Joyless in Seattle: Washington defeats Cal 31-23 in Pac-12 Football Opener
Conventional wisdom dictated that Saturday's tilt between Cal and Washington at Husky Stadium would be an offensive shootout. And what do you know? The conventional wisdom held true.
Unfortunately for the Bears, despite outgaining the Huskies 457 to 409 in total offense and enjoying the longest pass play in Cal football history, the shootout ended with the Cal offense shooting blanks in the red zone. When the Bears had one last red zone opportunity late in the fourth quarter -- a first and goal at the two yard line with a chance to tie the game -- they came up empty on four chances as Washington (3-1, 1-0 Pac-12) held on for a 31-23 victory in the Pac-12 opener for both teams.
The game certainly started out in promising fashion for the Bears (3-1, 0-1). After holding the Huskies to a punt on the first series of the game, it appeared that Cal would shoot itself in the foot when a poor shotgun snap by center Dominic Galas resulted in a loss of 14 yards and put the offense in a 2nd-and-24 hole at its own 6-yard line. But then -- BOOM!
On 3rd and 20, Cal dialed up its brotherly connection. Quarterback Zach Maynard found Keenan Allen up the middle and Allen did the rest, outrunning three Huskies to the end zone for a 90-yard touchdown. Just like that, Cal took a 7-0 lead on the longest pass play in Cal football history.
Was this the kind of day it would be?!?
Not exactly. While Cal fired the first salvo in the shootout, Washington quickly answered with a three-play, 66-yard drive, showing that the Huskies' offense would do its part to make it a shootout. UW quarterback Keith Price carved up the Cal defense on the last two plays of that drive -- a 44-yard strike to Devin Aguilar followed by a 20-yard touchdown pass to big tight end Austin Sefarian-Jenkins. And just like that, it was 7-7.
After the Huskies' first score, the game had the feel of one that would get away from the Bears. Cal went three-and-out and Washington again moved the ball down the field with ease, driving 65 yards effortlessly on a drive capped by two-yard touchdown run by Chris Polk to give the Huskies a 14-7 lead. And though Cal seemed to stem the tide with a 13-play, 68-yard drive on the next series, the Bears had to settle for a 29-yard field goal by Giorgio Tavecchio (more on this red zone theme later). When Washington answered that score with another seemingly easy touchdown drive--this one 78 yards on 9 plays, capped by another touchdown pass from Price to Sefarian-Jenkins--it was a 21-10 Huskies lead with 8:51 left in the first half.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Washington taking this game by the throat: Marvin Jones decided to show off his best Chris Carter impression. On the first play after the Washington touchdown, Maynard found Jones along the right sideline for a 16-yard gain in front of the Washington bench. Jones somehow got a foot down just inside the boundary and the catch was confirmed by replay. Then, after a Maynard-to-Allen connection on 3rd and 10 kept the drive going, Jones again did some toe tapping. Jones hauled in a 15-yard completion along the left sideline, barely tapping his toe inbounds and cradling the football to complete the catch at the Husky 21-yard line. Replay overturned the incomplete call on the field, and Cal was in business. Once again, though, the drive stalled after Cal got into the red zone and the Bears settled for a 36-yard Tavecchio field goal.
This time, though, the Bears did not give up the momentum after scoring. On the next series, Cecil Whiteside forced a fumble by a scrambling Price. Mychal Kendricks recovered, and Cal was set up in Washington territory to try and shave the lead further before halftime. This time, the Bears cashed in for seven points instead of three. Along the way, Maynard found Allen a on 4th-and-4 (one play after Allen dropped a sure touchdown pass) and then hit newly minted out-of-the-backfield threat Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson for a 15-yard completion to the Washington five-yard line. C.J. Anderson bulled into the end zone three plays later, and Cal would find itself down by only 21-20 at halftime, with the knowledge that it would get the ball to start the second half.
And get the ball Cal did -- and it looked like the Bears might have seized the mojo to turn the game around. For 11 plays, it was a beautiful drive to watch as a Cal fan. Rush, rush, pass, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass -- Cal seemed to be pushing the right buttons and keeping the Washington defense off balance. The last of those 11 plays was a nifty option pitch from Maynard to Sofele (technically, a pass because Maynard threw the pitch forward), which Sofele ran 22 yards to the Washington 5-yard line.
But what started so well ended with a whimper. On first down from the five, Maynard fumbled when the ball slipped out of his hand trying to throw a pass. Luckily for the Bears, Maynard recovered. But Cal lost seven yards on the play and lost its offensive rhythm it had prior to that play. Cal once again settled for a red zone field goal, which Tavecchio converted. Cal kept the ball for 7:03 and had the lead -- but it was only 23-21.
Cal would not score again.
Washington took the lead back on the very next series, getting a 40-yard field goal from Erik Folk to go ahead 24-23 late in the third quarter. And on the Huskies' first possession of the fourth quarter, the Huskies gave the Bears a firm punch the gut. In a turn of events reminiscent of the Colorado game, Price found Polk wide open out of the backfield for a 70-yard touchdown on a 3rd and 12 play. Washington suddenly had a 31-23 lead and the momentum the Bears looked like they had seized at the start of the second half was but a distant memory.
via mynorthwest.com
Keith Price frustrated the Bears, completing 19 of 25 passes for 292 yards and 3 TD -- and adroitly avoiding sacks, for the most part.
The Cal offense sputtered for much of the fourth quarter, but Washington couldn't quite put the Bears away. Just when it looked like Washington would milk clock, Cal safety D.J. Campbell forced a fumble by Sefarian-Jenkins, which Sean Cattouse recovered at the Cal 38. Cal had some life. But the Bears could not take advantage and turned the ball over on downs when Sofele dropped a fourth-down pass from Maynard that would have given Cal a first down inside the Washington 35-yard line.
But Washington still could not put the Bears away. The Huskies punted the ball back to the Bears, who took over at their own 13-yard line with 4:19 remaining in regulation. From there, Cal embarked on a drive that was equal parts gutsy and maddening for Cal fans. On the gutsy side of the ledger, Coach Tedford decided to go for it on 4th and 3 at the Bears' own 20 yard line with 3:49 and two timeouts left. Maynard found Allen for a 17-yard gain and the Bears were alive. And they stayed very much alive, as Maynard converted two more third downs with passes to Allen. And then, with 43 seconds left, Maynard hit Allen again for what would be the last of Allen's 10 catches for 197 yards -- a 19-yard completion that gave Cal a first-and-goal at the Washington 2-yard line.
And this was where the story ended badly and sadly -- and with many Bears fans wondering about the choices Cal made on the last four plays of the game:
* 1st and goal at the UW 2: Maynard throws incomplete to Anthony Miller, on a play where Miller tried to sneak out the left side when the flow of the play went to the right. Miller could not get a clean release from the line of scrimmage.
* 2nd and goal at the UW 2: Sofele runs for a 1-yard gain.
* 3rd and goal at the UW 1: Sofele runs for a 1-yard loss.
* 4th and goal at the UW 2: Maynard throws a fade to Allen to the left corner of the end zone....incomplete.
