2011 Cal vs. Colorado Post-Game Thoughts
(1) An ugly win, but an inspiring one. In past years it seems like when the wheels were starting to fall off on the road, they really fell of fast and furiously. But against Colorado it seemed like the wheels were starting to fall off and yet the Bears kept it together just enough to keep themselves in the game. I think this shows the team's resiliency. They seemed to keep believing that they were still in the game (which of course they always were), and they didn't seem to get too affected by the fact that the momentum late in the game was clearly shifting in Colorado's favor. If the Bears continue to show the ability to bounce back from errors and 3rd and 25s, then this could be a very exciting team to watch.
(2) Cheadle is notifying Galas of when the QB is ready for shotgun snaps. So here's a little something new which probably has gone unnoticed by most viewers. Remember against Fresno State we were having tons of difficulty with the shotgun snaps? The problem there was that the center (Galas) was unable to hear when the QB wanted the ball and would be snapping the ball at the wrong times. Galas is always looking forward so he can't see behind him to see when the QB (Maynard) is ready to receive the snap. Now though, Cheadle looks back at the QB on shotgun snaps to see when Maynard is ready. When Maynard is ready, Cheadle gives Galas a little poke with his left arm and probably says something too -- thus letting Galas know that it's safe to snap the ball. Looks like Coach Michalczik has recognized the problem and has installed a system to prevent the error. And what do you know? As far as I recall, Cal didn't have any premature shotgun snaps this game unlike against Fresno State.
(3) Maynard needs to step up into the pocket. When Maynard threw his INT, everyone saw the problem -- he threw a jump pass. Obviously, jump passes are bad. You lose power and accuracy because your feet aren't set. Last week against Fresno State, it seemed like Maynard also had a few fade-away passes (retreating off his back foot while throwing). Again, fade away passes are bad too. Maynard needs to avoid all those throws. But the REAL reason why Maynard is making those throws is because he isn't stepping up into the pocket. I know, I know... on some plays pressure was coming up the middle so of course he isn't going to step up into the pressure. But there have been plays where the pressure is coming from outside... and I actually believe on the INT play it was coming from the outside. On those plays, the QB has to step up into the pocket to help out his OL.
Maynard's problem isn't uncommon for a lot of QBs. QBs don't like getting hit. Thus, it's only natural that they want to move away from the pressure. Longshore, as a sophomore in 2006, would often have this problem. It took him a year to grow out of it. Maynard is going to have to grow out of it too. He's going to have to learn to manipulate the pocket protection by staying in it when he can. If he steps up into the pocket and has faith in his OL, then he'll get better protection. But if he bolts from the pocket, he gives himself up to pursuit by defensive ends and linebackers. Right now, Maynard is getting away with things because he's faster than most of the defensive ends, but this won't always be the case as Cal starts to play higher quality Pac-12 competition.
(4) A less aggressive gameplan by Pendergast. Everyone is complaining that there was no pressure on Colorado's QB. And there wasn't. The DL wasn't getting great pressure at all. But part of the problem was also that Pendergast wasn't blitzing as much as he normally does. Why blitz less? Well, Colorado was showing that they were going to screen us. Early on they executed the RB screen at least four times and burned us pretty bad every time. When an offense shows that they're going to screen a lot, you don't blitz. That's one of the main rules for defensive coordinators: *don't blitz into screens.*
In fact, Pendergast said pretty much exactly this in a post-game interview with Rivals.com:
"You know, [the Colorado QB is] very good getting out of the pocket, and they were very good at throwing to the [running]back out of the backfield, which neutralized some of the pressures that maybe we normally would have liked to have run," said Pendergast.
...
"We didn't want to come into this game with a lot of different pressures just because of the nature of their playmakers, and you know, they did a nice job."
I think a lot of Cal fans were sort of upset about the fact that Cal didn't sack Colorado's QB after what happened last year (Cal sacked him like a million times), and because Hawaii sacked Colorado's QB like 7 times last week. But fans also have to realize, playing defense isn't always just about blitzing five to seven guys and being aggressive every down. If playing defense was that simple then everyone would do it, and everyone doesn't do it because it has its downfalls.
(5) Cal gives up like a whole mile of yardage through the air. Did Cal even have a gameplan? Of course it did. Maybe just not for Richardson who amassed 284 yards. Cal CB #1 Steve Williams said:
"We didn't really have a game plan for him (Richardson). We didn't know he was going to be as good as he showed us today. We had a lot of film on him because he's their go-to guy."
So it looks like Cal just got caught by surprise by a guy who decided to have a phenomenal game (along with Colorado's QB too). Pendergast certainly knew Richardson was Colorado's go-to guy and even tried doubling Richardson later in the game:
"We actually did in the second half. We doubled him a good bit, not so much on the long touchdown he had, but some other instances. We had a safety over the top and a corner underneath him, you know, probably a handful of times. Because we obviously knew that's where they were going to go with the football. He still made some plays and the quarterback made some throws."
I guess everyone can breath a collective sigh of relief that Pendergast saw the problem and was trying to fix it. I suppose though, some fans might wonder why did Pendergast only double Richardson "a handful of times"? Why not double him all the time? Well, when you start doubling a guy all the time then the defense is now down one defender on the field. In other words, 9 Cal defenders are left to cover 10 Colorado offensive players. Does that math sound favorable to you? No, it doesn't. I talked about that exact concept in my 2010 Cal vs. Oregon analysis. Oregon would often have its WRs or TEs block Cal's safety, in effect, occupying two defenders. This gives Oregon a numerical advantage across the field which allows their offense to be so successful. If Cal doubles Richardson, they are essentially conceding to the offense one less defender to account for, and giving Colorado's offense a chance to be more successful elsewhere on the field.
So that's why Pendergast didn't want to double Richardson all the time. That and...
We felt like that, you know, our matchups with our corners were good going in. We had some technique breakdowns. We just have to get better at it. [Richardson is] a very talented player, and he's a big-play guy, and they did a nice job getting him the ball. Rivals.com
Eh, I can't really blame Pendergast there. Sometimes you think your guys are better. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. Maybe the other team's guy is just having a great day. As a defensive coordinator, you ideally always want to play 1 on 1 football across the board and not have to resort to doubling a guy.
One other alternative Pendergast could have taken was to place Cal CB #1 Williams on Colorado WR Richardson. Williams is arguably Cal's best pass defender. For most of the day, it seemed like Richardson's success was mostly coming against Cal CB #2 Anthony. But Cal didn't do this. Cal, seemingly, plays its cornerbacks as LCB/RCB (left cornerback and right cornerback). Meaning that each one always lines up on their respective side of the field (except when the defense is playing man coverage and the offense comes out in twin WR formations on one side of their formation). Anthony is Cal's LCB, and Williams is Cal's RCB.
Interestingly, towards the end of the game, Colorado had Richardson on Cal's right side and lined up against Williams. Not surprisingly, these were the plays when Williams swatted away a couple of passes to Richardson. If I were Colorado's offensive coordinator, I probably would have tried to keep Richardson on Cal's left side so he was lined up against Anthony.
