Vincent S: I'm going to go by feelings for this week. Based on my gut feelings, I leaerned a little bit more about how I felt about this team. For example, I have realized now that every single time a running back touches the ball, my heart does a little skip until I realize that no, we have not fumbled the ball this play. Fumbling used to be very rare for Cal; in fact, we fumbled so rarely that the few times we did clearly stood out to me. Case in point: 2008 Oregon, when Jahvid Best ran halfway across the field and fumbled the ball in the rain, basically resulting in a punt. Now, I can't remember a game where we haven't fumbled.
I was looking forward to this game mostly to see how Bridgford would fare. I was very disappointed. He seems to have a better pocket presence than Maynard, but that's about all he does better than Maynard. His throws were routinely off target: his short passes trailed slightly and many of throws to receivers running along the sideline were uncatchable. You'd have to be 7 feet tall with a 54" vertical leap to catch those. At least twice he threw into triple/quadruple coverage. Hopefully he does better next week.
Finally, why do we still run the zone read? Does anyone actually think Bridgford is going to get more than 2 yards if he keeps it?
There was some positive to be taken from Allan Bridgford. But there's plenty of negative there, too. We saw why Zach Maynard was the firmly entrenched starter. Though I liked Bridgford's apparent confidence and command of the offense, we saw him struggle with accuracy. We also saw a not-so-quick release and throws that floated rather than zipped. It was discouraging to think that we didn't have more out of our backup quarterback when so many teams in the conference seem to go to their backup and not skip a beat.
We also saw more of the same negatives we've seen all year: penalties (8 of them -- too many) and turnovers (3 more). We needed to play perfectly to have a chance to beat the Ducks and we were far from doing that.