be reasonable and say how smart it was to go for it after it cost us the game. It would leave stain on the whole season.
I think this is significantly overstated. Anyway, Tedford will take criticism if Cal loses no matter what decision he makes. So he should make the decision that gives his team a better chance to win, period.
Shouldn’t Tedford’s decision be based on what gives his team the best chance to win, and not based on avoiding criticism? I think it’s also fair to say that perhaps Tedford’s decision was what he thought gave the best chance to win considering the red zone statistics that Cali49a discovered and posted in a comment.
Shouldn’t Tedford’s decision be based on what gives his team the best chance to win, and not based on avoiding criticism?
I believe that’s what I said.
I think it’s also fair to say that perhaps Tedford’s decision was what he thought gave the best chance to win considering the red zone statistics that Cali49a discovered and posted in a comment.
It might be fair to say that, but not because of those stats. All those show is that maybe Cal has a better chance to win in OT. It doesn’t show that we would have created a higher risk of losing by going for it at the end of regulation. Adding the potential to win in regulation to your chances of winning in OT only increases your chances to win.
As for your first point, your logic seems to suggest that … Tedford should avoid criticism, therefore he should have gone for it before the end of regulation since it gives his team the best chance to win. But your logic seems to outright assume that going for it at the end of regulation gives the team the best chance to win, and it’s this assumption which is debatable. It’s not clear that going for it at the end of regulation really is worth it. As many of us are discussing, there is risk involved. The question seems to be whether the risk outweighs the reward or not.
As for second point, touche.
What I’m saying is that to get 30 yards means that guys are going to be looking for big plays. Maybe you’re right about the QB having more poise because the game is tied, but I still think that the rush of the final seconds + crowd noise + new-ish QB = potential for disaster (we’ve seen it before).
Anyway, I see your point. But I still think Tedford’s call was the “safer” call. Now, as to whether I think it’s right to always go for the safer, less aggressive call, is another question entirely.
Now, as to whether I think it’s right to always go for the safer, less aggressive call, is another question entirely.
I don’t know if this specific situation has been covered, but most statistical analysis of football decision-making shows that usually it is better to be aggressive on offense, i.e. you should go for it on fourth down, go for the TD rather than the FG, etc.
Everyone loves citing that Berkeley statistic professor’s conclusion that coaches should go for it more on 4th and 1. While his work is good, it is just statistics. It doesn’t take into account other game factors. Cal fans can no longer blindly rely on that Berkeley professor’s body of work alone. Cal fans must push themselves to see the bigger picture and see the other factors which might go into why a coach may or may not go for it on 4th and 1. As Cal graduates, we’re supposed to be smart. Let’s be smart and acknowledge that statistical analysis alone cannot be the lone justification for criticizing a coach for not going for it on 4th and 1.
Let’s be smart and acknowledge that statistical analysis alone cannot be the lone justification for criticizing a coach for not going for it on 4th and 1.
Okay. Let’s also be smart and realize that if the statistics say one thing, you’d better have a damn good reason to go against them in a given situation. The statistics form the baseline.
Agreed.
I’m pretty sure Tedford would say in response to why he didn’t go for it at the end of regulation: it was too risky, and he thought the risk outweighed the reward.
I don’t know if he’s right or not, but his reasoning is sound although the percentages are purely speculative. To me, this seems like a damn good reason. But that’s just me.
It does sound like a good reason. However, I think that the reward definitely outweighed the risk here, because IMO the risk is fairly small. The only two outcomes that would have killed Cal in that situation are (1) turnover either committed in or returned to CU territory or (2) blocked FG run back for a TD. Those two outcomes seem extremely unlikely to me, mainly because:
1. We will not be throwing short passes, so any interceptions they get are likely to be in their end of the field and not easily returnable.
2. A sack/fumble is possible, but not that likely because CU would be extremely foolish to bring a big pressure package there; it would leave them wide open to a deep completion. We also could have rolled Maynard out to minimize this risk.
3. Blocked kicks returned for TDs are not that common. Most are blocked and not returned for significant yardage.
4. If the first play goes nowhere, Cal is entirely justified in simply taking a knee on the next snap, thus minimizing the risk once again by introducing a subset of scenarios where Cal doesn’t even run the second play.
Could the bad things happen? Yes. But I highly doubt that they are more likely to happen than Cal picking up 30+ yards on a couple of plays and making a FG. That said, either outcome is very unlikely anyway and we were probably going to overtime no matter what. JT still would have been right in trying for it.
1. We will not be throwing short passes, so any interceptions they get are likely to be in their end of the field and not easily returnable.
But we will be throwing to the sideline to stop the clock. A jumped out-route=pick 6.
by slaphancock on Sep 11, 2011 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Another way of looking at it was Tedford was extremely confident in his team, and said let’s take this to overtime because I’m not worried that we need to win this now with bad field position, and press things (when bad things can happen). If we had gotten the ball in better field position I would fell differently about this, and likely Tedford would have as well.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
by Cugel on Sep 11, 2011 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
This. Tie it up, let the honeybadgers do their thang.
Alright, and after it's all over, you say "Ooh, what a lovely tea party"
by Redonkulous Bear on Sep 11, 2011 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
If he has confidence in his team to win in OT, why not also have confidence that they won’t have a disastrous turnover on the last drive in regulation?
Cal win
that’s all that matters
If I actually had higher expectation for this team, I would go on about how a win like this in hostile territory and having to persevere will lead to better things for the Bears this year. Instead, I’ll just savor this win and hope that the Bears does get enough wins to be bowl eligible this year (as well as pulling off an upset against Furd in the Big Game).
by LEastCoastBears on Sep 10, 2011 10:59 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
this
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Sep 11, 2011 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that since Cal isn’t very good, and that getting into a bowl game at 6-6 is a positive thing, we should be content with these wins? This is a wholly rational and fair perspective. I hope for the best, but I don’t think this team is very good either. But I think many Cal fans, if not most, presuppose a much more sunny assessment of this team — and they are still pumping after what, by said expectation, are underwhelming performances. They also seem to presuppose a steady improvement every week, when recent Cal football history contradicts this.