(6) The Family Tree. It's great that Maynard and Allen have that connection which allows them to make passes which perhaps some QB/WR combos probably can't, but at the same time I am worried that Maynard might be looking for Allen a little too often and not always checking some of his other options.
But man... when the Family Tree is connecting... they sure are exciting to watch.
(7) Blocked PATs. Okay, so I thought perhaps Fresno State was a fluke. You know, Tavecchio is kicking on grass which is different than kicking on turf -- which is mostly what Tavecchio is used to. Also, perhaps Fresno State just gets some fluke penetration because of AALLLLLAAAAAMMMMAAAARRRR. But then Cal also has its first PAT attempt blocked against Colorado? Hmm... this could be a sign of greater problems.
Ironically, Cal might have won the game because of that missed PAT. If Cal had made that PAT, then Cal would have been up 4 points late in the fourth quarter. Colorado would then be forced to go for it on fourth down. Perhaps they convert, and perhaps they score a touchdown. Then Cal would have been down 3 points with only like 30 seconds to go. Who knows if Cal can get within field goal range with one timeout in 30 seconds but it seemed unlikely.
Instead, Cal takes it to overtime and wins the game.
As for the blocked PATs, they seem to be mostly protection problems and not Tavecchio's fault (aside from the first blocked PAT against Fresno State).
(8) Tedford's decision to take it to overtime. Speaking of overtime, it was a little disappointing to see Tedford take a knee to take the game into overtime. I know that's the completely 100% safe thing to do so you don't lose the game in case your last second fourth quarter hail mary is pick-6ed. But I prefer to at least run a run play. On the 1% chance that your guys break open a big run, you could suddenly find yourself in field goal range or you could just score a touchdown. Of course, if Cal had run the ball, in typical Cal fashion there probably would have been a fumble and a scoop-n-score by Colorado. That is, of course, one of the risks of running the ball before the end of regulation -- and on any run play for that matter. Alternatively, if Cal does fumble and Colorado recovers, they are looking at a short field with a chance of a field goal with like 25 seconds left. That's plenty of time to take a few shots down the field, or move the ball forward 10-15 yards for a long field goal.
So clearly, Tedford's decision was conservative. The reason why I thought this was surprising because last week against Fresno State we saw Tedford go for it on fourth and 1 from the opponent's like 3 yard line instead of kicking a field goal, and we saw Tedford dial up a hail-mary play before halftime. If Tedford is willing to do that one week, I don't really see much difference in at least calling up a run play instead of kneeling the ball to go to overtime.
Overall though, I'm not upset or anything about the decision. I see the logic in kneeling. I guess I'm just not as conservative as Tedford.
(9) Everyone loves the power back. Everyone is loving Cal RB #9 Anderson, right? Everyone wants to see Anderson get more snaps, right? He did have a good touchdown run. He broke tackles and he earned himself about 1,000 new Cal fan man-crushes. Seems like everyone is loving Anderson right now and "eh" on Sofele. It's understandable, but I'm not sure if it's right. Sofele, again, was dealing with tougher running lanes most of the game. Anderson had a HUGE hole on his TD run. It's very arguable that Sofele could have gotten a touchdown too if he had been in instead of Anderson. I'm not discounting what Anderson did, but I just think that it still might be a little premature to expect Anderson to unseat Sofele as the #1 back any time soon. On that note, Ryan Gorcey of Rivals.com is reporting that Anderson and Deboskie (Cal RB #33) are now co-#2s on the depth chart. This isn't a complete surprise. Deboskie didn't have a great showing against Fresno State last week (on his lone rush he left his feet which is a no-no), and was -- quite interestingly -- a no-show against Colorado. Deboksie didn't even get one carry. It has to make you wonder if he's already getting passed up by Anderson.
(10) Maynard's statistics. Let's take a look at Maynard's statistics thus far this season.
QB rating: 134.9 (57th nationally)
Okay, the QB rating isn't bad but QB rating is a horrible way to evaluate QBs since it gives huge bonuses for touchdowns. Better measurables are a QB's yards per attempt, completion %, and interception %.
Yards per attempt: 7.5 (54th nationally out of 120)
Completion %: 49.3% (106th nationally out of 120)
Interception %: 2.86%
These better measurables are... okay. The yards per attempt are fine. That's about average. But the completion rate is poor. It's worse than Riley. In Maynard's defense though, there have been some EASY drops by WRs and TEs this year thus far. I'd really like to see that completion rate go up to 60%. As for his INT%, it's okay. You'd really like to see it down in the 2% range at the most though.
On the whole, these statistics are suggestive of the fact that Cal is a big play passing team; hence the average yards per attempt despite the low completion rate.
(12) Cal's season outlook. Well, the win against Colorado gives me more hope that this team can: (1) face adversity on the road and win against evenly matched opponents; and (2) pull out a win against superior opponents at home. With wearing slightly tinted blue colored glasses, I could see this team actually pulling out 8 wins to the season. This is, on the hope and assumption, that for the most part things go Cal's way. Meaning that Maynard improves, and the team fights hard throughout the season.
Presby: W
@Wash: W
@Ore: L
USC: L
Utah: W
@UCLA: W
WSU: W
OSU: W
@Furd: L
@ASU: L
Final record: 8-4.
225 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I hope Hydro is right
8-4? This year, I’d take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
by Ohio Bear on Sep 12, 2011 6:01 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Yup
After watching that CU game i’m really not sure what to make of this team. Obviously winning a road game is big (i agree that is a game we likely lose the last 3 years), but the seeming vulnerability of our defense to big plays and getting no pressure on Hansen leaves me pretty concerned. FYI, i picked up a copy of the Boulder newspaper yesterday morning and found an interesting stat: Colorado has never lost a game (previously) where their QB was not sacked and they committed no turnovers. So…we got that going for us.
I also felt like our OL looked much worse and our run game struggled.
If or defense plays like it did Saturday and the OL has the same protection issues in Seattle, we’re screwed. I can only hope that as the season progresses, we get better. seems like we should, but other teams will too. and you can bet your ass that Sarkisian and the rest of the P12 will be itching to get their hands on Saturday’s game film and attempt to duplicate CU’s offensive success.
we can reach 8-4, but it won’t be easy. a tune-up this weekend and a battle in Seattle will help determine just how good we can be. i’d be thrilled with 8-4.
I am a Bear. We Are Cal.
I’ve been saying we probably get 8 wins all along and nobody paid any attention to me. Now that Hydro says it you guys think it sounds reasonable. What’s with you people and your valuing of “actual football knowledge”. Sheesh! :-P
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I was thinking this year’s team was most likely either an 8-4 team at the most, or a 6-6 at the least. Since two wins are already in our pocket, and the team has shown it has the ability to stay tough on the road, then it gives me hope that they can beat slightly superior talent at home, and also to beat equally talented teams on the road. Based on those hopes, I could see this team reaching 8 wins.