And with that, the Bears were done. Maynard's 349 passing yards (the most by a Cal quarterback since Kevin Riley's 351 against Arizona State in 2009), Allen's 197 receiving yards, the longest pass play in Cal football history, Jones' amazing tiptoe catches, Sofele's solid day running, Tavecchio's perfect day kicking FGs and PATs, and the Bears' clutch fourth-down conversions became but a footnote to a heartbreaking third straight loss to Washington.
Cal will have extra time to think about this one. The bye week comes up before Cal goes on the road for an even bigger test at Oregon on Thursday, October 6.
275 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very nice recap.
I’m going to open another bottle of wine and go back to weeping in the corner now.
Old Toothwrangler
why weep? Seriously. We lost. But…
it was a solid game.
Great fortitude by the team.
Aggressive approach by Tedford (which importantly didn’t backfire at all so as to dissuade him from being aggressive in the future).
improving special teams
beautiful last drive… even though it came up short, it was awesome.
we once again did not remotely get rattled on the road in a tough environment. I don’t believe we had any false starts (we might have, i don’t remember).
we have some awesome receivers. while they will maddeningly drop some passes man they make some great catches too.
last two attempts not withstanding, Isi had another solid day.
Yes, we need to work on defense, particularly game plan.
but all in all, as far as losses go, this one honestly doesn’t really hurt. It’s a loss. You’re going to lose game. You’re going to lose games on the road.
I like how we played. I like how Tedford coached. I like our chances going forward.
by fiatlux on Sep 24, 2011 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 9 recs
Rec'd
If I thought we were competing for a conference title this year I’d be bummed. But since I’m not it’s much easier to focus on the positives.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Our red zone-ish offense needs some work, but I feel like we have the playmakers to make it work. No more sofele btwn the tackles in theses situations plz.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
would love to see maynard run at least once within the 10. Maybe even twice. other great options include CJA, Miller, Jones, and Allen.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
OMG
I was at the game and I said THIS to people around me. Roll Maynard out giving him the option to throw to his brother or punch it in himself. Isi plays with all kinds of heart, but he won’t move a D-lineman backwards. Hell, the WILDBEAR could even work there better than Isi up the middle……a draw to Isi would be palatable.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
Part of the problem in the red zone today was the weird fluky plays like Maynard getting stepped on by the center and Maynard randomly losing his grip on the ball.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
that fumble was a killer because that was such a GREAT drive to open the 2nd half. That was the, I think, 13th play of the drive. We took 7 minuted off the clock… that oopsy cost us a better chance at a TD and we had to settle for the FG.
I wonder if Tedford would have gone for 2 to get the 7 point lead so early in the 3rd quarter if we had scored on that drive.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I doubt it. With that much time remaining, I think you take the 6-point lead.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
I’m surprised he didn’t go for two when it was 21-19 (iirc).
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
I think its too early to go for the 2 point conversation at that point. We were only down 1 and briefly took the lead
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Seconded
Going for two before the half? Blargh.
"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
errything but the coaching
I’m on board w/ the bottom line here. Not a bad loss for the reasons you mentioned. But the red-zone stuff is squarely on the coaches IMO. Not sure if that’s really even debateable at this point.
Line up CJA and throw a screen to him or something?
It’s just that it kept happening and the mojo of the drive would magically disappear right in front of the goalline. I think Tedford’s play calling got exposed a little. I’m left feeling like the kids played out of their minds today and were let down by some poor red zone play-calling.
not so fast…
our first drive out of the half was a thing of beauty. Great mix of plays. 15 plays. 7 minutes. It was thwarted by Maynard’s miscue. Shit happens. Both players and coaches.
by fiatlux on Sep 24, 2011 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
. But the red-zone stuff is squarely on the coaches IMO. Not sure if that’s really even debateable at this point.
I would debate you!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Like questions regarding whether it is going to rain today?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I dont ever refer to the spelling. I mean that I disagree that the red-zone stuff is squarely on the coaches. I agree that there were some coaching concerns here (esp. the fade pass on 4th down at the end of the game). But when Cal struggles in the red zone bc a ghost strips Maynard of the ball randomly, thats not on the coaches.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
it wasn’t isolated to one drive or one play. It was a progression that seemed to happen throughout the game. Haven’t rewatched tho
Neither have I and I think that Im probably missing out a lot.
All Im saying is that there were some coaching problems and there were some execution problems. I dont thin kwe can dump everything on one end here.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Where was the misdirection/play-action/trick play to take control of the game? Maynard’s trip and fumble were only two of several plays.
Your comment confuses me.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I agree. I don’t think the coaches put the team in a good position to win on the last four plays. You are two yards from pay dirt and Sofele runs the ball twice instead of CJ Anderson or Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson? What happened to those magical red zone plays like a pass into the flat to the FB or setting up a naked bootleg for Maynard? There were definitely better options than what we ran on those last few plays.
Very disappointed in the imagination of the coaching staff at the end. The personnel wasn’t right and the play calling at the end was poor. We could’ve put ourselves in position to at least tie the game. Look at the kind of stuff that Boise State runs inside the five yard line. We need more creativity when it comes down to situations like this.
So fitting that their win against us last year came down to a goal line stand and it basically came down to it again this year.
Ugh.
by daveman on Sep 24, 2011 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I doubt it’s a lack of creativity. While passes to FBs aren’t a major staple of our red zone playbook, we ran a Maynard bootleg against Colorado at 1st and goal in OT. The pass designed for Miller has worked well in several past occasions, he just could not disengage from his blocker. Again, the fade to Allen has worked in the past: it won us the game vs Colorado. As for the two runs, all we needed was some blocking from the O-line and we would have scored the TD. This all sounds much more like execution issues than any sort of deeply flawed playcalling.
"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 24, 2011 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Question, then: why not go with CJA….and the exact same play? Would those 30 extra pounds have been a hindrance? If the answer is no, then they are surely an advantage to putting CJA in. I’m not seeing the reasoning here. Part of playcalling is making sure your personnel suits the play being called…
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 25, 2011 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It might tip your hand to the defense.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Then wouldn’t that be an awesome misdirection for a pass play?
But if we decided to go with a run play, it’d still be a better option? It doesn’t really add up….
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 26, 2011 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
but CJA doesn’t pass block as well…
That said, I do see and understand your point, even though we may see it differently :)
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
That doesn’t mean he can’t pass block at all. Plus, on a short pass play at the goal line he wouldn’t even need to hold his block for very long.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 26, 2011 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly this.
The fade to Allen was a perfect call – Allen even had position and separation. The problem – bad throw by Maynard. I’m liking Maynard this year, I am, but his execution caused some big problems today.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I agree, too
I would like to have seen the Allen fade one play earlier instead of an Isi run up the middle. But there’s a reason I don’t coach college football and Jeff Tedford does……
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I like the fade call, but not on 4th down. That pass wasn’t even close.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I just feel like Tedford can never win when it comes to playcalling.
If Cal had scored on that final drive with Sofele in at RB, nobody would really be complaining that Sofele was in, right? It’d be a moot point. If you’re really of the belief that Sofele should never be in for goalline situations, then if Sofele was in and scored, you should still complain that he was in. But I’m pretty sure 95% of Cal fans wouldn’t be complaining. Instead we’d be talking about how our OL just dominated the LOS at the end which gave us the touchdown. Hence, if this is so, then it seems to suggest execution that Cal fans are complaining about.