Maybe since you’re the one who’s so consistently “underwhelmed”, you’re the one with the overly high expectations? :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Good point
but I’ve thought about that and I don’t think that is the case. I thought before the season we’re lucky if we get a bowl game at 6-6.
I guess where the difference is is in my frustration with how the program has plateaued, which is to say it has regressed from what we once were for a few years (in the upper echalon of the conference). So I guess my unwillingness to accept less than that may be considered by some unfair expectations. But I think that is the school’s expectation. It’s Tedford’s expectations. What is the school paying Tedford $2 million for? To be middle-of-the-road of the Pac-12, or to be a program with its foot firmly entrenched in the top tier of the conference? If this team is “acceptable” and reason to be super thrilled, than we should get a new coach who will do this on the cheap.
None of this is relevant to my criticisms of this team, because I expected an average team, and that is what I’m seeing. My discouragement over it, however, may be due to the reasons I stated above.
I am expecting a 6-8 win team (a little better than your expectations, but not markedly so). I don’t think we will be lucky to get to a bowl game. I expect to get to one, but if we’re a little unlucky, we won’t. So far, we’re on track with my expectations. I am therefore appropriately whelmed about the season’s performance. I was a little troubled by the D in the game in Boulder, but it’s a tough place to play, and we got some bad calls, and we survived, so I’m not going to dwell too much on just one game. Plus, we have so much talent on the defensive side of the ball that I think they will reasonably round into shape over the course of the year. The offense is just about where I was expecting.
Now, in the more macro sense, of course, I think most Cal fans (myself included) would not and should not be satisfied with 6-8 wins and a bowl game year in and year out. We want 9-12 wins and a Rose Bowl. But you generally don’t get there directly from 5-7. Yeah, blame Tedford and misfortune and injuries, and the fact that we didn’t have a capable QB ready to play behind Riley (which is Tedford’s fault) for a down year, but those things happen sometimes anywhere (even Texas!). The key is, where do we go from here. Like I said, if we turn it around this year and get to a bowl game and 7-8 wins, and things are looking better for next year, then I’m happy.
So, we should expect the best, but sometimes shit happens and you have to be realistic about it.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
And what is the alternative to satisfaction? frustration? at not winning more games? How will that help anything?
I’m satisfied that it is football season, and that we get to watch 10 more Cal games, at least.
Well, if you’re not satisfied in the big picture with how the coaches are doing, you can let the AD know about it. If enough alumni are extremely dissatisfied with coaching and want a change in direction, it will give the administration something to think about at least.
However, I’m just saying the gauge to judge the performance of the coaches by needs to be realistic and contextual. I think Tedford’s doing a fine job and so far I’m pretty satisfied, even with a down season last year. 1 losing season in 9 years isn’t so bad. I’d like to see more 9-12 win seasons, but with the SAHPC and as well as recruiting has been going, I think we’re headed in the right direction, so I’ll cut them a little slack.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I want Tedford as our head coach indefinitely
Hope none of my criticisms led to anyone thinking otherwise. On CGB, I do and will sometimes criticize players and coaches, as I see fit; I consider it an Oski-given right of fandom. I earn it by showing up to games, cheering my throat out, and never giving up on the team.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Sep 12, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
This game showed that several key faults from last year's team still linger
Clancy will lay a defensive egg now and then, while the offensive line is going to take a while to become vintage Michalczik.
I am encouraged by the offense though. This game could have gone a lot like the Oregon State game from last year: we get completely dominated by a team that—by many accounts—is our equal or worse. Instead, Maynard went all honey badger on us and carried the team to victory.
This team is certainly a better product than last year’s, but it is not without its obvious flaws.
"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
by Berkelium97 on Sep 10, 2011 10:59 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
But a Riley-led Bears beat the Buffs by 45 pts. Why is this team better in your opinion? Is the difference in that game simply being a home/road situation in your mind? Last year’s team was 2-0 and led the nation in D leading up to Nevada. They had Vereen, the same starting WRs, and two NFL draft picks on D last year. Is the Maynard/Riley difference the overriding factor for you?
Didnt we have 3 NFL draft picks on D last year?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
You better take this picture down. It’s too holy.
by ManBearColts on Sep 11, 2011 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Prophet!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
by TwistNHook on Sep 10, 2011 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I go home/road
We are a much team at home (well at Memorial, we’ll see about AT&T). Colorado is a much better team at home.
If we play this same game at Memorial I think we win easily (not 52-7 though).
by HelloBowlesHall on Sep 10, 2011 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions
last year’s game felt more like a 28pt difference. randomness plays a lot into single game point differentials, imo
last year’s team, pre-riley injury, may be better, even a lot better… doesn’t mean the outcomes will be!
I mean, Colorado did beat AJ Green and Georgia at home last year
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 10, 2011 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I should clarify—this team is leagues better than the Mansion-led team. I would argue that they are slightly better than the Riley team due to improvement in playcalling, QB development, O-line, and receivers. Would this team have failed to score a TD at Arizona? I doubt it.
As for why we beat Colorado by 45 last year, I’d be willing to call that game a fluke. Cal had something like 5 scores off Colorado turnovers. Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong for the Buffs. That game did not represent last year’s Colorado team, nor does it represent this year’s Colorado team. They have entirely new staff and are, more or less, a completely different team. Last year’s Colorado team simply gave up (even Embree said they did). If we play them at home, I am confident we would win, but it would be a fairly close game (maybe a 2 TD margin).
"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
by Berkelium97 on Sep 10, 2011 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Turnovers, special teams, field position, and great defense were the factors that allowed Cal to blow out CU last year
We really could have used a turnover yesterday. Just 1! Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Isi the reason or Isi not?
I would say that the difference is having Shane Vereen.
i know of lot of y’all are trying to be reassuring, but even on his long burst up the sideline, it didn’t seem like Isi was moving that fast.
He’s not an answer, just a question.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 11, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m also not sure how we can be seen as a better product:
We are minus in QB from last year – Less accurate, less experienced (+run)
We are minus in RB
We are minus in Defense (drafted players gone, #1 in some areas last year so can only be the same or worse)
ST seems to be minus this year if possible
The net is a worse product from a 5-7 team.