I’d love for you to be right, and for me to look like a negative nancy for predicting only 6 wins at the beginning of the season.
Yeah, I thought we were most likely a 7-8 win team, but I thought we’d get 5-6 wins if we were unlucky, and 9 wins if we were lucky. So far, Maynard has been exactly what I had hoped he’d be; he’s not a perfect QB by any stretch, but he is a guy is competent enough to manage the offense, doesn’t make too many bad mistakes, and can make plays and lead the team when needed. I absolutely love his attitude/demeanor and I think he’s got plenty of potential to improve, so I hope he gets better throughout the season under Tedford’s tutelage, but I’m pretty happy with what I’ve seen out of him so far.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Shotgun snaps
As far as I recall, Cal didn’t have any premature shotgun snaps this game unlike against Fresno State.
I don’t recall any premature snaps either. But wasn’t there one play — I think it was in the 3rd quarter — that Galas didn’t snap the ball when Maynard was calling for it? Maynard clapped his hands vigorously in an effort, it seemed, to get Galas to snap it.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
I thought that was in the 4th…and the crowd was making a lot of noise.
Not sure if the clapping was the signal, or if Maynard was trying to deceive the defense.
Old Toothwrangler
There was a ton of noise on that play, but I hope he was waiting to hear the right number of claps?
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
by Joe Bandsmen on Sep 12, 2011 9:08 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
We recruited Richardson
& Woods & Farmer too. The Serra guys are good.
A gutsy win by the Bears. Looking forward to seeing some Allan Bridgford this wkd.
#Dominate
We recruited Richardson
I enjoyed when the announcing team talked about how Richardson ‘decided’ to leave UCLA at the last minute without elaborating on what kind of circumstances might have made him want to find a different place.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
All I need to know is we’re not seeing him in Pasadena this season, or any more for that matter.
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
by Joe Bandsmen on Sep 12, 2011 9:10 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Well he’s a sophmore this year, so we’ll see him again if he doesn’t leave early – next year we’ll miss Colorado (@ Utah), but after that I think we’ll have a home & away with Colorado. This assumes the Big 12 lasts that long, which seems a long shot ;-)
by HelloBowlesHall on Sep 12, 2011 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Huh?
Why should we care about the Big 12 lasting if we’re playing Colorado? They are in the Pac-12 now…
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 12, 2011 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not HBH, but I interpreted it to mean that schedules might change and we might not be playing Colorado so soon if the Pac-16 comes to fruition, because we’d also have potential matchups with Oklahoma, OK St, Texas, and Texas Tech to cycle through.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks, Hydro!
Now though, Cheadle looks back at the QB on shotgun snaps to see when Maynard is ready. When Maynard is ready, Cheadle gives Galas a little poke with his left arm and probably says something too
I love hearing little details like this. Although, I wonder if this tips off the Dline, too?
Maynard needs to step up into the pocket.
Good point. But one thing I noticed on the re-watch is how often the Oline blocking breaks down…and yet Maynard usually is able to buy a little time and still make a play downfield. The deceptive thing is how easy he usually makes it look. We remember when he retreats and goes down, or gets hit while throwing it away awkwardly. But, it’s hard to remember how many times he glides a few steps to the side and still gets off a decent pass. What I like is how infrequently he looks rushed and I would never characterize his pocket presence as panicked. I’d feel better if Tedford could refine his footwork, but I could also see the argument towards not wanting to restrict his natural play-making skills with over-thinking things at this point.
Old Toothwrangler
8 wins? Sign me up!
I still see seven wins overall, because I see at least one brain fart loss in the patch of UW, Ucla, OSU, Wazzu, and maybe one sneak-thief win from furd, USC, oregun, Utah.
My overall feeling of the game has tempered some, though I am still pretty anguished about both the running game. Curiously, I’m not too upset about the passing game because while it isn’t great, it is timely. Big conversions when we really needed them. Maynard will improve as the season goes on and his completion rate ought to climb. But clutch throws are here now, and that’s not something we’ve seen in the past.
But what really gave me the agita was that awful defensive display. Not recognizing how good Richardson was, nor not really planning for Hansen’s mobility are legitimate if Colorado had a 300-yard game passing, but the extent of their aerial success makes those seem more like excuses. This was one of those Cal defensive collapses, pure and simple (like USC last year). Putting lipstick on it doesn’t really make it suddenly date-able. The only good thing we can say is we won.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
Disagree to some regard...
CAL (Clancy) did recognize how good Richardson is, but there were some other stated reasons why it didn’t result in a better defensive result. Sometimes you just don’t match up well at certain times during the game and you pay for it.
by CALiforniALUM on Sep 12, 2011 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal85 said it best, but I’ll re-phrase my discomfort about the passing defense by saying I would be much more comfortable with both the plan and the execution if it weren’t for the fact that both Hansen and Richardson set records on us. Hansen passing for 320 yards? Okay, maybe we planned wrong, poor matchup, or he just had a good day. But them racking up close to half a kilometer of passing yardage? That’s as much them having a good day or poor matchup as us just not playing well.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
Maybe I'm not misinterpreting your post...
You said: “Not recognizing how good Richardson was, nor not really planning for Hansen’s mobility are legitimate if Colorado had a 300-yard game passing, but the extent of their aerial success makes those seem more like excuses.”
Maybe I missed it, but where was it said they didn’t recognize that Richardson was that good or that Hansen wasn’t mobile? Clancy and the DBs have said publicly that they did in fact ID Richardson as CU’s best receiver. CAL’s defensive alignment of having left and right side CBs explains why the CAL defense may have not lined up as best we could, resulting in CU exploiting a weakness. I’m really just quibbling over your statement that they did not recognizing how good Richardson was and that being an excuse.
The question I’d like to know is why didn’t we switch sides with our two CBs since we had our No. 2 on Richardson nearly the entire game. I haven’t seen a good answer or guess for that yet.
by CALiforniALUM on Sep 12, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Was it our brilliant move late in the game to put Williams on Richardson or was it Colorado’s gaffe lining him up on the left side?
Maybe I missed it, but where was it said they didn’t recognize that Richardson was that good
This is the quote that got me thinking that maybe Cal didn’t truly realize how good Richardson could be: “We didn’t know [Richardson] was going to be as good as he showed us today.”
As far as Hansen, it seems the universal opinion of him based on his career to date was that he was a servicable but unspectacular QB. Honestly, did anyone have him as a 500 yard passer against a Pac-12 defense???
Ultimately it’s the opinion I have gleaned from comments and quotes based on our guys. Not that anyone was dismissive of either Richardson or Hanses, far from it. But loads of respect means they ought to have KNOWN that this was possible, and it STILL happened. Makes our faceplant even more apparent, no?