If Cal had done something more tricky like a naked bootleg and that got stuffed, then people would probably be pissed at Tedford for not just running the ball instead of getting cute with things. Also they’d probably be saying something like how because Tedford didn’t run the ball he doesn’t have faith in his offensive line.
If Cal had passed the ball to the fullback and it was dropped or stuffed, then people would probably be saying something like why we didn’t try to get the ball into the hands of our playmakers, Allen or Jones, since they were so hot. And probably also something like why Tedford would chance the game on a player who doesn’t have good hands.
These aren’t very hard arguments for me to come up with because Cal fans have used them before in the past.
I don’t think Tedford can ever win with playcalling. If the play fails, fans are always going to have something to complain about or say some other play should have been run. Tedford only wins when it comes to playcalling when the play works… because then it’s clearly brilliant!
by HydroTech on Sep 25, 2011 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
if you take this stance, then can any coach ever be considered good or bad, based on playcalling?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think so.
I think he’s just saying that many fans only look at the results when making an evaulation, rather than looking at the process. Good results don’t always mean good process and bad results don’t always mean bad process.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 25, 2011 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I think he’s just saying that many fans only look at the results when making an evaulation, rather than looking at the process. Good results don’t always mean good process and bad results don’t always mean bad process.
Absolutely agree. I’m just wondering how, based on this line of reasoning, does one determine if a playcall is good or bad, or a coach a good or bad play caller in the aggregate.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Yeah, it's very subjective.
I think that’s one of the biggest reason that football has jumped over baseball as America’s game. If it was baseball, we’d just jump on some sabermetric website and use that to tell us what the best call would be. But in football, we each have our own opinions based on how we perceive the game. I think as long as people don’t resort to saying that the the play succeeded/failed therefore it was a good/bad call, you can have a great football dialog.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 25, 2011 1:42 AM PDT up reply actions
i think the SC monsoon game would be the best example. There were perfect play calls in that game that simply weren’t executed well.
Tough to execute in a monsoon.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
exactly
perhaps in this situation you should call plays that are easier to execute?
I honestly don’t remember the playcalling from that game, so I’m remarking on the theory rather than on the particulars.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I do not remember the play calling in that game, either.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
You talking about the '07 one?
Like what? Forsett running wild over a Trojan defense? Hawk’s leaping catch in the endzone? I’m at a loss
In other words, Go Bears!
Well, if coaches aren’t trying to get the ball into the hands of their play makers, then its bad play calling. If Tedford kept calling for throws to a backup TE or something, I get that.
But on the 4 plays in question here, he called plays to get it to our starting TE, starting RB, and superstar WR. Now, I didn’t like the throw to the superstar WR.
I think the real problem here is that some people dont really believe Sofele is a starting RB. Others think that Sofele is OK as a starting RB. I think that is where the divide is.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
The problem is that Sofele isn’t a goal-line RB. He’s fine as the starter.
by sycasey on Sep 25, 2011 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think that’s too simplistic. I would say that every coach tries to get the ball to their playmakers – they should probably be judged on whether or not they do it, and whether or not they’re able to get the ball to said playmakers in favorable situations.
Isi is the starting rb, for better or for worse. As I stated in another comment, I was impressed with Isi – this was his best game as a bear, by far. That does not mean he should be in at the goal line.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
word
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 25, 2011 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Unless you want to have the option to pass, in which case you absolutely need him in there for protection.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
You’re saying none of the other RBs can possibly hold a pass block for 2 seconds in the red zone?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 26, 2011 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
well, the pass play I was wishing to see was a bootleg with a run option, so pass protection from your runningback is probably the least important element of that play.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
What makes you so certain of that, out of curiosity?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 26, 2011 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Come to think of it, there WAS a goal-line play where Sofele was clearly over the line and the refs just screwed up the call… it was of many fuck-ups they had that day. Ugh.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I’m pretty sure that was Anderson.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
True, HT, but.....
I think we do get to question the play-calling when you think ahead of time “Don’t do play X…” then they unsuccessfully run play X, which is what happened y’day.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
How about this?
I thought the play calling for most of the game was great. JT mostly has his mojo back in this regard. We are moving the ball and keeping the defense off-balance.
However, the play calling on the last sequence sucked. It was uncreative and did not put us in the best position to succeed. Would I have been happy if Isi had scored? Of course. But I would not have agreed with the call to run him twice into the middle of the line.
In the clear grey light of a drizzly Berkeley morning, I rec this for being reasonable. It was a good game, with disappointing result, but a good game nonetheless.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
Rec'd
Three days after the heartbreaker in Seattle (more so because I was there), I’m actually feeling slightly happy. And both the post and your comment helps.
In other words, Go Bears!
Price is good. Cal’s secondary is not.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’m not sure it’s that simple. Marc Anthony started 11 games last year, and Steve Williams, Josh Hill and Sean Cattouse all got tons of playing time. And our pass defense was tops in the conference.
So: Do you think that losing Chris Conte is causing the lower level of play? That probably plays a role. But I think our inability to put pressure on the passer without sending blitzers is at least as important, if not more so.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
It’s a lack of pass rush much more than it is the loss of Conte. Without Jordan sucking up double-teams, it’s been much tougher for guys like Owusu and Guyton to shed their blocks. And the lack of a consistent rush OLB has also hurt. Do we have any OLB sacks this year? It seems like they have all been coverage sacks. Even those have been much tougher to achieve this year.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
there was a 3rd and 11 that UDub converted (20 yards?) and Cal sent like 5-6 rushers. I would have sent 3 or 4 tops.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I thought everybody hated it when we sent 3-4? Isnt that the party line?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
on 3rd and super long tho?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
The 2009 defense forced its share of 3rd and longs and let the other team convert damn near all of 'em
Just sayin’
"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
also, just because you started (or got PT), it doesn’t mean you’re actually good. Not saying these guys aren’t, but I hate the lots of PT = good logic.
Campbell’s never looked great. Ever. Cattouse didn’t have his best game either
If Owusu and other “eh” players are playing more than 75% of the snaps, then our best athletes aren’t on the field.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Well, my argument isn’t “they played lots = good.” My argument is: “They played lots on a team that was in the top 25 in the country in passing defense.”
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
skewed stats, as they looked like shit vs. Nevada, Stanford, and USC (all teams with decent QB’s).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
And they did great against Arizona and Oregon and arguably UW, three other teams with decent QBs. You can’t just cherry pick which games you count as significant.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Not cherry picking, I just don’t feel like Foles, Thomas, or Locker are consistent “aerial threats.”
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Well, you’re entitled to that opinion, but Thomas was statistically better than everybody but Luck, and Foles is essentially even with Barkley.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I like Clancy, but these huge pass plays that Cal’s giving up on defense is a few too many. I do think it will help when the young front 7 emerges.
Kendricks was awesome today. His run stuffing abilities were Patrick Willis-esque.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I agree on the PT argument
We started Riley for two years because he was our best quarterback, not because he was good.
I support the NBA player's union.
Campbell played very well in the Fresno State game. You can say that well, it’s just Fresno State, but he did play very well and many people here were picking us to possibly lose that game.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
In the D-Lines Defense
Price was very shifty in the pocket, too the point that he may be the shiftiest qb we face.
