These Bears are in real trouble
(Written by kencraw)
What we saw yesterday in Berkeley was an absolute disgrace. Unbelievably bad.
I’ve never seen such poor execution on defense. Horrible tackling. Horrible movement to the ball. Bears tripping over each other, letting single guys take out multiple of them. Poor angles to the ball. And that doesn’t even get to the horrible secondary coverage in the 1st half.
Plus, all of that is happening while Cal is putting its corners on islands using press coverage trying to defend the wideouts… If you can’t stop the inside run game nor the short over middle passing game, AGAINST AN FCS TEAM, when you’re dedicating all that you have, personnel wise, to the run game, you might as well just give up now.
Dykes was quoted as saying that he didn’t think the infrequency with which they did live tackling in fall practice as being part of the problem… He’s VERY wrong. It was one of those things in the back of my mind that worried me back in August. But I didn’t want to be a negative nancy and so I didn’t say anything back then. It looks like my nagging concern was justified.
(BTW, here’s a troubling question: why did so many players get injured in fall practice considering how few days they went live?)
The offense also seemed to take a step back, but part of that may be that Dykes was clearly trying to figure out how to get the run game working and was less concerned with overall production as opposed to ironing the wrinkles out. That said, the result of said emphasis was NOT an improved run game.
Sadly, there’s going to be only one thing worse than the run game this year (the defense).
If there’s one caveat, we may be trying to use our experience with Tedford to project how this will go. One thing Tedford always did remarkably well, is beat teams with ease that he had a talent advantage over. When he had bigger guys, when he had faster guys, particularly when he had bigger AND faster guys, he won. Period. Full stop. And he won big.
Lots of other teams “in the middle” don’t have that and sometimes lose games (or sometimes just struggle) inexplicably, even to notably weaker teams.
Perhaps we’re now one of those teams.
The upside, is that a lot of those teams that inexplicably struggle at times is that they also seem more capable of pulling the upset and don’t look as over-matched against superior teams. It’s why WSU would look so terrible against us, yet give USC a run for their money (or win, like yesterday), yet when Cal went to play USC we’d get rocked.
So, if you’re looking for an excuse to hold out hope, that’s it.
Otherwise, yesterday was a disaster: No run game and NOOOOOO defense, and looking like PSU actually had the talent advantage in the 1st half all add up to a very, very, worrying sign.
(PS. I won’t be using my templated game preview for the FCS teams anymore.)
September 8th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Ken, this is exactly the type of game that Tedford would have lost. He failed when his teams faced adversity more than any other coach in the conference. I think that his fear of losing was contagious and it’s exactly the type of game he would have lost.
Bigger, stronger, faster? How about the Nevada game last year? Maryland? How about Washington every time he lost to them? We were more talented than every UCLA team he lost to.
September 8th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Chris, the examples you give are of a whole different level of talent than I am. I won’t debate that Tedford lost a lot of games to teams that were slightly less talented than the Bears (although I call BS on UCLA… UCLA is the most under-achieving talented team in the conference over the last 15 years. Why do you think they were able to turn around so quick?)
I’m not talking about Maryland in 2008 (who finished the season 8-5) or any superior mid-major team like Nevada. I’m talking about the real dogs. The FCS teams, the Wilmingham Huskies, the pre-Leach Cougars, etc.. All of those sorts of games he won with ease.
September 9th, 2013 at 12:05 am
Ken: first and foremost, I appreciate your blog; it is my main conduit into what is happening with Cal football. Kudos and thank you.
Although I understand your frustration with the horrible defensive performance in the first half (I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an inept performance) I’m surprised that you didn’t comment on the fact that the Bears held PST to 7 points in the second half. What changes did they make at halftime? In addition, Goff is an unbelievable 18 year old talent, and I believe he could be considered one of the most exciting talents to hit the NCAA this year. I think the future looks bright, considering this is a young team that will be put through the fire with a really tough schedule. Sure, we may not post a winning season, but I exited this week’s game with a sense of optimism for the Sonny era.