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
I rewatched the game. Most of the Rich/Hansen torching actually happened in the 2nd half. The first half was mediocre, dropped balls, overthrown balls, etc. So from there, it seemed like the game plan was fairly solid. It wasn’t until the 2nd half that PRich got into his zone, and by then a bit too late to make adjustments.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
This Game Makes Me Worry about USC
Is it just me, or can you see Barkley connecting with Woods all game long to shred our secondary. I hope Cal learned from this game and can step up their coverage in game 5 against USC.
jali was saying that all Saturday. If Hansen to Richardsen went for like 300yards….the NCAA might just log its first 600-yard receiving game ever…
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 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve actually revised my fear. We will shut out Woods, but every other receiver will get 200+ yards to set a new NCAA passing record of 1000+ yards in a game. That seems more Cal-like.
ah yes, that does seem more Cal-like.
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 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
that combo hasnt led to very impressive SC victories this year.
I think we have to re-evaluate the LCB-RCB system and just let Williams cover the best guy on the field. He’s our top cover man.
Cain is Able ...
USC ran a ton of screens during the Minnesota game. That coupled with Barkley’s designed roll outs makes me very nervous about their visit to AT&T. They have a young offensive line, however, so we might be able to get some pressure on dropback passing plays.
"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
the sunshine pumper in my says
that we will learn from this experience and stuff $C much like we learned from the Nevada & UCLA experience to stuff Oregon.
I like the thought but I would be more confident if we had a Conte-like Safety. He seemed to be the difference for us in Oregon.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
Wasn’t Hill supposed to be that guy for us this year?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s playing nickelback as sort of a hybrid corner/safety.
Campbell took over for Conte.
Old Toothwrangler
I’ve been pretty happy with what I’ve seen out of Campbell so far. I guess he was also partly responsible for the Richardson plays, but I guess I’m slightly more inclined to give credit to Richardson than dinging DJ for those.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I want to see Williams on Woods all game long like white on rice.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I don’t know where it comes from, but it is also in a Les Savy Fav song :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
This needs to be said somewhere...
but those Colorado fans were great, and I welcome them to the Pac-12. They are happy to be here, and glad they no longer travel to Lubbock, etc. and instead get the Bay Area, Seattle, Eugene, etc. I heard this a lot. Went to the Pearl Street Mall on Friday night, the band and team marched through. Lots of families, and kids, and fun (and good beer). Was invited to a tailgate the next day, and received a text message after the game from our host congratulating us on the win. Great showing in the Cal section too — we traveled well for this one. Hope we showed as much class as the Buffs did, and if you get a chance to go to Boulder (game day or not), my suggestion is to go.
by GoldenBear 77 on Sep 12, 2011 8:22 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
100% Agree
Great trip, loved Boulder, a great place to visit. Beautiful setting for football. Their fans were really quite nice, and extremely happy to be in the Pac-12; and they want no part of any Pac-16 ideas, as many fans mentioned. Also, despite all this hand-wringing by Cal fans, the view from the other side is that many of them felt lucky to be in this game and were impressed with this Bear team.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Haha, I don’t blame them for not wanting the Pac-16, but tough shit :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
98% Agree
I had a great time this weekend, loved everything about Boulder and the short trip to Denver. Great beer, food, atmosphere and MOSTLY fantastic fans.
I did trade a couple sour words with ONE Colorado fan as we were leaving the stadium. It started out with disagreement on the refs favoring the opposing team, which we Cal fans tried to shrug off, but then this guy tried to attack Cal academic integrity — and I got quite upset. In an effort to diffuse the tension, I told him that since we were talking rumors, I heard that Colorado’s team was made up with wizards. I still wait for his proof that they are NOT made of wizards.
As I said, I had a LOT of really positive interactions and one kinda sour one. I’m going to chalk it up to after-game intensity and the fact that his brother is a stanfurd fan, and thus he’s clearly got some sort of family history of mental disorder.
Ragnarok: Great Man or Greatest Man?
I told him that since we were talking rumors, I heard that Colorado’s team was made up with wizards.
….oh ZING.
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 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
…I don’t get it.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
which, mine or hers?
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 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Both. I don’t get the source of the comment, or why it would be such a ZING.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s not a “zing.”
That’s the joke.
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 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Then why did she say it? Still confused.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
exactly.
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 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I SAID IT BECAUSE IT IS A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN BASED ON A FACT OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO A FACT.
Ragnarok: Great Man or Greatest Man?
Then, how do you explain that DeCal class I took “Modern Wizardry”?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
a similar odd experience
the Colorado fans sitting near us at the game were terrific. fun talking with them about the teams and the game. congratulations were given and received.
as i was walking out of the tunnel post-game, i was talking to a couple CU fans and wishing them good luck on the rest of the season as well as complimenting their performance. zero belligerence on my part. i felt a tap on my shoulder and turned to find a younger Buff fan (maybe 22?) smiling at me. He told me that he was surprised that “a bunch of drunk guys hadn’t beaten the shit out of me”. I assume this was because i was wearing a Cal shirt. seeing as this kid was about 5’6 and i’m 6’3, i’m not sure if he meant to be friendly or threatening…but i just kind of looked at him and laughed. then i looked around to see if he had any man-sized friends. he did not. i thanked him for being so concerned about my well-being, and just said i sure hoped i’d emerge from Boulder unscathed. really just weird.
that said…awesome game environment and a loud crowd. glad we got out with a win.
I am a Bear. We Are Cal.
Hey, uh… were you a large man wearing Cal Rugby gear (a shirt or sweatshirt, and I think even Cal Rugby pants)?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
negative
just a blue Cal shirt and khaki shorts. but i did see some dudes wearing Cal Rugby jerseys…
I am a Bear. We Are Cal.
Okay, I’m glad I didn’t go up to that dude and ask if he was you :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey, were you a 2,000 pound bison that they parade around the field?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Eh. There are pricks in every fan base. If the ratio for Colorado is really low, then that’s a good thing. After all, we already have to deal with oregun, sc, ucla and zona fans.
I’d have added furd, except they only have like 3 fans.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
Well, add that brother of the fan AndBears had to deal with and you get 4 furd fans. That’s a huge increase percentage-wise!
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 12, 2011 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d just like to point out that bad teams generally have better fans. No reason for random drunk douchbags to be fans of a team that’s predicted to have 3 wins. As soon as teams get good, bandwagon fans jump on, people who are in more to get drunk and be assholes show up, and fanbases get worse. (Obviously exception is UCLA).
Glad you enjoyed Boulder
We are thrilled about being in the PAC 12 even thought it will be some rough going for awhile.
Try to not to blame the entire school and town for a few drunk morons (see below). We really do welcome our foes to Folsom and hope you enjoy Boulder. Though we have struggled recently, it is a great football town!
PS, we don’t want to travel to Ames, Iowa either! Haha!!
Yeah, I heard several Buffs fans specifically call out Ames as a place they never want to visit again. What’s with that place?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
For some reason I’m drawing a blank on Ames and I don’t want to search. What school is this?
In other words, Go Bears!
Iowa State, actually. Iowa is in Iowa City. (I know! what a silly mistake!)
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Oh doh.