Note: I’m saying shifty and the best qb, or the best running qb, or the fastest, but he is very good at sliding up/back or two steps to the left within the pocket, thus allowing the pass rushers to go by him. All while looking downfield, allowing him to convert third and long.
I support the NBA player's union.
Conte is a better cover safety than Campbell. Derrick Hill was a monster at NT and was able to get pressure by himself (see: sack fumble on Thomas). Jordan was also the one player that got constant double/triple teams and yet managed to get pressure by himself.
Who is this line’s Hill? Who is Jordan. Tipoti, Owusu and Guyton might be good but they are not 1st round picks. And Moala, Jalil, King and Coleman are all young (remember that even Jordan didn’t come out as a force until late his Junior year and his senior year)
In other words, Go Bears!
I honestly think a lot of it has to do more with Clancy’s schemes and the youth of our linebacking squad. The thing about pressure is you can always be like “WE NEED TO PRESSURE THE QB MORE”, but it really makes defending the pass a lot harder. Clancy likes pressure, but our secondary is basically all in man coverage and everyone’s basically on individual islands. Our linebackers had troubles earlier in the game getting to Price, and it resulted in receivers finding themselves open over and over again. Unless your cornerback’s name is Revis or Asomugha, you cannot expect them to cover their receivers for an eternity. I guess what I’m saying is our pass defense was faulty for two points:
1. The linebackers were just not wrapping up Price, which resulted in open receivers and a prolific passing offense for the Huskies.
2. On 3rd and longs, we continued to go into man coverage, basically refused to keep the safeties back to help up top, and continued to give them huge gains on 3rd and 10+, a lot of times because of point 1.
I’m not too scared, as I think Clancy’s going to see this and adjust his strategies for the future. Hell, we did much better just in the second half.
I really want to emphasize point 2, as this is how a lot of NFL defenses work. You take away the long ball and force them to go for the flat, making them run for the 1st down as opposed to catching it past the marker. We tend to take away the short balls and hope we get to the QB before he finds a target 20 yards down the field.
There were several sacks that we could have had, but Price just did enough to dodge them.
Very frustrating. The LONG pass TD to Polk late in the game was nearly a sack on Price. So, there were a few opportunities where we did get pressure and we just plain couldn’t finish right.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
did Polk out-athleticize our “eh” players, or did he out-athleticize our super athletic but very green youngsters?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Yea
I was willing to call the Colorado game a fluke, but this is twice in a row our secondary has been lit up by middling BCS level competition.
I support the NBA player's union.
Berkeleyboy510 said this in the last thread:
Cal picks up a new commit, Maximo Espitia Jr. I think we snatched him from ORST
Evidently a 3 star WR out of the state of Oregon.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
First off WELCOME Maximo!
I hope this doesn’t have anything to do with Treggs being a soft verbal. Treggs is at the $c/ASU game tonight visiting the Devels. Treggs earlier this summer went to a $c practice. I sure hope Treggs stays with the Bears!!!
Shaq was at the Bears/husky game today visiting the huskies. We need you Shaq!
Have not seen any verbals from the BIG guys up front yet!
Were all going to die!!! Go Bears!!!
Bring back the Pac-10!!!
He was recruited by OSU as a fullback or halfback.
If we assume that is what we are recruiting him for, then I don’t think it has anything to do with Treggs.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
I’m surprised there isn’t more talk about the officiating (although I haven’t gone through the post-game thread). The PI call that lead to Washington’s second touchdown was absolute nonsense. The call on Tipoti was a JOKE. The guy leaves his feet before the quarterback throws the ball trying to make a play, comes down, TAPS the qb in the head as a function of momentum and incidental contact and that’s a roughing the passer call? BULLSHIT.
I choose to look at this game positively. In a “rebuilding” year, we’re going into a hostile environment against a talented team and playing competitively down to the last possession after getting absolutely JOBBED by two crucial, game-changing bad calls? And we didn’t lose because of a heartbreaking missed field goal or terrible special teams coverage (granted there was that one return that didn’t lead to points)? After the past few years, I’ll absolutely take that.
In other news, I need to learn my lesson and stop spending time on BearInsider. The lack of perspective on everything ever in that forum is ASTOUNDING. It’s a shame, MoragaBear does great work and deserves better.
No matter how bad the officiating is, it is still on us to stop them from scoring. So they were placed on the two yard line and the PI. Didn’t stop them from stuffing us when we were on the two yard line. The officiating was bad. No one disagrees there.
Also… I gather that the average age on BearInsider is somewhat higher than the average age of CGBer’s. If so, then you have to look from their perspective.
cal. lakers. dodgers. packers. chelsea.
vols. rangers. galaxy.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Washington is going to be overly competitive this year. I’m thinking 7-5 give or take a game. I came in thinking it was a 50/50 game, and having watched this game if we were to replay it tomorrow I actually give Cal a slight lean 55/45. It is just saddening because I felt the Bears had so many opportunities to win it.
I support the NBA player's union.
Get used to this feeling
Because we’re not much better. Lot of these games lie ahead.
I’ve embraced it. It’ll be fun. Better than faceplants, that’s for sure.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 24, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
my problem with the program
is that it seems like we lose more than our fair share of these 50/50 games. We have a road winning percentage of what, like 33% over the last couple years? When you’re only winning 1/3 of your road games, that means you’re only going to be beating teams over which you have a significant talent advantage. It took everything we had to beat colorado (and some really shitty officiating), and colorado looks extremely mediocre.
It is really frustrating to watch these games and see a program that is less than the sum of its parts. Yes, UW has some nice talent, particularly at qb, te, and rb. But we certainly have more talent top to bottom on our roster, and yet they have beaten us the last 3 years. I think it’s telling that we keep losing these games. You can examine each game and each play all you want, but at some point you have to look at the greater trends as well.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Road games over the past two years
2009
@ Minnesota: W
@ Oregon: L
@ UCLA: W
@ ASU: W
@ Stanford: W
@ UW: L
2010
@ Nevada: L
@ Arizona: L
@ USC: L
@ Oregon State: L
@ WSU: W
Against teams who finished with better records than us, we were 0-4.
Against teams with the same record as us, we were 1-1.
And against teams with worse records than us, we were 4-1.
So over the past couple years we beat the teams we should beat, lose to the teams we should lose to, and split on even matches.
Only once over the past two years have we lost to a team who finished with a worse record than us. Twice we have lost to someone with the same record as us. All the rest of the losses have been to teams who are better than us.
I share your frustration, but it’s not like we’re consistently losing to teams we should not be losing to.
"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 24, 2011 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Data?
You’re going to give us DATA?
Oh, that’s pretty good data.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
That's what she said!
Oh, that’s pretty good data.

CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Thank you for providing this information.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I share your frustration, but it’s not like we’re consistently losing to teams we should not be losing to.
That was my perception as well. Thanks for validating it.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
the fallacy is invoking records to determine who we should/shouldn’t beat. I take the view that we should, given our resources, be one of the top teams in the conference, not that we should be a mediocre team which only beats even more mediocre teams.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I don’t think that’s a fallacy. I wish our teams had been better (and that’s a valid concern), but obviously they weren’t better, so based on their overall record, they beat the inferior teams and lost to the superior teams, which one would generally expect to happen.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s definitely a fallacy. Hey, we’re one of the worst teams in the league, record-wise, but we beat the few teams in the conference who are worse than we are. Our coaching staff must be doing their jobs well!