(Yet, worse product might not mean worse record. Those are the bounces)
Well, a lot of the talking heads have been telling us that our D has actually gotten stronger. Not sure how much I really believe them but it must count for something. Also, I think the team has a huge plus in confidence, especially with a QB who doesn’t get rattled easily.
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 11, 2011 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Not sure I agree on your QB assessment.
I think we are plus there given the QB/WRs connection- Riley may be better than Z in the accuracy drills, but no way does Riley convert as many 3rd and longs in game time.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
by since1997 on Sep 11, 2011 10:40 AM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
[Read in Allen Iverson voice] Drills? Are we talking about practice? Neither FresNo nor Colorado was Practice. Riley was better in accuracy in the GAMES.
Still, there’s plenty of room for me to be wrong, but my assessment of QB, and prediction for total QB play, is down from last year -Riley time. But certainly UP from non-Riley time.
and this
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Sep 11, 2011 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Where is our running game going? Does anyone have a hunch on who might take over? Step up? What would be the Ultimate scenario? Bigalow by mid season? Manuel?
Ursus arctos californicus – California golden bear
by berkeleyboy510 on Sep 10, 2011 11:23 PM PDT reply actions
I don’t think anybody, even Tedford, really knows the answer to that. It depends on how people perform going forward.
My question is where was Covaughn Deboskie-Johnson today. We saw a lot of Isi. We saw a goodly amount of Anderson. No CDJ. Are Isi and Anderson “Thunder and Lightening”?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I’m sure Covaughn not playing this weekend is gonna be brought up this week. He seems to have both good speed and greater power running then Sofele. Maybe he has been letting the ball touch the ground? I suppose we can only guess at this point why hes not getting any playing time when so many other first time players are contributing.
Ursus arctos californicus – California golden bear
by berkeleyboy510 on Sep 10, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
i don’t think bigelow is going to contribute this year. next year is going to be an interesting battle… CJA in his last year, CDJ, yarnaway, briggs, bigelow, lasco… we have a lot of young rb’s.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
CDJ is a senior. Isi is coming back.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 11, 2011 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions
They’re going to cut out Isi’s heart and feed it to Bigelow, thereby conferring onto him the strength and durability to run, catch, and pass-protect as well as an innate understanding of the Cal offense.
Seriously the fixation on Sofele is ridiculous. He’s doing exactly what every Cal fan seems to want him to do, which is not so much succeed as tote the rock until someone else is ready. He’s the only back ready and capable of carrying the load right now so why don’t we collectively, as a fanbase cut him some slack?
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Sep 10, 2011 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Seriously the fixation on Sofele is ridiculous. He’s doing exactly what every Cal fan seems to want him to do, which is not so much succeed as tote the rock until someone else is ready. He’s the only back ready and capable of carrying the load right now so why don’t we collectively, as a fanbase cut him some slack?
Exactly. After watching today’s game, any arm chair QB should at least be able to realize that Sofele is Cal’s best RB in pass protection. IMVHO, Anderson has the best vision of Sofele, Debo, and him.
There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that Isi is the only RB capable of carrying the load, but I concur with the overarching sentiment here. If Cal was really good, I’d fixate on Isi too, but he is the least of my concerns at this point. Running game will ride on O-line anyways.
And I think lots of Cal fans don’t see a legit NFL back and feel like they need an upgrade. It’s easy to get that way after the string of RBs Cal has had.
I think this is a very good description of Cal fan sentiment. I also agree with you that Isi us not the problem, or a problem.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions
There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that Isi is the only RB capable of carrying the load,
/facepalm
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Sep 11, 2011 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
he trollin
Alright, and after it's all over, you say "Ooh, what a lovely tea party"
by Redonkulous Bear on Sep 11, 2011 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Our running game and the differences between Isi and CJ (in limited statistical sample) have much more to do with the o-line and much less to do with Isi’s perceived shortcomings.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
by sec119 on Sep 11, 2011 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Anthony Miller with the info YOU need to know:
Just landed must say the flight goes faster when @MarvinJones_1 n @KAAdeuce1 are singing trey songz whole album off of memory haha #GoBears
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
From Marvin Jones' Twitter profile
CAL Wide Receiver #1, God Fearin, Proud Father, Singer, Intellectual. NFL Bound, West Representin
Wait Jones is a father!? Wow I always thought he was young
In other words, Go Bears!
Yes
He’s a father and so are some of the other guys on the team. Helps to put some perspective on how busy some of the Cal players are during the regular season. Class, practice, and being a father.
Joey Igber is an engineer
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Tyson Alualu had like 2 kids by his senior year, I think.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I’m surprised that we haven’t had any QB dads. You’d think that recent Cal QBs would be used to playing ball without protection :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Also
ZachMaynard15 Zach Maynard
This is to all reporters.. @KAAdeuce1is my brother. That half brother stuff has to go out of the window. That’s like a blow to the heart.
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Sep 10, 2011 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 10 recs
Isn't it a reporter's job
to report facts. He is, indeed, KA’s half-brother. They mean it literally, not figuratively, and not sure why he should care whether outsiders use “half” with “brother.”
Really
In the name of truth and honesty reporters have a responsibility to society to list Keenan Allen and Zach Maynard as half-brothers, when Maynard and Allen consider themselves full brothers?
My two $0.02, If you grow up in the same house and are raised by the same people you are brothers, no half, step, or otherwise about it.
I support the NBA player's union.
They mean it literally, not figuratively, and not sure why he should care whether outsiders use "half" with "brother."
He cares because there’s a pejorative connotation to the term. Though not intentional, the term “half” has a connotation that someone is less of a brother than a “full.” You’re right about the facts. But Zach, and many people like him, from what I’ve seen in life, don’t like seeing/hearing “half” when they love their brother as much any “full” sibling does.
I agree that the reporters report facts and do their job by reporting facts. But in an emotional issue like this, I don’t expect young people to see it that way. To me, it’s no big deal for reporters to report it like they do and no big deal that Zach and KA voice their displeasure in seeing the term.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
by Ohio Bear on Sep 11, 2011 5:28 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
This exactly
I was adopted. should i have always referred to my parents as my adoptive parents and I as their adoptive son?
