(Written by kencraw)

In the last 6 1/2 weeks I’ve written 24,000 words of blog posts on the 2005 football season. (For what it is worth, an average book is between 50,000 and 100,000 words, so I wrote (and you have read) about 1/2 a short book.) In all of those words, did we learn anything?

First of all, I found that Ayoob wasn’t as bad as I had remembered except for a couple games. Tedford’s analysis that he lost his confidence was more true than I remembered. In his worst games he was tenative, throwing late and without any authority. In contrast, he showed signs of being a solid QB at other points in the season. While I think going with Longshore for the 2006 season was the right choice, I think those with an open mind (of which there were few after 2005) would have been pleasantly surprised if Ayoob was given the reigns in 2006. Sometimes an off-season is very valuable to recover from confidence problems and also to help the game slow down. All of that said, he would never have been as consistent as any of us expect.

The other thing I saw regarding the quarterbacks was that Levy was both every bit as good a replacement as I remembered and somewhat limited in his ability. I’m pretty confident that if Levy was forced into the position Longshore was in 2007 (a difficult to play through injury), he would not have had the fall Longshore did. Levy was a no-excuses, we’re going to get this done, QB. I’m pretty confident he’d be one of those QB’s who could have willed his way through just about any injury. On the other hand, I don’t think he has the talent to ever be a Rodgers or even a Boller.

As for other observations, the offensive line, although very good, was not as dominant as I remembered it being. I remembered it being just a beast of a line, unequaled in Cal history. Now I don’t quite think that was the case. Their pass-projection was not the best and they could have opened more holes for Lynch if they were really the beasts my memory had pinned them as.

Who had more of my respect than before I watched was the defense. Minus the corner problems against WSU, they played a solid season and always kept the Bears in games they never deserved to be in. It was clear that they were expected to carry the load and they rose to the occassion. Unlike 2007 where the defense was just supposed to keep the bleeding to a minimum and the offense was expected to put the Bears over the top, in 2005 there was no doubt the defense was the strong suit.

But more than anything, I spent a lot of time comparing 2005 to 2007 in my mind. The similarities are too hard to ignore. Both seasons started 5-0 and both had their first loss at the hands of an inferior opponent in a game that came right down to the wire. Both seasons went downhill fast from there, losing 4 of the next 5, with the only victory being an at home victory over a weak WSU squad that made all too close of a game of it. Both seasons ended with a bowl victory that went a long way to saving face.

With the similarities, it naturally begs the question, which season was worse? I’m going to go on record and say 2007 was far worse. There was no excuse for losing to Stanford last year. In 2005, the turn-around at the end of the season wasn’t just the last three quarters of the bowl game. It was a full two games including a convincing win over Stanford in Palo Alto. Additionally, while both Air Force and BYU were over-achievers for the bowl games they were slotted in, there is no doubt in my mind that BYU was the better of the two teams. Despite being the better of the two teams, Cal played a much more dominant game against BYU and never looked as vulnerable as they did against Air Force.

To further the point, it seems to me that the 2007 team was a much more proven team when the collapse happened. In 2005 the Bears suffered from a very back-loaded schedule. None of the non-conference opponents was very challenging and the slide started with the first capable team on the schedule. In 2007 the Bears however had beaten two very good teams in Tennessee and Oregon, the latter being on the road.
In addition, the quality of opponent during the slide was vastly different in the two seasons. In 2005, 3 of the 4 losses were to the best teams in the conference, USC, Oregon and UCLA. The 4th loss to Oregon State, was a loss to a very capable team. In 2007 the six losses included a crummy UCLA, a way over-rated ASU who the Bears had against the ropes and a ridiculously beatable Washington. Add in an inexcusable loss to Stanford and there’s no comparing the difficulty of games between the two seasons in the slide.

Vote in the new poll on the right with your opinion and tune in a day or two with my 2008 game-by-game predictions before I start my 2007 review next week.