September 9th, 2013 at 6:20 am
Ken,
How fast was Portland State? On TV, they seemed they had some speed on offense, especially that receiver number 1.
I agree that Cal’s tackling was terrible. They also got bullied by the O-line. But Portland did not seem like a bad team. Given that Oregon State and K State lost to FCS teams, is it possible that the gap between FBS and FCS has closed a bit?
By the way, I agree with you that UCLA always has plenty of talent. Until Jim Mora, they were the under achievers. Now, USC plays that role.
September 9th, 2013 at 7:33 am
Matt, no need to apologize for having a different opinion. 🙂
It will come through more in the podcast, but I still have plenty of optimism for the offense and for Goff. The defense, not so much. Yeah, the 2nd half wasn’t nearly as bad for them, but it was still an FCS team and while the struggles no longer included giving up as many points, the fundamental issues of bad tackling, tripping over each other, poor formations, etc., were all still there.
He has a chance to win me back, but as of now Buh has lost any confidence I had in him.
September 9th, 2013 at 7:40 am
Rick, PSU was pretty fast. In a lot of ways they were pretty stereotypical of a good FCS team: Fast, high spirited, quick execution (I’m talking mid-play, not speed of running plays), but on the small side. (#1 was the exception, being both fast and big.) You are probably right that the gap between FCS and FBS is closing a bit, just as mid-major to power-conference has.
But one thing that shouldn’t happen with those teams is getting beat in the trenches specifically because of the size difference. Traditionally when an FCS team has beat an FBS team it has been because they found a way to win despite losing in the trenches. That Cal struggled so much running the ball and “got bullied by the O-line” was proof positive that Cal was losing in the trenches, something that should never happen, and is the most bothersome thing about the game.
September 9th, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Ken,
If you want to compare the amount of talent between Cal and UCLA this past decade then look no further than the NFL rosters right now. The only teams with more players in the NFL right now are Miami, Georgia, LSU, and USC.
This is not to say we were significantly better, but they had some terrible offensive lines, horrible coaches (Dorrell, Neuheisel), I can’t remember the last time they had a serviceable quarterback?
In all fairness I believe UCLA has over 25 players in the NFL.
September 9th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Ken,
I agree the defense is in bad shape and the running game is worse than it appeared in the Portland game.
I think we were a little spoiled with Clancy Pendergast. He did a fine job of filling in the holes with the talent available. Cal has had some good defense since 2010. Considering the number of offensive turnovers in the Maynard years, the defense really did the job. I’ll never forget the loss to Texas in the ’11 Holiday Bowl. FIVE turnovers and the defense still kept Cal in the game.
In the Portland game, the most successful runs were to the outside, not the middle. Portland is not used to the speed of Bigelow and Muhammad.
Unfortunately, Oregon, Stanford and Ohio State can handle Cal’s RB speed and will not give up the outside runs. They will also stop the middle, so Cal will have huge problems running on the good teams.
Jared Goff is outstanding, but he can’t throw for 400 yards when the defense can ignore the run.
Cal can beat the mediocre teams if they play well. The top line teams are out of reach.
September 10th, 2013 at 11:48 am
Dykes is as advertised. A gifted offensive-minded coach with a near Mike D’Antoni-like ambivalence for the defensive preparation. Sure, we’ll make improvements there: we can only get better–and I agree this most confused/ill-prepared defensive team I’ve seen at Cal in the past thirty+ years. I know I’m basing a lot on a two game sample size of work, but I already fear that our best teams under his tenure will result in a couple of exciting/good though not great teams. The conference is just too large, deep to not to pay equal parts attention to both sides of the ball to vie for the biggest prize.
September 10th, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Tosh for Defensive Coordinator (even though the major boosters hate him)
September 11th, 2013 at 9:46 am
Ken,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I got to attend NW game (First game in Berkeley in 20 years) and I loved the atmosphere, especially the student section involvement.
The rest of the season I am in Florida, relegated to internet streaming, but i do have an expectation that there will be some excitement in every game and until it is over, it won’t be over.
When the O line gets their mojo, the backfield boys will make Goff look even better.
Go Bears!