Oh come on dude. I think we all get that reporters are supposed to be factually accurate, so you can come down from your high horse of objectivity for a sec. Maynard was making an emotional statement about the connection/bond he feels with Keenan, and we are appreciating his heartfelt sentiment. Maynard wasn’t writing a paper for some journalism course, he was tweeting about his bro.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Pretty soon all papers will be written in 140 characters or less!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Remember last week when some reporter called Keenan Allen his "friend" or something?
THAT’S the stuff that needs to go haha.
Drew: 'Oh no.. That is certainly the meaty part alright, but it's not the thigh..."
Randy: "No... that bone is NOT connected to the thigh bone..."
www.fearthefin.com - Where masochism is defined.
I rushed the Furd's farm in 2009
www.californiagoldenblogs.com - Where Cal grads prove they learned something.
by SeanCrosby87 on Sep 11, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m really glad we got the W today. Although we did not play as good as we could have, our team stuck together and fought til the end. I feel like we never know what to expect with college teams, one day they show up, other times they are a no show. In my opinion what people remember the most is who won. We have played USC close in recent years but in the end all people see is that they got the that W.
Ursus arctos californicus – California golden bear
by berkeleyboy510 on Sep 10, 2011 11:45 PM PDT reply actions
Not trying to pump too much sunshine here...
I was talking to a friend a little earlier and in no way am I comparing Maynard to a former QB of Cal’s. But today’s offensive output on the road had a strange feeling compared to a past Tedford team. It was the first marquee win on the road for that Tedford QB as well as it was for Maynard today. Does anybody want to take a guess?
Here’s the box score:
CAL OPP
FIRST DOWNS………………. 22 26
RUSHES-YARDS (NET)………… 32-105 35-66
PASSING YDS (NET)…………. 263 430
Passes Att-Comp-Int……….. 37-20-0 57-35-1
TOTAL OFFENSE PLAYS-YARDS….. 69-368 92-496
Fumbles-Lost……………… 1-1 0-0
Penalties-Yards…………… 5-26 3-40
Possession Time…………… 26:40 33:20
Third-Down Conversions…….. 5 of 13 13 of 23
Fourth-Down Conversions……. 0 of 0 1 of 2
Sacks By: Number-Yards…….. 5-40 2-9
California Colorado
1st Downs 22 25
3rd down efficiency 7-13 6-17
4th down efficiency 0-0 2-3
Total Yards 370 582
Passing 270 474
Comp-Att 19-36 28-50
Rushing 100 108
Rushing Attempts 31 32
Yards per rush 3.2 3.4
Penalties 5-50 12-98
Turnovers 1 0
Possession 26:28 33:32
Michigan State, right?
That is strange how similar most of the numbers are.
"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
by Berkelium97 on Sep 10, 2011 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Not MSU
Since you are the only one who bit, the first box score was from the Illinois game in 2003. Affectionately known as AR’s first road start and win. When I thought about it, there were similar struggles that both the passing and run games went through as well as the defense. It was a season of ups and downs but the 2003 team steadily improved each week setting the table nicely for 2004. I dream of another 2004 season happening without a Cal receiver slipping in the end zone. If Cal can continue to improve this year, 2012 in new Memorial will be a very special season.
This is definitely a dream scenario, and while none of us expect ZM to ever be as efficient as AR, it’s going to be fun to watch Zach’s development, especially since he has a tool that AR did not have: Keenan Allen.
Another parallel to watch: will CJA follow in the path of JJA, another JC transfer who slowly emerged in 2003 only to explode on the scene with a monstrous 2004?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 11, 2011 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I think we miss Cam Jordan and Derrick Hill more than people realize
And what’s with starting Campo and Ryan Davis at OLB today. What happened to Wilkerson, McCain and Whiteside?
In other words, Go Bears!
Campo started last week too. It was just Davis jumping WIlkerson
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Being stout agains the run
I commented on that last week about Cal’s OLBs needing to be more stout against the run. Davis is a much bigger body than Wilkerson and imo holds the point of attack better. However, he lacks speed to get after the QB or pursue the play from behind.
I really like what I saw from McCain the past 2 weeks. If he bulks up a bit more, he will be all conference and potentially AA by the end of his career. He has that much potential.
Campo was getting heat on Hansen toward the end of the game, but Hansen was just barely able to escape.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Please calm down and back away from the keyboard! No one’s saying that a first-rounder can be replaced at will; however, the D-line has a lot of depth and talent.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
Miller gives helmet stickers to Hansen and Richardson but none to any Cal players
In other words, Go Bears!
And I’m perfectly alright with that. We won.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
You think Zach Maynard cares? Zach Maynard doesn’t give a $#!+
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 11, 2011 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Damn why does everyone think I’m complaining about the lack of helmet stickers? I was just pointing out a fact
In other words, Go Bears!
Why are you complaining about are complaining about your complaining?
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - R. Feynman
WE HAVE TO GO DEEPER INTO THE COMPLAINING!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
they deserve those stickers
Richardson was a monster today. An unbelievable player.
Win > helmet sticker
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Except that last year the team was adding helmet stickers to the helmets to represent a win. (They had their first for 2011 already on their helmets yesterday…)
Point is, is that it looked awfully sad after our 5th win, when the team stalled out and was unable to add additional stickers down the stretch.
I’d like to see some form of them return the way Mike White used to use them…
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Sep 11, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
ESPN blogger Ted Miller’s helmet stickers are just virtual, I think :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
In comparisons to last year’s team, this could have been like $C or ‘furd, where the defense has a rough outing, but there’s no offense to keep it close. In other games (UA, UW, and Oregon), all we needed was a little bit of offense.
Hopefully, we can continue to show that we enough offense to make the difference in more games this year.
Defensively, I’m scared about another meltdown.
What pleases me most is that even when the defense flops, the offense can bail us out this year. Hopefully the offense will not be shut down against the conference’s better defenses (who actually has a good defense is a mystery to me, however).