How would any coach ever get fired using that methodology?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
You’re confusing two separate things. Fault the coaches for the team not being as good as we want them to be, sure, but for as good as they actually were, they’re not going out and losing to teams that are worse than us for the most part. That’s the point that Berkelium is making. Should we be better than Arizona and Oregon State have been the past couple of years? Yes, and blame the coaches for that. But, in point of fact, have Arizona and Oregon State been better teams than us? Yes, and their superior end-of-season records, plus their victories over us, point to that.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s a really circular argument. You could argue that Wulff was doing an adequate job the last few years, since he never lost to teams below WSU in the standings.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
No, you wouldn’t argue that Wulff was doing an adequate job based solely on that, but you also wouldn’t say that he was losing all his 50/50 games, either, because pretty much every team in the conference was better, so there were no “50/50” kinda games for the Cougars, except Washington, who was just as bad as they were in 2008, and Wazzu won that one. You also wouldn’t say that the road record was 33% when it was actually 5-6.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions
you are correct. He is not losing his 50/50 games based on talent, because his team have been so much less talented than the opposition. Fortunately, when your team loses to teams with similar talent, they finish higher than you in the standings, and they’re games you shouldn’t have won anyways.
10-15 back to 2008, so sorry, it is 40%, not 33%. You got me.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I would agree that from this year forward we should be rising towards one of the top teams in the conference. Over the last couple years, however, we did not have the resources on offense. The preparation of quarterbacks and O-line was sub-par and the results were obvious on the field. We had neither the talent nor coaching to flourish in the passing game in 2009 and 2010.
"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 25, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
We had neither the talent nor coaching to flourish in the passing game in 2009 and 2010.
I would assume you would blame daft, marshall, and ludwig for this, and since they’re now gone, this is no longer an issue. Fair point. I suppose then that since Tedford hired all of these coaches, and has since hired their replacements, (and recruited the players), that if Cal does not start rising towards the top, you would hold him responsible?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Over the past several years, Tedford has made some questionable hires on his offensive staff. If Michalczik, Kiesau, and Tedford/Arroyo do not pan out for their respective positions, then this is further evidence that Tedford does a poor job evaluating/hiring/working with new assistants.
On the other hand, the talent on offense has not been stellar at QB and O-line over the past couple years. When you couple that with poor position coaching, the entire offense is going to suffer.
"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
On the other hand, the talent on offense has not been stellar at QB and O-line over the past couple years. When you couple that with poor position coaching, the entire offense is going to suffer.
So who ultimately bears responsibility for this? Does Tedford, since he is the CEO of the team? Is it enough that he fired people under him, replacing them with new coaches? And if we continue to see poor results, does that fall on his shoulders?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Ultimately, it all falls on Tedford’s shoulders, but there are legitimate reasons why our recruiting and subsequent talent level have been down since 2007, so we should take that into account when judging his current performance. If the mediocre play continues even after Tedford has had his chance to recruit and coach up players with the SAHPC and new stadium, then I am fine with replacing him.
I am more reluctant to blame him for middling talent on offense, as that was a result of the down years in recruiting. Now that the renovations and SAHPC are finishing up and we are getting more and better talent than ever, the bar will be raised. If the team is not consistently in the top half of the division over the next few seasons, Tedford will be held accountable.
I am willing to give Tedford a pass for some questionable assistants over the past couple years (because in the early years he made some excellent hires). Of course, if this happens again in the next couple seasons, he should bear most of the responsibility.
"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
I think you can easily correlate those down recruiting years with the tree sitters. You can just as easily correlate them with the 2007 collapse, not all of which was Tedford’s fault (though some of it sure was).
It seems, then, that most people “defending” Tedford (and I certainly do not think he should be let go any earlier than late 2012, barring a huge collapse) are essentially saying that recruiting is the key. When we didn’t get top 20 recruiting classes (instead we were in the 40s), it is ok that we weren’t successful. Now that we have better recruiting, we should expect better results. As long as you are winning, that seems like a decent strategy, but I don’t think that’s expecting much out of the coaches in terms of devising successful gameplans to utilize that talent. It seems to me that coaching should be more than simply recruiting better players.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’d argue that our offense (which is supposed to be the strength of any Tedford team) also suffered in 2008-10 because we had some lesser assistants running it, after JT had been heavily involved from 2002-07. Playcalling and gameplanning did suffer during these years, IMO, finally bottoming out in 2010.
But regardless of who is calling the plays on game day, it does seem like this year JT is again more involved in the offense and we have seen the improvement. Hopefully he keeps it this way. This goes back to the issue of JT’s previous assistants leaving and shuffling in the coaching ranks . . . and yes, JT is responsible for hiring people, but again the hope here is that he has recognized the problem and moved to correct it.
Don't know if I'm in the minority here on this view
I think our recruiting under Tedford has been nothing short of remarkable. I am of that opinion given—
- We are not a legacy program
- We don’t have bling bling in our facilities
- We don’t have the “pro” feel of, say, an Ohio State, where the Buckeyes are THE big deal in town
- Athletics does not have the paramount importance on our campus like it does in other places.
Recruiting can be hit or miss. It’s even more hit or miss with programs like ours, where we don’t have the same margin for error that an Alabama, an Ohio State, a USC (pre sanctions), an LSU, a Florida, or a name-your-legacy-program-here has. That we have gotten as many great players as we have in these last 10 years kind of amazes me.
That said, the SAHPC is a game changer. I’m anxious to see how it pans out.
As for the assistants: IMO, that’s all on Tedford. IF there’s ever a legitimate criticism about him, it’s that. The buck stops with him on hiring capable assistants.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
by Ohio Bear on Sep 25, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I take the view that we should, given our resources, be one of the top teams in the conference,
We got rid of most of our coaching “resources” over the offseason so maybe something was going on there.
"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 don't know
I think home field advantage means more in college sports than the pros, and particularly in football (because of sometimes weather-related issues).
I also don’t believe was have a decided edge in talent from top to bottom on our roster this year. Perhaps I’m wearing too much of the goggles, but I’m willing to put a giant asterisk next to all the post-Riley games last year. Yes, it is the coaching staffs fault we didn’t have a capable back-up (either through recruiting or coaching), but I feel that trend is changing (from the admittedly little I saw of Bridgford).
I support the NBA player's union.
I completely agree that homefield means a ton in college football. Those ticky-tack calls on the roughing the passer and the PI on Williams would not have been called in Memorial, and I think the home team gets away with a lot of holding when it’s not super blatant.
I also agree on post Riley, sort of. Back up and new qbs come into games and seasons and perform admirably. Last season, even before Riley went down, would have been much more successful had we just had WSU’s passing proficiency. WSU.