In any case I wouldn’t want to go to Iowa either (the entire state)
In other words, Go Bears!
but have you seen Field of Dreams? It’s a dead ringer for Heaven!
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Not my version.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
100% agree!
The fans were awesome, the weather was perfect, and the outdoor activities were amazing. The only real drawback was the visitor seating in the stadium – but it was still a great road trip and game day experience!
Agreed
I wouldn’t want to sit in the visitor’s section. At least you got to see the end of the Ralphie run.
I don’t think any stadium has very good visitor seating. I was so far up at the Rose Bowl a few years back, my ears popped walking to my seat. Sun Devil stadium was no better, but at least the view of the Phoenix Skyline was nice.
Really? Is the corner of Memorial all that great a spot?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Is there a bad seat in Memorial???
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Like the dating scene in Fresno, it’s all relative.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I was gonna single out a state, like Kentucky or Alabama or something, but it felt more comfortable to diss Fresno.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
West Virginia
If you single out any state, it needs to be West Virginia.
"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 12, 2011 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn’t want to hurt CalBear81’s feelings.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 13, 2011 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Good beer :-)
With Colorado now added to the mix, the Pac-12 really does dominate the beer category now. There are a few pockets of excellence elsewhere, even down in SEC country (Abita comes to mind), and Utah stands out as a real under performer for us. But there is no beer like Pac-12 beer.
Cheers to us all!
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 12, 2011 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
So much this. California and the PAcific Northwest Ales have joined forces with the slightly less delicious Colorado beers to form a hoppy supernova of greatness
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
Colorado beers less delicious?
strongly disagree. There are a ton of breweries in the state and a lot of awesome beer. only bummer is you can’t find a lot of them in California.
some of my favorite CO breweries off the top of my head:
Oskar Blues (Longmont)
Avery (Boulder)
Boulder Beer (duh)
Left Hand (Lafayette, CO)
Great Divide (Denver)
Breckenridge (guess)
O’Dell’s (Fort Collins)
i won’t even include New Belgium in Fort Collins (Fat Tire), because it’s shit compared to the other ones. there’s a lot more too.
I am a Bear. We Are Cal.
It was more a jab from your friendly CGB homebrewer of California ales…
Also I’d confidently put Lagunitas’ and Stone’s collection of ales up against most breweries in the nation, but that is subjective of course.
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
by CruzinBears on Sep 12, 2011 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Big fan of both Stone and Lagunitas
I’d also put Russian River BrewCo way up there for hopheads (Pliny the Elder is awesome). I’m just saying that the Colorado breweries could stand up against any in the country.
/blatant homerism
I am a Bear. We Are Cal.
Even the Bangor, Maine breweries?????? EVEN THEM!!?!?!?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Russian River is also fantastic, and Colorado brews (statewide) are a close third for me behind California and Oregon breweries.
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
by CruzinBears on Sep 12, 2011 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
tis a good one!
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
by CruzinBears on Sep 12, 2011 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Sofele
I thought he played a great game. Of course, I’ve been backing him the whole season, so I’m not a recent convert, but I thought he made good decisions with his feet and absolutely blew up blitzing linebackers and DEs. His yds/carry was right around 4, which I think is more than serviceable all things considered.
Have you guys noticed the new pulling pass protection? On a few plays, it seemed the LT pulled to block out the RE, and Sofele was asked to block the LE/LOLB. And on one pass in particular, I thought Sofele absolutely froze a DE.
Yes, I have noticed the new pulling pass protection. It’s something we’ve done sparingly in the past, but this year it seems to be a regular scheme.
I was going to make a similar comment. I’m not as high on Sofele as you, and I think we need better play on the runs and would like to see some more Anderson (I’m liking what he showed!)….but I also noticed a few times when it looked like Sofele was fantastic in pass blocking – taking on linebackers and even a DL one on one and stopping them cold. So I can see why Sofele is on the field, even if I think his running is leaving a little something to be desired.
by Missing Barry on Sep 12, 2011 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
He has the Maurice Jones-Drew leverage!
Cal
by Thoroughbred on Sep 12, 2011 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Sofele had great blocking in this game. I remember the play you are talking about where Sofele absolutely blew up the rushing DE.
But I don’t think his ypc is “serviceable.” For the total game, Sofele had 4.2 ypc. But if you take out his one long run of 29 yards, the yards per carry drops all the way to 2.9 ypc. Cal will end up with a lot of 4th down and 1 yard to go, if Sofele keeps running the ball like that.
You can’t take out all longer runs. All running backs won’t have good run averages if you take out the longer runs. Not saying he’s great (I personally think he’s more than adequate), but it’s not fair to take away his longer runs and then say his average isn’t good enough (unless you compare it similar numbers where you take away all long runs).
It’s probably too easy to look at the statistics for a running back. While it’s true that it’s unfair to take a long run out of a running back’s average when comparing him to other running backs, including a long run—when it is very atypical and outside of the range of performance—will skew the average away from his norm. Sofele ran 20 plays. They went for -7, -1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 9, 13, and 29 yards. Average is 4.2, but that 29 yard run has a huge impact on the average. Isi’s typical run was for 3 yards.
by paleodan on Sep 12, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
When I say it’s “too easy,” I mean any jackass (like me) can look them up and try to sound smart. There’s no way I could even run for 0 yards against the Colorado defense!
Haha true enough.
My only quibble is that if you’re taking the long run out of Sofele’s numbers, you need to compare his average to running backs when you take their long runs away from them. I don’t know if 2.9 yds is actually a decent average when ignoring long runs.
I’d actually love to see a stat where the long runs are either capped or weighted less. I feel like 20 yard TD run is very simliar to a 80 yard TD run even though the 80 would skew the average a lot more, and it’d be nice to see a stat that captures that.
Ok, so what you are talking about is the median (I think) rather than the mean. If you eliminate the 29 yard run and the -7 yard sack (he was going to pass it), then the median is 3 (I think). He had as many runs over 3 yards as he did under.
by slaphancock on Sep 12, 2011 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Whats his median?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
3
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, it’s where he eats his Cheese Board pizza.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Even just talking about the average, I do not think 4.2 ypc is acceptable for a college RB. It might be serviceable in the pros, but Cal should expect a 5+ runner every year.
by Missing Barry on Sep 12, 2011 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
True, but running stats are hugely based on Oline play too. In my mind, that 4.2 is largely on poor blocking more than anything else.
I haven’t carefully dissected the film or anything, so I don’t necessarily disagree with that…but if guys like CJ can consistently outperform Isi going forward, I think we may have to drop oline as an excuse. We’ll see how it plays out.
by Missing Barry on Sep 13, 2011 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed.
We’ll have to wait until we play more athletic DL/LBs, but so far I think Sofele could be the best pass blocking running back we’ve had in the Tedford era. Some of the better runners weren’t that great blockers. Sofele is amazing in not just picking up his guy, but he doesn’t even have to cut block, he’s able to knock the guy out or stay standing and holding the block.
that’s what I was saying!