"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
by Berkelium97 on Sep 11, 2011 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Excellent Point
It seems like folks have forgotten that one of the initial impression of Pendergast’s defense was that it was feast or famine. Yesterday was famine for various reasons.
But they played the Buffs
a profoundly inferior team to those programs from last year, so, if the D and O plays like this against USC and Stanford, then expect similar results from last year
-1 dude, -1
Samuels said. "That last-minute shot at halftime sums it up. Shooting off one leg? C'mon, man."
by ikoolykedat on Sep 11, 2011 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
The O played pretty much as expected. A few too many drops, not enough big plays, but overall the offense played how I thought they would, and were able to consistently move the ball down the field. The D was the issue in this game.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 11, 2011 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Please, no more stress for today… I had enough watching the game, thank you very much
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 11, 2011 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
"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 Sep 11, 2011 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
HEre is what google image tells me North Greenville's logo is.
Based on this image, do you think there are any differences between N. Greenville and Berkeley?:
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Well, given the direction in which our state is headed, the UC will soon be a private university, too. (Albeit a secular one.)
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 11, 2011 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions
BI says that Bigelow was at Colorado in pads
Wait what? I thought he was going to RS!
In other words, Go Bears!
yes, this. But I did indeed see him on the sideline.
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions
silly question but
do people think we win this game with riley instead of maynard?
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
I think we might.
We didn’t use the zone read nearly as much. Maynard finished with barely over a 50% completion rate. Do we really think Riley would have been much worse?
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions
A lot of people are pumping the sunshine with regards to Maynard
and that is fine. Unfortunately, he has only proven one thing to me, fortunately that one thing is incredibly important, the ability to convert third and long. After all, he doesn’t seem that accurate, he does make some mental mistakes, but its all forgiven because for the first time in a while we can convert third and long. I also wonder if this is because we have better line protection on third down. The last couple of years, anything over 6 yards and I was worried we’d be able to get the pass off, which really sucks when you don’t have a qb that can throw the quick out or slant.
I support the NBA player's union.
Riley would’ve either put a thumping on Colorado or we’d have lost a la Nevada. It all depends on his confidence. The Riley of 2007 would’ve slung the ball and won it.
In other words, Go Bears!
Um, I don’t think we lost the NEvada game b/c of Riley. I think we lost it b/c of Kaepernick.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
1:3 TD/INT ratio.
(Completion percentage and YPA were good, but one of those INTs was a pick-six.)
"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
Let's
… not talk about the Nightmare @ Nevada
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 11, 2011 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Well had Riley played decently we could’ve beat them. Vereen was gashing them and we even were marching down for the lead when he threw a pick six
In other words, Go Bears!
Is any of this post a true statement?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Im full of self-loathign, yes
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Hard to say...
I think Maynard managed to get a couple plays off and keep drives by rolling out under pressure. Not sure Riley could have done the same. He always seemed to get rattled a lot.
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 11, 2011 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Im busy keeping hope alive! I dont have time to keep other things alive.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
You forgot to water it again didn’t you.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
YOU CANT PROVE ANYTHING!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!
Drew: 'Oh no.. That is certainly the meaty part alright, but it's not the thigh..."
Randy: "No... that bone is NOT connected to the thigh bone..."
www.fearthefin.com - Where masochism is defined.
I rushed the Furd's farm in 2009
www.californiagoldenblogs.com - Where Cal grads prove they learned something.
by SeanCrosby87 on Sep 11, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I actually doubt it.
If RIley took some of the crunches that the Buffs put on Zach today, I think he would have begun panicking and starting zinging picks everywhere.
"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 Sep 11, 2011 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions
On the other hand he could have had a game like he had against ASU in 2009 in which he had basically his career best game against a top 20 defense.
"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
ASU and Stanford 2009… Oh Riley, how you toy with our souls!
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 11, 2011 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions
And there was no running game in the ASU game. Neither Best or Vereen could get moving against that defensive front.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
I consider Riley a Cal football anomaly.
The definition of inconsistent.
I dunno, he always seemed to do his sucking on the road outside of the Bay Area (because Big Game 2009 was one his best). The thin air and hostile atmosphere would in most cases probably have spelled dooooooooooooom~.
"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 Sep 11, 2011 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Riley played for an inconsistent team
but without question, it was difficult to say just how bad (or good)he was sometimes. Bery inconsistent, probably a bit mental
We’d have a good chance. I tend to think yes.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
We escaped
We really did. We got outplayed for most of the game on both sides of the ball. Yeah, we were on the wrong end of a couple calls, but so were the Buffaloes.
We got 5 first downs off of penalties. And on huge on on the roughing the kicker. We’re not even in this game if Colorado didn’t continually shoot itself in the foot.
Couple thins I saw to maybe help us understand the poor pass defense…
1. We committed to the run (rewatching first half now, so maybe this changes in the second half). We lined up with both outside linebackers on the line more often than I would have liked. BUT, we did stop the run. Stewart is an elite player. No doubt. However, we held him to 78 yards on 24 carries. When you hold a RB like Stewart to 3.0 yards/carry, you’re doing a pretty good job.
2. I don’t understand why we kept at this even though Colorado was not running that much. They called 56 designed passes and 26 designed runs. Over 2 to 1 in favor of the pass.
3. I don’t think we’re missing MikeyMo as much as we’d like to think. I think we’re missing Cameron Jordon. I think Guyton, Owusu, or someone else needs to come up big soon as a big pass rush threat.
4. So why the big pass plays? We were essentially committing 5 to the pass rush on almost every play. Sometimes that fifth was just a spy, but it looks like we were also worried about Hansen’s mobility most of the time. So what happened? Anthony, Williams, and Hill ended up on an island on a lot of those plays. Hansen was good enough to find his receiver who was in the single coverage and get him the ball. Richardson is elite. If you put him in single coverage against young corners, he’s going to beat them from time to time. Pendergast had to keep dialing up coverage in order to get some sort of pressure on Hansen. It never came. It seemed like every time we got someone through the line, Colorado had asked for the runningback to stay home and block, or called the screen.