I think we have a significant talent edge. UW’s defense is not nearly as talented or as deep as ours, save for Trufant who looks like a player. Polk is more talented than Isi but probably not more than Bigelow, and while Price is good, we let him complete better than 75% of his passes.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I agree about the UW defense
The UW defense held us to 3 points the entire 2nd half! We should have had more than one scoring drive the entire 2nd half.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:11 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
exactly
as frustrating as our defense was, our offense has to be able to put up more than 23 points on UW’s shitty defense. We had fewer points against them than Eastern Washington, and Eastern didn’t get their points in garbage time.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Obviously if we had TDs instead of FGs
We easily put up over 30 points but we had to settle for FGs. Fine, I’m okay with that but it doesn’t explain why our offense wasn’t able to move the ball much between our first and last drives of the 2nd half. I swear Tedford and Cal make Holt look like the defensive genius behind those early SC teams. Seriously, UW fans throughout Seattle and the internet are going to be praising Holt for his great 2nd half adjustments and stopping our offense. How is it our offense doesn’t continue to move the ball and even get another FG? I feel like that last drive should have been to win the game rather than to try to tie it and send it to OT.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:21 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I feel like that last drive should have been to win the game rather than to try to tie it and send it to OT.
I agree.
Honestly, I think a lot of our settling for field goals falls to Maynard. He had Allen open on two touchdowns on the sidelines, two different drives, but overthrew him the first time and underthrew him the second time. Then he had Marv across the middle on the first drive of the second half and the ball slips out of his hand.
In any case, 23 points against this defense is unacceptable. Our defense didn’t play well, but at least UW has some talent on offense.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I agree that settling for FGs falls on Maynard
In the first half.
I am just upset about our 2nd half offense.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:43 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree. While Cal isn't the most talented team
In the Pac, i do believe we have had more talented athletes than UW over the past three seasons yet here we are with a three game losing streak.
Sark with an inferior roster has managed to beat Cal three years in a row. At some point you have to wonder whether the coaching staff is getting the most out of the players we have at Cal.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:06 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
We certainly weren’t with Ludwig (as QB coach), Marshall, and Daft at the helm over the last couple seasons.
"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 25, 2011 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions
I am so happy those guys are gone
So far, it is looking like Ambrose is not an upgrade as our DB coach.
We need to start getting a few more pics from our DBs, specifically the corners.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:13 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think the DB coaching will take another year or so to take root.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
I don't know
Ambrose had two nfl draft picks at CB last year, and they still had a terrible secondary
I support the NBA player's union.
exactly
$C certainly has more talent than we do. Furd might not but they have a huge edge at qb, which tilts the scale big time.
Aside from that, who? Oregon has an awesome offense but I’m not sure if they necessarily have more talent than we do. I certainly don’t think UW has nearly the talent on D that we do.
Think of it this way – UW has a freakishly talented freshman. Even though he’s a tight end (not the easiest position to involve in the offense), UW got him the ball and he made a huge difference in the game. Cal has a freakishly talented freshman, a running back no less, and he didn’t see the field aside from special teams. Isi was running really well today, but why not try to get Bigelow the ball in space a handful of times?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I highly dispute the idea we have great talent.
Bigelow might be talented, but he’s extremely raw and has barely played in two years. His only experience is against freaking Presbyterian. And he didn’t look at all good in open space on kickoff returns.
In terms of talent, we have two All-American WRs, a solid TE and LT, a pretty good LB…and that’s about it. Decent moving parts, but I don’t see a particularly talented team. We’re probably less talented than last year.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions
You don't believe our two corners are more
Talented than UWs? I think Williams is very talented and Anthony is solid.
I think both Holt and Kendricks are talented players. Although I do strongly believe Kendricks is better suited at OLB.
I think our defensive talent is better than UWs.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:34 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think Desmond Trufaunt is honestly better than both of them (although Williams can be really good one day). It’s the other side that hemhorrages yards for UW, like Syd 2009.
Like Pendergast, Holt tends to do weird things with his defense. Brings heat when he can’t back it up in coverage, leaves HUGE holes on the inside that receivers can take advantage of. But Dennison is pretty good and Ta’amu is also really strong too.
Our front seven plays well as a unit, but in terms of talent, outside of Kendricks, maybe Holt or Guyton, I don’t think we’re that far ahead of UW right now.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I like Trufant a lot
and I agree he is probably more talented than either of our corners. But I think our front 7 is significantly more talented than theirs. I think the same goes for offensive line and receivers. I think outside of a few exceptions (Trufant, Polk, Kearse, their freak tight end, and Price), we have a significant talent edge. I think we are much deeper than they are.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Our front seven played fairly well for most of the game. The young OLBs just wouldn’t wrap the hell up on tackling early on and Price made us pay. A lot.
O-line? Schwartz I guess, but otherwise I’m not sure what you’re seeing.
And sure, we’re deeper, but most of the best talent is still true frosh/RS frosh. They’re not ready for the field yet or ready to perform at a high enough level.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not saying we're great by any means
but I think we are certainly MORE talented than UW in the areas I mentioned, and have comparable talent to most of the conference with the exceptions stated above. Again, not saying we’re super talented by any means, but I don’t think UW, nor wsu, osu, asu, arizona, colorado, utah, or even oregon are either.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
You’re going to have to back this assertion up with evidence dude (aggregate recruiting ratings or whatever you use to judge talent). Because other than maybe OSU, and WSU, I don’t see what you’re seeing w/ regards to superior talent, and I follow the Pac-12 pretty closely.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions
and have comparable talent to most of the conference with the exceptions stated above.
Do you not think we have talent comparable to the rest of the conference? I did not say “superior” aside from UW, and I’m almost positive aggregate recruiting rankings would bear that out vis a vis the huskies.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Certainly. So shouldn’t these 50-50 results be expected against said opponents?
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions
sure...
It would be nice to be at least 1-2 against the huskies over the last 3 seasons.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
It would be nice too. Definitely had a chance the last two years. Bad luck each year.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 1:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I blame Oregon State
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Fair enough but if we are about equal on talent
Doesn’t Cal have an edge in experience? Doesn’t that experience count for something?
Payne, Owusu, Guyton, Holt, Cattouse, Hill, and Kendricks all have a lot of games and snaps under their belts.
I will admit that games played and experience isn’t everything. I don’t think two more years of eligibility and games is going to help Cattouse at this point, who I believe is a liability on defense.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:48 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, but who were the guys making mistakes in tackling/wrapping Price up? Whiteside, McCain, Wilkerson. The young ones.
Who’s generally responsible for taking the TE? The OLBs, and they left ASJ alone on at least one of his scores when they got baited on the screen.
There’s good experience in our front seven, but there are still deep, vulnerable holes in the OLB corps.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I have a quick question
What do you think we do at ILB next season once Holt and Kendricks leave? Right now we are going through some growing pains at OLB and I assume we will go through the same next season as well. Do we move Wilkerson to ILB? Or just role with the two backups we have now as starters?
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 1:22 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Wilkerson, Forbes, Fanua, Mullins, Hurrell, Gibson, Scarlett (although he’ll probably end up playing everywhere), Broussard, Jefferson. Someone’s gotta pan out.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Hurrell is not a senior yet? Anyway we saw how he did versus Nevada when MikeMo was out. Not good
In other words, Go Bears!
Players get better. Players make leap. How many of us thought Campo would be seeing two-deep snaps this year?
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 26, 2011 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
is he still seeing the field?
I got the impression that we started because Wilkerson got hurt and Whiteside/McCain are freshmen, but I didn’t notice him at all during this game.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think Oregon is a great comparison to Cal
Oregon and Cal we very similar Between 2001-2008. Both had good teams, with similar talent, challenged SC for PAC supremacy and had established coaches that were well respected.
