Boy was THAT a disaster. Minus pity points and letting off the throttle, that would have been a 70-3 affair. Oregon was the far, far, far superior team.

At the same time, I find myself discarding it as an indication of where the program is, other than to remind myself that this is not an elite program right now (duh!).

This team has been completely re-engineered in the off-season. When a coaching staff does that, they focus on the stuff the HAVE to focus on and aren’t left with much time for other things that just aren’t quite as important like wet-ball drills and spending lots of time on fumble recovery drills.

As a result, while 2-3 years from now I would be ticked as all get out to see such a poor performance in the rain, today I’m not. It was UGLY out there, and this team just isn’t ready for that and it’s just not that surprising or indicative of where this program could be heading.

Nevertheless, the ugly conditions do not account for all the problems, particularly on defense and on special teams. (The offense mostly gets a pass because of the conditions, although the offensive line performance still leaves something to be desired.)

My hopes for vastly improved tackling were for naught. My hopes that the scheme would start to show some improvement are all but dashed. The only good I saw is the defense seemed to be executing this archaic scheme at a higher level and there wasn’t the sort of blown coverages we saw in past weeks and gap assignments weren’t horrific (although the scheme still seems to WAY too often get the outside linebackers trapped inside the tackles where outside run plays go for BIG gains).

And while I’m willing to let a bit of the struggles be accounted for by the conditions, it doesn’t explain it all. Frankly, I’m not too far from making my official position on the defense be “BUH-bye”.

And special teams… WTH (that’s H for heck people). Never have I seen such bad angles to the ball and such bad tackling. Note to players: “flying around” does not mean you dive to the side of a guy and let him fly right by.

In summary, while there’s a lot of me that discards last night and another large portion that has a wait-and-see approach, there’s still plenty of reasons why I’m pretty fearful for what’s coming in the next few weeks when there are no more excuses.

All I know is this: The Bears MUST beat WSU next Saturday to have any hope of salvaging the season. Dykes task today is to get the Bears to completely wipe from their memory what happened last night and have an excellent week of practice preparing for the Wougs.

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.)

Unfortunately, my preview for Northwestern was far too accurate and the Bears couldn’t quite put it together against a very beatable Northwestern. Frankly, I found it odd overhearing the Northwestern fans leaving the game acting as if their team did well. If I was a Northwestern fan I’d be very apprehensive about the season, particularly with the high expectations for this year. One said to console a Bears fan, “Well, the positive is that you were able to hang with Northwestern until about 5 minutes left in the game.”

Uh, what?

Minus mistakes and blunders, it was Northwestern who was “hanging around” with Cal, particularly in the 2nd half.

So yesterday really will show us who are the glass is half full types and who are the half empty types. There’s a lot to be positive about. There’s a lot of potential. At the same time, there’s plenty to be worried about. If the stalled drives, bad catches that get tipped up, the general sloppiness with the ball (a lot of bobbles), the lack of discipline in run defense, the huge holes in the pass coverage, the false start penalties, the turnovers… if all those things don’t get cleaned up or somehow get worse, it could be a VERY long season. Yet overall, I guess I find myself in the half-full bucket. There was a lot of potential out there.

A few random thoughts:

• In seasons past I’ve just accepted the general “don’t show controversial replays on the screen” policy, but for some reason it REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bugged me last night. I’m a paying customer. I come to watch the game. Sometimes a play takes extra scrutiny/zoom to see well. You’ve got a video board that you use incessantly to market crud to me. TREAT ME LIKE AN ADULT AND SHOW ME THE FREAKING REPLAY!?! I just finally now saw the Bigelow somersault touchdown that was called back. Replay clearly shows his shoulder/helmet was down. I would have liked to know that sometime before Sunday morning. I just saw the McCain ejection. Beyond borderline in the direction of bad. That too I would have liked to have seen a replay of. And here’s the most ridiculous part: We’re going to boo either way. If anything withholding the information makes us more suspicious. Have confidence in your refs and show the plays.
• Faking injuries… I’m definitely in the camp of thinking they were “exaggerating” their injuries. The NW coach’s quote, basically saying that even if they’re just gassed/cramping/knicked up they should go down instead of limping off the field is legalistic BS where he’s basically admitting they were doing it. BUT I still am firmly in the no boo-ing camp. This will all come out via the press over time. Let it be handled by the coaches and the press. As tosh-gate showed, the post game repercussions are far worse than the booing is. Thus, there is no reason to boo, and you might just be booing a player who’s truly injured, which isn’t cool.
• Goff is awesome. He’s going to be a great QB. He made so few mistakes last night, fewer than I would expect from a junior who’s seen mop-up duty multiple times in years past but this is his first start. 2 of the 3 INTs weren’t his fault (the line of scrimmage tip is just how the ball bounces sometimes and the other tipped ball the receiver should have come up with) and the final one, while his fault, wasn’t cringe inducing. He just slightly under-estimated how quickly the safety could close the gap.
• If there was one thing schematically on offense that worried me, it was the plays where they were tossing the ball between players (like reverses)… they’re sure tossing the ball awful high in the air and it’s less like a handoff than it should be. Seems too risky for turnovers.
• If there was something that concerned me about the execution of the offense (minus false start penalties) it was the lack of run offense after the first drive. Doesn’t seem like that line is opening many holes.
• If you allow me a second thing, the dropped balls by the receivers were a bit troubling on the execution front too.
• If there was one thing that bothered me about the defense, I couldn’t tell you what it was. There were FAR too many troubling things to pick on just one (more on this in a future post). I’m far more concerned about the defense than the offense. I’m instantly questioning whether Buh was a good hire.