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 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
If he can actually lead block, it’d be so awesome. Imagine all those easy dump offs that go to Dumont or Tyndall going to a playmaker’s hands instead. It’d also lead to some interesting formations with both Anderson and Sofele where we’d could really show some good misdirection.
I’ve been wanting to see a RB in the FB slot for ages, and the best explanation of why it wouldn’t work that I’ve heard has been, “RBs don’t want to play FB”. Well, maybe if we featured the FB in the offense a bit more because he’s a playmaker, they would! I’d rather have more talented players out on the field.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Yea, essentially use a true 2-back offense rather than a guy who’s primarily a blocker for the other back. If the “fullback” got as many or more touches as the backup “halfback” got, it seems like it ceases to be the traditional fullback and just an exciting 2-back offense. In the past, I didn’t think our runningbacks could block well enough, but considering the fact that we’re down to our 3rd string fullback and Sofele is a heckuva blocker, this year might make sense.
Interesting idea. The 49ers made it work in the Walsh offense — they had Wendell Tyler at HB and Roger Craig at FB for a while. Craig wasn’t really anyone’s idea of a traditional blocking fullback, but more of a second HB who was just as big a threat to run and catch passes.
This would probably require some serious re-working of the Tedford offensive scheme, so I can understand why they’d be reluctant to change it.
That was the initial version of the West Coast offense. Defenses have evolved over time so you don’t see that kind of thing so much. Throwing to RB’s in the flat isn’t as effective as it was back then.
by Missing Barry on Sep 12, 2011 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions
It was against us this past weekend.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 13, 2011 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d love to see sofele pull around and crack a safety or DB. He’s got kind of a bullrush kind of attitude in his blocks.
by slaphancock on Sep 12, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
there was a couple times when he DID take out an LB. Like take_out.
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 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Should Clancy consider moving Kendricks
Back to OLB? Even going back to the Gregory days,I always felt that Kendricks skills and athleticism was better suited at OLB. I hated how Gregory kept moving Kendricks around and finally settled him in at ILB. I loved that Clancy moved him to OlB last season but was worried once he moved him to ILB. Kendricks is our most proven pass rusher and I feel our pass rush is really missing him right now.
Great win on Saturday.
by SDBear on Sep 12, 2011 8:57 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Move Wilkerson inside or start Hurrell
I just believe Kendricks provides a better pass rush option and is our most proven pass rusher and that his skills and athleticism isn’t being maximized at ILB.
The season is still young, so hopefully these younger guys at OLB can pick it up but so far this season our pass rush has been a bit average and underwhelming.
by SDBear on Sep 12, 2011 9:27 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
They actually did have Wilkerson inside as part of their 3rd and long package when they played their 2-4-5 alignment.
Old Toothwrangler
Who were the 4 LBs? Was it… Campo-Wilkerson-Kendricks-Davis?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
McCain, Wilk, Kendricks, Holt.
McCain on the line, Wilk in the middle, flanked by Kendricks/Holt.
Old Toothwrangler
Ahhh. I need to d/l the torrent :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
thoughts/Q's
If the Bears continue to show the ability to bounce back from errors and 3rd and 25s, then this could be a very exciting team to watch.
I agree and love the excitement, but I also loved the excitement of the Giants winning all those 1-run games in May and June. I’d rather not be in 3rd and long to begin with, but it’s true we’ve been clutch as fuck in those situations.
Cheadle gives Galas a little poke with his left arm
Why isn’t this flagged as false start? Also do you think Galas knows that when you shotgun snap, you are not, in fact, trying to send it through the goalposts? Galas has more height on his snaps than Tavecchio’s FG’s.
Everyone is complaining that there was no pressure on Colorado’s QB.
I think most people are upset since our Dline is supposed to be great, while Colorado has Marshall, and our Oline for the last 2 years has been playing Calvinball on the field. It was shocking how solidly and mistake-free Colorado’s Oline was.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
*excitement of the Giants winning all those 1-run games in May and June.
*point being, we’ve been a little lucky converting all these 3rd and longs. Once we run into a decent pass D team, I think the party’s over.
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 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I fear you may be correct, but hopefully we improve to the point where we’re not so often in 3rd and long in the first place.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
They did have a fair number of false starts or motion penalties (can’t remember which), but you’re right, they played well as a unit in pass protection; but they weren’t able to get the ground game going.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I think he was talking about the motion of Cheadle poking Galas being called as a false start.
My understanding of false starts is that there is discretion in how it’s called. The offense isn’t allowed to make sudden moves that look like the start of the play, but they are allowed to make slower moves that don’t trick the defense. You’ll often see Olineman pointing out assignments after getting set, I don’t think it’s any different than that.
It’s also similar to how some centers look through their legs for the QB to signal that they’re ready (normally by lifting their leg), then raise their head to snap the ball. They move, but they don’t move in a sudden way that’s unfair to the defense.
I see.
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 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Galas has more height on his snaps than Tavecchio’s FG’s
hey, HEY! i think you are on to something here…..
get off me bandwagoners!
http://www.cleancutmedia.com
by cleancutmedia on Sep 12, 2011 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
What? Have Tacecchio kick the snaps and Galas snap the kicks? :)
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Sep 12, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
RE: lack of pressure.
Agreed. Last year we were able to get pressure in some games with 3 or 4 rushers at times. Considering last years game plus them losing a 1st round Olineman plus the Marshalling of the Colorado Oline plus the Hawaii performance of their Oline, there were expectations that we should get decent pressure without blitz packages.
I actually wonder if the lack of pressure has to do with the Dlineman being asked to doing a better job than normal in lane assignments/contain because of Hansen’s scrambling ability. This would lead to a less effective 3-4 man rush.
I still don’t think Cal has that much dline talent this year, or really much pass rushing talent without Kendricks playing rush LB. All the young guys are too inexperienced to be good players at this point in time, and the veterans just don’t have any talents like Cam.
by Missing Barry on Sep 12, 2011 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Overtime
Maybe Tedford was also influenced by Hansen going down and being somewhat helped off the field on the last play before the tying FG? Tedford might’ve felt Hansen would be shaken up enough to play poorly in OT. I guess in retrospect that was almost the case, although Stewart ran pretty well in OT.
????????
(1) An ugly win, but an inspiring one.
Am I the only one who doesn’t see the game this way? It was a solid win on the road against a good team. I don’t care how they looked last year, everyone knows that wasn’t representative of the Buffs as a program, and they were stuck with that god-awful coach – they gave up. I couldn’t give a toss about the game in Hawaii, we didn’t see them there, we saw in their house, in front of a very noisy crowd, on their home opener with a new coach that they are pretty fired up about.
You have to describe that actually team you saw, not the team you expected to see, and the Buffs team I saw on Saturday was a solid, tough team with some very high quality players. And we went in there and beat them. And we controlled the game for most of the time, with a ten point lead. I’m not overlooking the flaws that the Bears exhibited, and Hydro is no doubt right in the points he makes, but I feel 80% of the people on this blog are missing the bigger point: we won, we controlled the game for most of the time, and at the end of the day the only stat that counts is points. We had more of them. Not that concerned by the yards surrendered, as we tightened up the D in the blue zone, and held them to field goals.