Why is it after the 08 season Oregon has suddenly become the toast of the PAC? They didn’t all of a sudden get SC type talent throughout their roster. IMO the talent between Cal and Oregon for the most part has been similar, with each team pulling in respectable recruiting classes that have been nationally ranked but not in the top 5. Yet, he is Oregon winning the PAC two years in a row and a chance to do it again this year. While Cal will be fighting for bowl eligibility.
I guess I am rambling but my question is, what change occurred/happened over the last 2-3 years to allow Oregon to shoot to the top while Cal has fallen to middle of the PAC contender?
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:30 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
We even both had the dark days of Ludwig
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:37 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
obviously, as you are alluding to, coaching
and I completely agree that it’s a great example and shows how important coaching is. Sure, it comes down to execution in the games…but it’s not a coincidence that Oregon seems to execute with more regularity and proficiency than we do.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Based on what I've seen
1) Chip Kelly
2) LaMichael James
3) Solid (if not great) QB play
4) Great execution based on up-tempo practices to get more reps in, wearing down opposing defenses over the course of a game
5) Pressure defense particularly when the opposition is down and has to pass
It won’t last forever with Oregon like it seemed to last with USC, but these have been the obvious ingredients to success. They should be in the top 3-5 for quite awhile if they keep things clean.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m sorry, I hate to throw out this tired old argument, but Oregon didn’t have to put up with what we put up with in terms of recruiting (tree sitters etc). I will concede that Chip Kelly caught lightening in a bottle but let’s not pretend that he has done it in a way that would be acceptable to most people at CAL. I refuse to rue results because we didn’t sell our soul to bring in some of the characters and practices he brought in… Same goes with SC. They were cheaters. Plain and simple.
Now if you look at Stanfurd, you just have to tip your hat to Hairball (he’s gone now so we can do that). The dude had a vision and made it work. And he got Andrew Luck.
These things ALWAYS go in cycles.
Indeed, Cal is still pulling out of the recruiting funk that happened while the stadium construction was being delayed. We’re starting to get some higher-level talent on board (note the last couple of recruiting classes), but right now a lot if it is still young and inexperienced so we can’t dominate Pac-12 teams on talent alone yet.
I mostly agree
Oregon and SC did cheat, and I don’t want to be those programs.
However, even in our down recruiting years, we were still pulling in the 6th and 7th best classes in the conference (and this was just for two years), on par with teams like UW, Arizona, OSU, etc. Yet they continue to beat us more often than not.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
What evidence do you have that Oregon didn’t cheat to get every SINGLE player on the team??
ANSWER ME THAT, MR. OREGON!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Hey if you are going to go all in, you might bulk/team discount
This would also make sense why I saw a Lyles recruiting packages being sold at the Eugene Costco.
you're right
since Seastrunk is no longer on the team, no reason for holding oregon accountable. Moving on!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Damn straight....I say give Chip the Visa Black card and let him run amok
Anyway, saying that cheating is a factor of Oregon being significantly better than Cal as of late doesn’t make any sense if the product from said actions isn’t on the field.
but that assumes the seastrunk incident happened in a vacuum
which it didn’t.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
In something as complex as college football operations and recruiting nothing ever happens in Vacuum
So what other cheating occurred at Oregon?
I heard Chip Kelly took some questionable deductions on his federal tax forms. Do you think his home office is really 335 square feet????
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
By home office you mean underground bunker he built with the extra money from the Matt Court project
That’s where he stores the Nike Equipment spy system. This is an actual picture

by ppilot on Sep 25, 2011 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
of course it does. all that off field stuff… all the questionable characters on that team… it leads to a culture of corruption. Those type of characters choose to go to Oregon.
you said it not me…
you’re hyperbole aside, you have a terrible cast of characters up there. If all that’s important to you is winning games, well except big nationally televised OOC games, then good for you. You’re like many fans across the country.
I believe we’re 3-2 against you in our last 5 games…
Terrible cast of characters? Are we talking about four players on the Oregon football team or the mob?
I believe you are 0-2 against us in the last two games..Numbers are fun
Are we talking about four players on the Oregon football team or the mob?
you know it’s bad when it’s hard even for Oregon fans to tell the difference between players and criminals. You tell us.
So which mob are we talking about? Goodfellas, Boardwalk Empire, The Godfather, Millers Crossing?
If we are going to over-dramatize a situation, we might as go all the way.
you’ve already done that. you tell us, who do your outlaw and reprobate players most remind you of? you’re close to them (just not too close I hope).
Sorry you led off with this money quote.
Those type of characters choose to go to Oregon
The follow up phrase “terrible cast of characters” was even better. Honestly I was just following your massive overgeneralization with with something equally as relevant. And you never answered my question about the Mob movie.
I say Goodfellas...
ya gotta have someone as crazy as Tommy to really take a team to the next level.
But yes, I’d say the argument definitely was starting to head toward hyperbole.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I think Chip Kelly’s offensive scheme is a cut above.
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 25, 2011 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d argue that Cal in its heyday (04/06) had a much better team than Oregon during its run (09/10) but the difference is that Cal had to face one of the best dynasties in college football.. on the road both times. Oregon lost to Furd in 09 and then beat them at home and USC in 09/10 is not the same team.
In other words, Go Bears!
the other one i was surprised at is I could have sworn in the 2nd quarter jones got totally held going for a catch and there was no call… my friends and i all thought it was PI (shocking).
It’s a shame, MoragaBear … and deserves better.
I have to disagree with you on this. He has cultivated an environment that breeds that. The 2009 Big Game threads were proof enough of that. It’s a negative cesspool of a site. For some reason Cal Athletics thinks it’s more important than this.
No disagreeing with you
but how so?
I have to disagree with you on this. He has cultivated an environment that breeds that.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
It's not just the DrunkOski of the world with his negativity and 18000 posts to show it...
it’s some of idiots like BlueBloodBear that have free reign,
no, I get that
my question is, how does MoragaBear cultivate it? I’ve always seen him as someone who is really optimistic and then kind of avoids owning up to his optimistic forecasts when Cal doesn’t land certain players. I guess it’s just hard to pin him on being “wrong” when his opinion often seems to be “Cal’s in good shape with player x”. If they come to cal, great, he kind of predicted it. If not, he only said “Cal’s in good shape,” not “Cal’s a lock”
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I'm also curious...
to hear your thoughts on this. I actively read, and modestly posted on, BI starting around 1998, but just gave up on it entirely in 09-10. Mainly because there was so much useless posting happening, and CGB emerged as a WAY better overall resource.
Still, I don’t quite get why BI would be taken more seriously by Cal Athletics. Is it a “legacy” thing?
I know you have more history and participation with BI, so it would be really interesting to get more on your perspective.
by PerpetualCalBear on Sep 25, 2011 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
they have older posters with dollars, and they’ve been around a lot longer than we have (a decade longer). They have connections within the AD.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
The ESPN connection helps as well, I would imagine.
"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
Odd Blog
You guys produce some really good material in your blog, and I hope to visit again.
I do not understand the ‘doom and gloom’ attitude of so many of your fans. H*ll, we Dawgs suffered through a pretty miserable patch here recently, yet most fans are trying to see the current glass as ‘half full’
- though we are quite well aware of our current weaknesses: defense, certain coaching decisions (play calling), inexperience and lack of depth at some positions . . .