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
and when I say 5 on the line, translate that to 8 in the box as well
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I think we’re missing Cameron Jordon
This. Also Derrick Hill. He was a presence at NT
I don’t understand why we kept at this even though Colorado was not running that much. They called 56 designed passes and 26 designed runs. Over 2 to 1 in favor of the pass.
I’m guessing that Colorado went to the air because we were stuffing the run.
In other words, Go Bears!
I’m sure, but then why didn’t we react by say, doubling Richardson more often? If you arent getting any pressure anyway… why not drop 8?
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I know, thats silly, you keep bring pressure. But maybe 7 in box suffices?
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe initially
but they stuck with it because they began to torch Cal’s secondary…always seemingly a weakness of Cal.
Man, I disagree that we were “outplayed most of the game”. Yeah, the Buffs racked up some stats on us, but we had held them to two FGs and were up 16-6 at the half. They had some HUGE plays in the third and beginning of the fourth quarter to get back into the game, no doubt, but the 4th quarter was pretty even. They only really outplayed us in the third quarter.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions
The Buffs went to the red zone 4 times and got 9 points out of it. We were outplayed, but stopped them when it matters most.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Interesting that you say that and that you were at the game. I wonder how different the so-called momentum shifts felt in person there as opposed to thru the lens of television.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
I don’t know about you, but EVERYTHING feels worse when I am watching on TV by myself… seriously, I get so much more worked up when I watch alone
Agreed. I dont watch games alone. I need to be with people to either celebrate or commiserate.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
because you are forced to sit with your own thoughts when you watch by yourself. Depending on those thoughts, it can be quite aggravating to watch your team by yourself, but at other times I kind of like it. There is no sound board to commiserate or celebrate. We get on CGB threads because talking Cal sports to our living room wall leaves us very unfulfilled.
I also prefer engaging with other Cal fans (or whatever team is playing) during the game. It helps to be drunk too, whether you’re by yourself or not.
CU crowd, by quarter:
1Q: Hopeful
2Q: Quiet
3Q: OMG… We’re in this thing!?!!—→OMG WE MIGHT WIN!!!!
4Q: OMG… ooh…. OMG!!!!!
OT: LOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDveryquiet.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Our defense was on the field wayyyy too long. I think about 8 or 9 more minutes than Col
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
i'd be interested
in seeing a defensive analysis of the game. I thought we came away from the blitz too soon. We seemed to be sending four straight up (no stunts) and who the hell knows what the other seven players were doing. Man with a single safety maybe? Whatever it was, it couldn’t stop the slant or the screen.
But it did seem that as the field shortened, the defense got better. Was this bend-don’t-break?
Also, Pendergast needs to come up with better gameplans for pro-style teams. Stanfurd and USC will have a field day against this plan.
by slaphancock on Sep 11, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
This is interesting in that he’s been quoted as saying that scheming for pro-style teams is his bread-and-butter.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
I know, I’ve seen that as well, and I always think “what the hell?” It’s the pro-style offenses that roll on us (Furd, SC).
by slaphancock on Sep 11, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Did Tiny get in? I don’t recall them calling his name.
I wonder if he could bust through the OL
by HeyAlumniGo on Sep 11, 2011 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
BTW WSU put a bigger beat down on UNLV with their backup QB than Wisconsin did!
Wazzu!
In other words, Go Bears!
Drive at 3rdQ 6:43 for Col:
1 and 10: 8 in the box, 1 on 1 Williams v. Richardson… ball overthrown.
2 and 10: 8 in the box. soft zone from the corner… thrown to the flat, overthrown
3 and 10: 7 in the box, screen, Stewart dropped. (well covered)
Pass pass pass. three and out. One of our best series, but still on that run.
Next series
1 and 10: 7 in box. Run up middle, stuffed.
2 and 8: 8 in box: pressure from Guyton, Hanson rolls right, picks up 4 with legs
3 and 4: 5 in box: swing pass, stuffed by Kendricks and Guyton. CRAP CALL.
1 and 10: 7 in box: run right, stuffed
2 and 10: 7 in box: Hanson Bootleg left, short to Stewart.
3 and 6: 6 in box: 4 rush, quick slant to Richardson after Hill drops into zone, beats hill and jukes Campbell. 66 yard TD……
So…. I guess they did adapt to what I wanted, Richardson was just better than Hill and Campbell.
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
Second big TD:
7 in box for us, Cattouse creeps up, then bites on the TE in route. Richardson runs a post one on one with Anthony. Beats him inside. Off to the races.
Again, wasn’t like Hanson had all day on that play. Just another island for an elite receiver on a young corner with no safety help
CGB: No Regrets. Just Love.
by oskisunbear on Sep 11, 2011 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Cattouse did not appear to have a good game. Perhaps we really need to add Chris Conte to the list of NFL guys we miss this year. The safeties are often forgotten men when we talk defense, but they are the key to shutting down a guy like Richardson in lieu of a pass rush.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 11, 2011 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Tedford's Decision to take a Knee at the end of the regulation.
Red Zone (inside opponent’s 20 yard line) success in regulation:
Colorado inside the red zone: 0/2 with 1 Field Goal made
Cal inside the red zone: 4/4 with 4 TDs scored
This should tell you two things:
1: Colorado relied more on the big play to score but when the field shinks, there is less real esate to use and scoring becomes harder.
2: Cal was extremely efficient inside the red zone yesterday.
by Cali49a on Sep 11, 2011 12:54 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
and 3: The odds favored Cal in OT. Taking the knee at the end of regulation eliminated the possibility of a turnover and CU possibly exploding for a TD
Math Typo?
Well, you know what? WE WERE WRONG. And why were we wrong? Because Cal had a play for 1st and 30. It was Zach Maynard throwing a strike to his brother, Keenan Allen, along the left sideline for a gain of 27 yards and a first down for Cal at the Colorado three-yard line.
32 yards. Sorry it was bothering me because it was damn straight a first down.