And even when we were screwed by one of the worst penalties I’ve ever seen (Buffs fans were quick to agree on this), and they took a late lead, we bounced back to take a late lead in the fourth. I also think that there’s another way of looking at Tedford’s decision to just cut to the chase and go to OT period; not because he was conservative, but because he was extremely confident that his team would win the game in OT. Most fans saw this decision as fear driven, I thought it was kind of ballsy.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
by Cugel on Sep 12, 2011 9:32 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
we saw in their house, in front of a very noisy crowd, on their home opener with a new coach that they are pretty fired up about.
To further on this, I imagine Colorado has one of the bigger home field advantages in the country considering the altitude their home field is at. For a QB, the ball is going to sail on you, and everyone’s going to get winded/tired more quickly. The one good thing to come out of that is kickoffs out of the endzone!
by Missing Barry on Sep 12, 2011 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, they do. Folsom Field is a tough place to play. Being at the game, it felt like we were in the driver’s seat for most of it. It was a tough, competitive game, but I don’t feel like it was an ugly game, aside from the huge pass plays that the Buffs had in the 3rd/4th quarters.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually kind of agree with you but…
aside from the huge pass plays that the Buffs had in the 3rd/4th quarters.
This is quite an aside. Like, 300-400 yards worth of an aside.
That was like 25% of the football game though. We were in control for most of it.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
…but other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how was the drive through Dallas?
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 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno, did Mrs. Kennedy end up winning the parade?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
how do you “win” a parade? does your float have to finish first? or does everyone aboard just have to survive the ride?
I am a Bear. We Are Cal.
LOL I dunno I just like mixing metaphors.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
If I recall our homecoming correctly, it is the most beautiful plumage on the float
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
fatigue
I figure, if the OT call wasn’t just Tedford conservatism that fatigue had a big part of the decision. If the altitude had our players gassed then we didn’t want to run any plays at the end that wouldn’t decide the outcome.
Plus I thought our O and D did a very good job in the blue zone, better than CU. I’d take that matchup immediately.
by Groy on Sep 12, 2011 9:56 AM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
And even when we were screwed by one of the worst penalties I’ve ever seen
This could be a bullet point on its own. The energy in the stadium totally changed after that so-called “late hit.”
Yeah, I don’t know why more attention isn’t being called to this play. Huge swing as a result. The final 5 minutes wouldn’t have been a contest if we were up by 10. Or at least less of a contest. A formal complaint should be filed.
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 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Agreed, I generally don’t care that much about bad calls, but this one was so egregious, and completely changed the momentum of the game. Still not over it.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
by Cugel on Sep 12, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m over it. Winning does that to me.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
It was awful because of what it suggests, that a defensive player shouldn’t try to tackle a ballcarrier if it looks like he MIGHT have been down. The replay made it crystal-clear: the RB had been downed, but wasn’t sure and was still trying to advance. The ref blew the whistle about 0.5 seconds before Guyton hit him; in other words, the defender had already committed to the tackle attempt before the whistle was blown. Yet he was flagged for a hit after the whistle.
You may as well outlaw tackling. Seriously, that’s how bad it was. If I’m one of the Cal coaches I tell Guyton he did nothing wrong on that play.
by sycasey on Sep 12, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
we controlled the game for most of the time
Yeah, I don’t quite agree with that one. You don’t need to win in OT if you’re controlling the game.
I think I’d classify this game as one of those wild, uncontrolled (by either team) stampede kind og games. Control never entered into it. It was two teams, wildly playing. We no more controlled the Buffs than they controlled us.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
Most of time, most of the time – didn’t we have a 10 point lead for most of the game? They only had a 3 and then a 4 point lead for like 7 minutes of the game. It really wasn’t that much of a seesaw game, we played from ahead most of the time – that’s what I mean.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Inclined to agree with SoCal. We were in the lead but definitely not in control. Hansen—>Richardson was at will…
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 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I wanted to say in my post this game reminded me of 49ers road games of long ago (well except for the OT ending). 49ers would win on the road, but not play spectacularly well, and all the fans would be gripping. It’s tough to win on the road in college – I think the fans should be happier than they are. Winning >>>>>>>>>>>>>> losing.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Also, I my be wrong, but wasn’t the lead 16 at one point?
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I get what you’re saying, really, and I’m so glad we won. But pretend it had been the other way around, and Cal was on down the whole game but dominating the stat line. Actually you don’t have to pretend, look at USC 2004. Would you say USC was in control of that game?
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 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
*down the whole game.
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 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I wouldn’t say that USC was in control, but that game felt much, much different feel than this one. IIRC we lost the USC game mainly because of special teams; this game was decided between the O v D, and giving up yards between the 20’s is not so bad (as giving up TD’s).
Also, I said “most”. Stats don’t tell the whole tale.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
If it was “at will” then why had they been limited to 2 FGs for the first half?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Encouraging
The most encouraging thing about this game was that the defense played like crap and the special teams had one big mistake (blocked XP), yet the offense stepped up and bailed them out anyway. When was the last time we could count on our offense to make up for a sub-par effort by the other units?
by sycasey on Sep 12, 2011 9:51 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Oh have the time changed. How many times in the early Tedford years did we say “When’s the last time the rest of the team picked up the slack from a subpar offensive effort?”
(I agree with you. It’s nice to be able to win without a dominant defensive showing)
agree
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 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Would anybody else agree that.....
the defense didn’t seem to play with intensity this week? Am I just interpreting the defensive game plan, which was conservative and looking to not get beat by the screen pass through blitzing?
I thought they looked a step slower than usual. I was wondering if they were gassed from the altitude—or maybe Colorado is just way faster than Fresno. Those long chases after Richardson probably didn’t help our team speed any.
Plus besides the fourth-down stop, there weren’t many big plays on defense that weren’t negated by penalties. Without sacks or interceptions, there really isn’t that much to get juiced about.
So, yes. I agree. The D looked less intense. I would say we looked tired and flatfooted as well.
by slaphancock on Sep 12, 2011 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I was surprised and disturbed with how lightly Tedford was taking the altitude transition. Having lived in that kind of altitude and traveling back, the adjustment isn’t something to be minimized.
Thank God, we escaped with a win and that the game was played in September and not November! In the future, when we have to travel to Utah or CU in late November, it’s going to be a big adjustment for us and a big home field advantage for them.
I didn’t participate in any of the post-Fresno stuff, so there’s something I’m dying to bring up. Was anyone else thoroughly unimpressed by Fresno’s supposed “speed”? For instance, I heard plenty about that Wylie guy being a sub-4.3 guy. Bullshit. He got run down from behind like it was nothing, and really, when I youtube highlighted him, that seemed to be a fairly common thing in his highlights. Fresno was not even remotely close to as fast as advertised.