Open another bottle of wine and be of good cheer; USC is managing to look bad in spite of all that recruiting talent . . .
Best Regards,
PS: hope you wax Stanford!
If you want a hint on doom and gloom, this photo should help.

But thanks for the kind words.
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 25, 2011 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I was at this game and on the field
Talk about bringing up both good and bad memories with one picture.
by SDBear on Sep 25, 2011 12:40 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
F***K YOU
STOP BRINGING UP THE PAINFUL PAST!!!
(stop making me cry…)
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Why doom and gloom?
In a nutshell, our fan base is gloomy and doomy based on some combination of these factors—
1. No Rose Bowl since 1959
2. Suffering through football purgatory from 1960 to 2001, with the exception of some brief interludes of success that were few and far between.
3. We got fucked out of the Rose Bowl in 2004
4. Meteoric rise under Jeff Tedford has seemed to plateau
5. The collapse of 2007
6. Team not performing up to its high expectations in some recent years.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
by Ohio Bear on Sep 25, 2011 5:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That’s a pretty good summary, actually.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you. I try.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
How Cal lost
A big problem on defense today was not getting off the field on 3rd down. Many times, it was 3rd and long:
3rd and 10 at WASH 24
Keith Price pass complete to Devin Aguilar for 28 yards to the Cal 48, tackled by Josh Hill for a 1ST down.
3rd and 11 at WASH 34
Keith Price rush for 13 yards to the Wash 47, tackled by Mychal Kendricks for a 1ST down.
3rd and 11 at WASH 31
Keith Price pass complete to Kevin Smith for 12 yards to the Wash 43, tackled by D.J. Campbell for a 1ST down.
3rd and 12 at CAL 30
Keith Price pass complete to James Johnson for 13 yards to the Cal 17, tackled by Steve Williams for a 1ST down.
3rd and 12 at WASH 30
Keith Price pass complete to Chris Polk for 70 yards for a TOUCHDOWN.
3rd and 2 at CAL 48
Chris Polk rush for 2 yards to the Cal 46, tackled by Kendrick Payne for a 1ST down.
UW was 6-11 on 3rd down. One of their non-conversions led to the end of 1st half FG attempt that was about a yard short.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Those 3rd down completions just kill you. The 3rd and 2 isn’t a problem, but all those third and bigs are just inexcusable.
Agreed 100%.
People are upset over playcalling at the end of thegame. However, there were some patterns throughout the game (such as red zone problems and giving up big 3rd downs) that could have turned this into a solid Cal victory instead of a UW squeeker.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Agreed. While it’s hard to fault not stopping a 3rd and 2, this particular 3rd and 2 was in the 4th quarter of a game Cal was losing and they needed a stop as soon as possible. Polk, like Stewart, was bottled up in the running game. The passing game, however, is another story.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’m pretty sure I remember that play. We’d actually stopped Polk at the LOS, but we just couldn’t get his knee down, and he got the 1st down on a second effort and what seemed like a very generous spot by the refs.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
they “ussed” us!
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 25, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Keith Price… honeybadger?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
The ussed us while also turning us into 2009 us
/Quizz Rodgers rush for one yard
//Quizz Rodgers rush for one yard
///Sean Canfield pass for 11 yards, FIRST DOWN
"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
same script
but with what’s his head in 2007 (yeah that game). Was it Matt Moore?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Canfield again.
Fucking third-and-longs, how do they work!?
"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
oh yeah
I think he was a freshman then. I think his completion percentage was below 50, but somehow the converted a very high percentage of third downs.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
If the other team converts a 3rd and 2, I can live with it. Converting FIVE 3rd and 10+ situations is not acceptable though.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Some really good discussion in here. Thanks to all for keeping it civil.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
you’re such an idiot.
:)
Then, I’ll make a big ruckus, because I am a hypocritical asshole.
-TwistNHook
Everybody else ever, is that you?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
All fans are the same, and they all bitch like strippers with a wooden pole
Not really, but it seems like it. THe last time I was at Washington in 2007, the spectator interaction at the urinals centered over who’s team sucked more. Even Duck fans next to us at Oregon in 09 complained about runs of only five yards when they were up by 30. The wives justified their whininess by saying they were old enough to “remember when” Sheesh!
It’s weird, but I think the men’s restrooms are a good place to judge the fanbase, (along with blogs, of course). You get a complete mix in there, (except for the women thing, because this isn’t Japan), which includes those too old to give a shit about computers and too smart to give a shit about Facebook. And in general, everyone is pretty congenial, except at USC, and I’ve never been to ASU.
...
and I’ve never been to ASU.
Me neither, but I suspect there are a lot of d-bags there, as evidenced by this photo from yesterday:

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree with the third down completion rate
I’ve read somewhere (or heard it in a restroom) that the 3rd down completion rate is a good judge of a team’s abilities…I thought ours improved on offense this year, as I just don’t remember us being all that effective on third and over 5 yards. And apparently Washington’s ability to convert isn’t too shabbyt either. Our secondary is a weak link.
I don’t know why there isn’t more talk of this drive
1st-10, WASH1 15:00 Washington committed 10 yard penalty
1st-20, WASH10 15:00 C. Polk rushed to the left for 2 yard gain
2nd-18, WASH12 14:40 K. Price passed to C. Polk down the middle for 5 yard gain. California committed 15 yard penalty
1st-10, WASH32 14:00 K. Price sacked by T. Guyton
2nd-18, WASH24 13:34 C. Polk rushed to the right for 6 yard gain
3rd-12, WASH30 12:54 K. Price passed to C. Polk down the middle for 70 yard touchdown. E. Folk made PAT
it freaking killed us.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
another play that really hurt
we finally retake the lead on our first drive of the second half, albeit on a field goal when we should have had a touchdown. The drive as a whole was awesome, really mauling UW’s defense. So what happens? Our kick team gives up a 60 yard return which puts them in our territory. The actual kick was quite good, going to at at least the 5 yard line with plenty of hang time. Our coverage was terrible and gave them momentum right back. They kicked a field goal on that drive and never trailed again.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’ve mentioned it a few times. We had a MLB (Holt, I believe) 1-on-1 with Polk, wayyy down the field, and there weren’t any safeties remotely near enough to help. I don’t know who’s to blame on that though, Clancy or the safeties.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I would blame the lack of pass rush. UW sent 5 receivers into the pattern, so the Safeties were busy with everyone else. However, when you have a long-developing pass play and only the 5 OL in to pass block, you have to get to the QB. We didn’t.
Very good point. Though, I believe Price bought himself some extra time with his mobility in the pocket.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 25, 2011 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's what Sark said about it
Washington noticed a pattern in our 3rd-and-long D and tried twice to exploit it with Polk. One pass fell incomplete while the other was the 70yd TD.
“We thought we could get something in a third-and-long situation based on some of the coverages they were giving, and as the game went along it was kind of holding true,” said UW coach Steve Sarkisian.
"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 25, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Sep 26, 2011 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions

by 

























































