(Written by kencraw)

(Sorry for the lateness of these end of season posts. I was sick as the season ended and then I need a couple weeks just to get into my off-season routines)

Well, the Bears finished the season 9-4, one loss more than my pre-season prediction. Other than getting which of the Oregon schools the Bears would lose to wrong, I nailed the Pac-10 schedule perfectly including the loss to Arizona. So the way I see it, the only disappointment this season was the loss to Maryland. And having made the trek back east myself, I much better understand how it can be hard to play a good game so far away from home.

At the same time, it wasn’t exactly the best season ever, particularly on the offensive side of the ball. Here’s my analysis on what went right and wrong:

What went right:

1. The 3-4: There’s no way anyone could have anticipated just how awesomely the 3-4 was going to work out. The defense looked like a completely different team this year. Somehow the positive characteristics of the ‘Bend But Don’t Break’ defense remained intact, with the Bears giving up very few big plays, but they mananged to do it while being an attacking/game changing defense. Opposing offenses were stymied, confused, frustrated and overwhelmed by this defense. The only game where the defense can even be remotely argued to be in part the cause of the loss was the Arizona game, particularly the 3rd quarter. But even then they were playing in a game with the deck stacked against them having to come on the field time and time again after ineffective offensive series. Add in the fact that the Bears had a wonderful turnover margin due to the heads up play of the defense, a lot of which can be attributed to the 3-4 zone schemes that both had the defense watching for the ball and confusing the quarterback, and there’s no other way around the block than to praise the 3-4.
2. Syd’Quan Thompson: The only problem with Syd was that he was so good you never got to see it. There were often accusations that defenses picked on Hagan and Conte because they were weak, particularly Conte, but the reality was that it was more because Syd was SO good. He may not be the ball hawk that Hughes was, but I think Syd is the Bear’s best cover corner at Cal as long as I’ve been a season ticket holder. He’s NEVER out of position and always has a chance to make a play on the ball. Some of our most beloved corners played the role in a bit more risky fashion and at times found themselves burned, not Syd. Add in that his tackling on the perimeter almost made him the 5th linebacker at times (particulary when Cal went into a nickle package) and there’s very little not to like, check that, there’s nothing not to love, about this guy’s play in 2008.
3. Jahvid Best: Jahvid came a LONG way in 2008. He was really fast in 2007, but didn’t have the right sense of timing. Early in 2008 he looked “slow” sometimes because he was on the other side of trying to find the right timing. By mid-season he had found the right rythym. He saved the offense when the passing game struggled even when defenses were doing everything in their power to limit the Cal running game.
4. Creative play-calling: There was a lot more creative play-calling this year with Cignetti in the box. It felt like 2003 and 2004 again. While the offense didn’t rely on the trick play, they used them just enough to keep the defense honest and on their toes, and just as importantly most of the trick plays worked, many going for scores. But it wasn’t even just the trick play, there was a lot of diversity in the play calling and trying new and creative ways to make the most of the personnel on the field. You get the feeling that Tedford and Cignetti are on the same page. Cignetti gets what Tedford is trying to accomplish and agrees and Tedford trusts Cignetti to deliver on thier shared goals.
5. Alex Mack: I wish I could say the offensive line as a whole was a plus, but injuries hurt this unit a lot this year. But through it all, you could count on one defensive player being on his back just about every play due to Alex Mack being on the field. His leadership for the rest of the line was key too in keeping this unit effective in the running game and just better than mediocre in the pass rush. With all the young players getting playing time, particularly when Melele was out, that leadership was critical.
6. The rest of the Cal running game: Whether it be Will To’ufo’ou’s consistently strong play or Shane Vereen’s ability to excel in the backup roll, the Cal running game was the part of the Cal offense that kept the Bears on the field and was directly responsible for Cal’s good redzone effectiveness. Don’t forget the importance of the offensive line in the running game.
7. Zack Follett: I hate to single out one linebacker from a unit that was so strong, but Follett was something special this year. He had a knack for making the big play at the right time evidenced by his sack/forced fumble that won the Emerald Bowl for the Bears. While there was aspects of his play that was not perfect, his ability to rush the passer and create chaos at all times were remarkable. Add in that he was an important team leader, particularly in those moments when the team needed someone to pump them up, and Zack needs a specific mention amongst this very good unit.
8. Brian Anger/Punting Unit: Rounding out the list is Brian Anger and his supporting cast. Anger had a few inconsistency problems that ensured he ended up on the bottom of the “what went well” list instead of mid to high on the list, but his booming punts, particularly in the Big Game, were incredible to watch. This unit never gave up a big punt return and ensured the Bears were winning the field-position game pretty much all the time. Never underestimate the importance of this and thus that’s why it belongs on the list.

What went wrong:

1. Quarterback position: In Berkeley we have overly lofty expectations for our QB and this year was a big disappointment. I really thought the QB competition would be good for the team. In the end, I think it was bad. Some of it was it was uncontrollable with the concussion to Riley, but going back and forth prevented either QB from finding a rythym. What was most distressing to me was the lack of passing accuracy. The decision making skills of both Riley and Longshore were better than I expected, particularly Riley as a young guy (others would instead pick Longshore who didn’t throw many of his characteristic interceptions this year), but neither of them shined as far as getting the ball consistently to the intended receiver on target. I’m still pretty optimistic that Riley can turn the corner in 2009, but we’ll need better QB play moving forward if the Bears are going to make the step up to the next level.
2. Kickoffs: A lot of this has to do with still not having a kicker who can get the ball into the endzone. It’s just so frustrating that it has been two years where we don’t have a kicker who can get the ball inside the 5 yardline. To make matters worse, Tavecchio often tried a bit too hard to extend his distance and the result was too many shanks that gave the opposition the ball at the 40. The short kicks seemed to give the opponent 5-10 yards of field position they didn’t deserve and with the defense playing as well as it did, it didn’t hurt too much, but there was that important return for a TD against Oregon State that really hurt, and probably cost the Bears the game, when the momentum swing is included.
3. Pass protection: Even though I put quarterback play as the number one problem, let’s not forget that the deck was all too often stacked against them by weak pass protection. There were far too many times where a play would colapse before it could develop. Similarly it was clear from the coverage downfield that had the protection held, there would have been opportunities downfield. This is the 2nd year in a row that pass protection has been far weaker than run blocking. Hopefully this turns around soon.
4. Losing on the road: Yeah, Cal played 4 of its 6 toughest games (Michigan St. (home), Maryland, Arizona, Oregon (home), USC and Oregon St.) on the road. However, it beat the two it had at home and lost all four on the road. Even if the Bears had only won one of those tough road games to finish 2-3 on the road (remember that the 5th road game was lowly WSU), I think I could have left it off the “what went wrong” list, but 1-4 on the road when you go 7-0 at home including wins over Oregon and Michigan State?… just can’t make excuses for that. Personally, I think the Bears are a better team than Maryland, OSU and Arizona and should beat those teams on a neutral field and should have beat at least one, if not two, traveling to their turf. Tedford and company need to figure out why the team is just a little bit out of sync on the road. It’s probably not my natural grass pet theory, but it’s got to be something.

Overall, it was a successful season. Overwhelming? No. But they met their expectations and excelled in enough new areas to give one hope for the future.

Next post up: What we lost to graduation
Two posts out: What we need for a successful 2009

(although there will probably be a signing-day post before those two)