Now…Richardson on the other hand. Dude is even better than I expected.
by Missing Barry on Sep 12, 2011 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
The post on the defense fires up tomorrow.
I don’t think they were less intense. CU came out and did a lot to slow down the pass rush. After getting burned repeatedly by a combo of misdirection, rollouts, screens(!), quick passes, I think the guys started hesitating before charging upfield. There was also an adjustment made to cover the outlet receivers (TE/FB) underneath and in the flats.
Old Toothwrangler
I think the guys started hesitating before charging upfield.
Understatement of the week! I hope all y’all watching on TV saw that play where Campo was just standing there, with no blocker, and with a direct line to the quarterback. It took him a few seconds of just staring at Hansen before he went for him.
I think that was by design. They burned us early and often with those little dump passes.
So, I think Campo’s job was to read the TE/FB first before charging in on most plays.
Old Toothwrangler
:-/
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Looking forward to your Defensive write up.....
The lack of intensity struck me as early as the first 2-3 CU offensive series. I’ll buy that some of the screen passes and other plays might have put us on our heals later in the game, but I just felt that our DL/LB intensity was slow early in the game. Maybe the elevation? Maybe they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed? I don’t know – just an observation – something you can’t really measure.
by CALiforniALUM on Sep 12, 2011 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I think intensity is the wrong thing to question, but there were some bigtime gaffes in tackling, both in execution and footwork/setup immediately before.
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 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
One recap of the game mentioned that this was the first time Colorado has ever given up 0 sacks and 0 turnovers and still lost the game.
On one hand, it’s impressive that the Bears were able to make up for it in other ways. On the other hand, we’re not going to win many more games without sacks or turnovers.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
if what you say is right about Galas and Cheadle, dont you think it would be easy for defenses to time out our snap counts and be more able to jump the snap?
Well, it’s an optimistic projection on the assumption that the team gets better. It could easily be a 6-6 season still.
So what you’re saying is that we’re guaranteed 100% to make a bowl? Got it! Wow Hydro so positive!
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 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Cheadle and Galas
So this seems like an excellent idea but I’m sure there’s a downside (other than tipping off defenders). What are they?
In other words, Go Bears!
On taking a knee...
Just moved the fam from the bay area to Indiana this year, where my training as a season ticket holder during the Holmoecaust has prepared me well to watch Hoosier football.
Like a lot of you, I launched some choice profanity at Tedford for taking a knee to get to overtime rather than taking a shot at winning in regulation. A few hours later, I watched the end of the Virginia-IU game unfold in an eerily similar way to ours.
After coming from behind to take a 4thQ lead, IU gave up a long Virginia drive to tie the game with 1:37 to go. 3 plays later, the Indiana QB gets sacked and stripped of the ball at his own 23… Virginia blows some clock and then kicks a field goal FTW.
Not exactly the same situation, of course… nobody would have taken a knee with 1:30 left, and IU was right to try to get down field for the win. But it does make the improbability of the disastrous play seem a little more concrete.
Sorry for calling you a d%#khead, Mr Tedford sir.
by IndyBear on Sep 12, 2011 11:36 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I didn't have a problem taking a knee
So much of this decision is based on how a coach feels about the flow of the game, how the offense has played, how he perceives his team to feel fatigue-wise, etc. When I saw us take a knee, I totally understood it and really didn’t have any qualms about it. Even as a Cal fan conditioned to expect doom, I thought we had a little bit of an advantage going to OT, even on the road.
Colorado had not scored a TD in the red zone — all of their TDs were of the explosion play variety, and the college football OT system kind of mitigates that possiblity. And our D had done a pretty good job stopping the run. So I thought we had a good chance of keeping CU out of the end zone in OT. Conversely, Cal had played very well in the red zone during the game, so I had confidence we could score a TD (as much confidence as a long flogged Cal could have).
Of course, I didn’t expect 1st and 30 during our possession. But hey — we made a play!
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Initial reaction from the gut
I see 26 seconds on the clock and wonder why you wouldn’t use them. Everything else you and others have said about our chances being better in OT are all true… and would be true whether we took a shot down the field or not.
It’s pretty much down to whether you think the risk of disaster is small enough to make taking the shot worthwhile. My gut saw 26 seconds and said “Go for it!”… which is why I’m not a head coach :)
Yeah, when the reward is YOU WIN THE GAME, the risk would have to be pretty great not to take that chance. I didn’t see the risk as being all that great, but then I’m just like you guys.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually was fully ok with taking a knee. Cal had lost a lot of momentum and crowd was a in a frenzy. Going to OT would give us a break to recuperate and get things sorted out. Plus like Ohio Bear mentions our redzone offense was better than theirs.
In other words, Go Bears!
I agree with this comment; I think it is partly a analogy to a time-out in college basketball, just to reset the momentum. But I also think there a subtle psychology at work as well.
Submit this for your approval:
1. They score, forcing OT, the crowd is going absolutely bonkers.
2. We get the ball back, with 28 seconds, on our own 25.
3. Forget for a second the “risk” part of the whole equation, something bad happening, Tedford’s conservative, etc.
4. The chance of our succeeding to score in these circumstances .5% maybe? (one half of one percent) (I know if you’re Capt. Kirk, you have to take that 1 in 10,0000 chance, but do we?)
5. What happens as a result? The crowd is even more energized, louder “we stopped them” yay! Does this help the team’s (Cal’s) mindset? Not so much.
For like 5 seconds I was annoyed, but then it seemed like a good idea, and not just from a risk/reward perspective, but from a team mojo perspective; it was a vote of confidence from Tedford in his team.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
5. What happens as a result? The crowd is even more energized, louder "we stopped them" yay! Does this help the team’s (Cal’s) mindset? Not so much.
How energized would they really be for stopping us because they forced a couple of incomplete passes? I could see it if they did indeed force a turnover (but did not score off of it, say a deep INT), but for just a normal stop I don’t think it would make any difference.
Yeah, the outcome would be the same: overtime.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 12, 2011 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
What was the penalty for Jones on the punt return wearing the 47 jersey?
With the ref’s mic not working, I couldn’t tell what was happening there.
He switched the jersey from 47 to 1 while he was still on the field which counts as an illegal substitution penalty
In other words, Go Bears!
Placing the issues regarding the O-line play aside with opening up lanes for the run game, doesn’t it still seem that CJ Anderson has a better ability to shed tackles than Sofele does? I know we haven’t seen enough to say conclusively yet, but it does seem like Isi tends to go down after first contact more easily than does CJ.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
6-6
Still don’t trust maynard yet since he has been mediocre against two fairly poor teams. At this point I think Cal looks like a 6-6 team since I think the four losses you predicted are pretty much guaranteed losses and some of the wins are toss ups. Although who knows, the PAC 12 looks bad. The PAC 16 on the other hand, is looking fairly solid.

by 


























