Thanks -- my bad
And yes, I realized that before I saw this comment. Story has been edited.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
THATS IT! YOU’RE ON THIN ICE! DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION! ONE MORE MATH ERROR AND YOU’RE BUSTED DOWN TO AROUND THE PAC-12 DUTY!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
One more math error? That will prolly happen by tomorrow.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Missing PAT Range
Anyone else think that one Tavecchio was inside the 5 in OTif we were going to go for the FG to tie the game that it would be blocked since he’d been getting all his PAT blocked and that’s how we’d lose the game?
That was just one of a billion other scenarios I was imagining on how we’d lose the game.
I was cringing
at the idea of a 40-plus yard FG attempt by a guy who has missed 3 extra points in two games.
Blocked does not = missed
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 5:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but missed wide or short or whatever is usually the fault of the kicker, maybe sometimes the snapper or holder. Blocked is usually on the line.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
They were missed
as far as I’m concerned. When you boot it so low, it’s a miss. Even the one’s he made sneaked through the uprights. Tevechio is a scary kicker to watch. He’s fun to watch if you’re not a Cal fan and like to see poor kids continually let down 70 other guys game in and game out.
One of those at FSU was arguably booted too low, and I haven’t seen footage of the one from the beginning of the CU game, but I think the problem with the other two was blocking on the line, not Tavecchio. It’s hard to say they were misses if he had good blocking. We haven’t seen one go wide.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
The blocked PAT at the beginning of the CU game was pretty much all on the line. They got annihilated and Tavecchio didn’t have a chance.
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 11, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
There you go. So, this year, Tavecchio has been 2/2 on FGs (of 39 yds and 40 yds), made 6 XPs, had 1 questionable XP, and got fucked over by his line twice. That’s not so bad.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 11, 2011 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions
After that missed PAT
Tavecchio started looking a hell of a lot better. Kick-offs into the end zone, high arching field goals and pats!
I support the NBA player's union.
Giorgio is perfect (2 for 2) on FGs this year!
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
So, hes missed more PATs than made FGs?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I just listened to the KGO archive of the radio broadcast in overtime
Joe Starkey after the Maynard-to-Allen 32 yard gain on 1st and 30:
“I don’t believe what I just saw. I sound like Jack Buck with that…”
And before the snap he said:
“The Bears can’t even think about a touchdown on this play. They need to think about getting the ball closer.”
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Random Question
When does revenue sharing kick in? Does it start this year or next?
I support the NBA player's union.
Another Random Question but for Salary_Cap
Why are you using a fresnostate.edu address as your email on SB Nation?
Why does the blog you link to in your profile have a writer that also wrote for Fresno State’s school newspaper?
The writer also mentions Jason Kidd as the athlete that turned him into a Cal fan. I also read a comment about Jason Kidd above from a poster.
The writer posted a critical post of Maynard on that blog as well and there was a fanpost recently that criticized Maynard on CGB.
It makes sense now. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why you have spent so much time being uber critical of Maynard and Cal this past week.
by Cali49a on Sep 11, 2011 8:24 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
You’re right! Salary_Cap is Brock Mansion’s mother!!!
Old Toothwrangler
by Kodiak on Sep 11, 2011 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Successful troll is successful!
Alright, and after it's all over, you say "Ooh, what a lovely tea party"
by Redonkulous Bear on Sep 11, 2011 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t understand your concern, or your insinuation that I have dishonest motives in being critical of certain Cal players. But if you clarify, I would be glad to try and answer them for you.
why are you so overtly negative? we are a happy bunch here.
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
by GoldBlooded on Sep 11, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Being critical is fine but when you twist other people’s words to make a player look worse than he is AND doing so to push your point as you did in your fanpost on Maynard, well, that throws your credibility and the integrity of what you write out the window. I find it a bit ironic that you would say “Isn’t it a reporter’s job to report facts” since you have written for a college newspaper yet you don’t practice that here on the blog. Perhaps I am being too critical and you are just talking about something you really don’t know much about. I’m not sure but I do know that I have not gained anything reading your posts and probably should have never responded to them in the first place since it takes you about 12093412 posts to make your original point clear. Ever wonder why some of your comments get lots of replies? I can tell you it’s not because you said something interesting.
Your ties to Fresno State just make it more incriminating. I’m not saying you can’t be or are not a fan of both schools, but it did make me wonder. I give people the benefit of the doubt on this blog but when they insult past players to try to make points and act like know-it-alls, it’s a waste of time to deal with.
by Cali49a on Sep 11, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You make several good points. I think a number of folks have pointed out that repeated and persistent negativity as well as skewing or misremembering facts in order to continue an argument aren’t received well. Even if the intent is an honest discussion, the tone or the way with which the facts are presented can make it difficult to have a productive discussion.
That being said, salary_cap hasn’t exactly violated community guidelines; as much as many of us may disagree with his opinions, we still have to respect his right to state them…within reason. Should CGB readers become irritated with the tone or the way he presents his arguments, I would encourage them to simply stop responding and ignore him. Should anyone feel that he is in violation of community guidelines to the extent where he is affecting their ability to enjoy CGB and our forums, I would ask that you send us an email at cgbmods@gmail.com so that we can discuss and resolve the matter.
Old Toothwrangler
Thanks for clarifying
I now have a better idea of where you are coming from, so I’ll do my best to respond to your initial questions, then I will respond to this post.
Why are you using a fresnostate.edu address as your email on SB Nation?
Because its my only functional e-mail address right now. My yahoo! accounts get spam and I don’t use it anymore. My password has apparently been hacked as well. And the FSU address is through google, which has a lot of quality but simple features (like updating my indox without hitting refresh). My hunch is that this answer was not what you expected or wanted to hear. Sorry.
Why does the blog you link to in your profile have a writer that also wrote for Fresno State’s school newspaper?
That is my profile, not someone else’s. I think this answers your third (J Kidd) and fourth (Maynard) questions as well.
It makes sense now. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why you have spent so much time being uber critical of Maynard and Cal this past week.
It makes very little sense to me, but perhaps its because I’m not that bright. By my lights, this statement suggests I have an ulterior motive in criticizing Maynard’s play, one being that I have some secret allegiance to FSU. Wow. You are free to believe that if you like. I’ve had no reason to be critical of Maynard since a week ago, since that’s when he started playing games. Hence the criticism starting last Saturday.
Now your most recent response to clarify for my benefit:
Being critical is fine but when you twist other people’s words to make a player look worse than he is AND doing so to push your point as you did in your fanpost on Maynard, well, that throws your credibility and the integrity of what you write out the window
If you think I’m lying through my teeth and purposefully used 3 lines in an extensive column to convince an uber-educated college sports blog to sway their opinions in my direction, or to further discredit a player because I am so insecure about my own personal thought process, then this is fair of you to say. It was quite an egregious error on my part indeed once I listened to the tape again, and that you or others would say that is fair. You are free not to listen to anything I say because of it.
I find it a bit ironic that you would say "Isn’t it a reporter’s job to report facts" since you have written for a college newspaper yet you don’t practice that here on the blog. Perhaps I am being too critical and you are just talking about something you really don’t know much about.
I think I addressed the first part in the previous answer, so I won’t go through the trouble to further defend my integrity and “journalistic principles”. Criticize away. If you feel you have good reasons, criticize away. Don’t ever apologize for it. And yes, it is a real possibility that I don’t know anything about football.
I’m not sure but I do know that I have not gained anything reading your posts…
My deepest apologies for this. I always attempt to initiate/add to the conversation, and offer something to those who read them. My advice to you: stop reading them (unless you are a masochist).
…and probably should have never responded to them in the first place since it takes you about 12093412 posts to make your original point clear
But you continue to do so. It’s a disservice to your personal quality time to read somebody so lacking in credibility. Any yes, my 12093412 posts to clarify my intentions and thought process is indicative of my shortcomings as a writer … or it could be a necessity when confronted with a defensive/offensive audience at dissent/criticism of a beloved Bear. Maybe its a little of both, maybe its all me.
Ever wonder why some of your comments get lots of replies?
No, I don’t.
I can tell you it’s not because you said something interesting
Noted.
Your ties to Fresno State just make it more incriminating
I assume this speaks to your suspicion of my secret FSU fandom, and that the only way to handle the reality that the Bulldogs aren’t very good is to come on a Cal blog, pretend to be a Cal fan, then bash Cal players without conscience. A poorly conceived theory, in my view, but one you are certainly free to have. The Cal-FSU game was the first FSU game I sat down to watch in my life. I have as much affection for FSU as I do for having dirt in my mouth. Take that with a grain of salt if you’d like. At minimum, I respect your sincerity about it all.
I’m not saying you can’t be or are not a fan of both schools…
Thank you for letting me know its okay.
…but it did make me wonder
Whatever blows your hair back
I give people the benefit of the doubt on this blog but when they insult past players to try to make points and act like know-it-alls, it’s a waste of time to deal with.
I assume the “past players” refers to J Kidd … the J kidd joke about not having to go to class. Is this right? J Kidd was my basketball idol growing up, but I made a dig at him because I secretly hate Cal, right? And if its Maynard, I never insulted him personally, and in no fair-minded view could one say that I did. And, as you pointed out earlier, I am closer to a know-nothing more than I am to a know-it-all. If having a strong opinion — and feeling passionate about expressing them to a like-minded community of Cal alums/fans — is writing like a “know-it-all,” then you have conflated “know-it-all” with many other terms and phrases.
…it’s a waste of time to deal with
You’d be wise to accept your own advice.
I’m sorry my offerings have been of no use to you. Another uninspired reader.
I’m not sorry we don’t see eye to eye on Maynard at this point. I’m open to new evidence, and I hope Maynard turns out to be the Second Coming, I just don’t feel I have good reasons to say so. If putting aside my biased Cal fandom lenses to try and understand how their new QB performed to help gauge where he is — and what he might (not) become — has rubbed you, or anyone else, the wrong way, then … I don’t know.
I don’t know what else to say. If this is not an adequate response to your concerns, and you still care to get them, I’m always willing to give it a shot.
You’d be wise to accept your own advice.
I already did but since you took the time and effort to defend yourself, I figured I’d throw you a bone and let you know that you possibly have a future writing for bleacher report.
I’m sorry my offerings have been of no use to you.
Acknowledgment is the first step to helping yourself. I almost thought you were being sincere and taking the high road until I detected the sarcastic arrogance in the latter part of your post. It’s ok. Keep working at it!
that was a seriously impressive misdirect
I now have a better idea of where you are coming from, so I’ll do my best to respond to your initial questions, then I will respond to this post.
Why are you using a fresnostate.edu address as your email on SB Nation?
Because its my only functional e-mail address right now. My yahoo! accounts get spam and I don’t use it anymore. My password has apparently been hacked as well. And the FSU address is through google, which has a lot of quality but simple features (like updating my indox without hitting refresh). My hunch is that this answer was not what you expected or wanted to hear. Sorry.
He wasn’t asking why you are using THAT email address as opposed to others… he’s asking why you’re using a fresnostate.edu address at all…
That was really well played.
I remember seeing it once.
"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
by Berkelium97 on Sep 11, 2011 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
There were a few occurrances...
Drew: 'Oh no.. That is certainly the meaty part alright, but it's not the thigh..."
Randy: "No... that bone is NOT connected to the thigh bone..."
www.fearthefin.com - Where masochism is defined.
I rushed the Furd's farm in 2009
www.californiagoldenblogs.com - Where Cal grads prove they learned something.
by SeanCrosby87 on Sep 11, 2011 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I was kinda surprised we didn’t run the zone read.
Didn’t recall seeing any.
by HeyAlumniGo on Sep 11, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Was the play where Maynard picked up a first down with a 4-yard gain on a 2nd and 1 in the 4th Q a zone read play?
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
I'm watching the 49ers-Seahawks game
and I can’t stand the announcers (especially Lynch). So much Furd fellating. Especially when Baldwin scored a TD. Only one mention of Cal when Forsett got upended. Nothing when Mebane or Lynch made great plays.
In other words, Go Bears!
Looking ahead
Looks like the Blue Hose have a forum of their own. According to this thread they’re going to have ~100 fans at AT&T….
In other words, Go Bears!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
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
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