More to come, including the OTRH podcast, later in the day.

Random thoughts before a fit-full/futile restless night of sleep:

1. Utah fans are a nice bunch and very talkative. Not at all like the arrogant reputation they have online on some sites. I only ran into two very mild trash talkers all day while wearing my Cal gear and they were quickly rebutted by others with sympathy.
2. Is there anything else I can say to put off my rant?
3. When I gave my game plan it was under the assumption that we would manage to make it a LOW risk affair. How the team managed to turn the game plan into such a mistake and bad-bounce riddled affair is beyond me.
4. Similarly, I didn’t expect the team to be SO committed to the plan that they would make no attempt to make Utah’s defense pay for their massive focus on the run game.
5. Tedford is starting to lose the team. The players held in remarkably long, but particularly on the defense you could tell there were series when their heart wasn’t in it.
6. Despite that only 28 points were given up by the defense and the numerous short fields they had to defend.
7. How many mistakes is Maynard allowed to make while still getting every snap of every game? Two of the three turnovers were his fault. He made countless other bad choices… Shouldn’t some other guys get some playing time at some point?
8. WHY THE HECK ARE THEY HIDING BIGELOW UNDER A ROCK!?! Just when you think the coaching staff is learning from their mistakes, they pull this one… Bigelow made them look like fools… AGAIN!?!

Too many caps, time to step away from the keyboard. I’ll post more from the train ride home tomorrow evening and the podcast after I get home.

Well that stunk. REALLY stunk.

I’ll start with giving Stanford’s defense credit. That front seven is even better than I thought. Either that or the Cal offensive line had the worst effort by a college football team in college football history. I would have trouble sprinting as fast as they got through the line. They were causing havoc everywhere. Every play that started with the ball in the backfield was in trouble. The sweep plays couldn’t even get to the outside to see if perhaps they could turn the corner. It was UG-LY.

To make matters worse, it appears Stanford took a page from Oregon State’s playbook that has been so successful in thwarting Cal. They KNEW they were going to get home to Maynard or the back quickly, so they didn’t need to worry about the long developing plays that could cause them lots of trouble. All they needed was to cover the receivers for the first couple seconds and if somehow the WR’s got behind them or wide open, the play was going to be a sack before that was a problem.

So the linebackers and the secondary very much focused on getting in the throwing lanes that develop in the first couple seconds and they had won. Lot’s of press coverage and other things that defend the quick developing stuff. It was a very good game plan.

But that’s where I end my praise for Stanford and start in on my criticism of the coaching staff, particularly since as I mentioned, we’ve seen this from Oregon State for years.

TEDFORD, THERE ARE WAYS TO BEAT THIS SORT OF GAME PLAN… ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION!?!

Here’s my four-point plan on how to beat the defensive strategy we’re going to see for the rest of the season:

1. Change the routes so that they are much quicker developing. Focusing on things like quick slants to the inside, 5-7 yard outs, TE routes right up the gut and sit in a zone hole, etc.
2. Pick routes that can be analyzed pre-snap by Maynard, so he knows where he’s going before he’s got 7 guys in his face. He’s just not able to read the field when he’s being harassed all day.
3. De-emphasize Isi. I’ve been a big supporter of him for a long time, but what we need right now is not him and frankly, he hasn’t been playing up to the same level he was this time last year.
4. Throw/toss to the running backs behind WR screening. This will work particularly well with press coverage because it will be easy for the WR’s to engage the DBs.

I’m not a football genius and I can figure this stuff out. But here’s what ticks me off…

THIS SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN A SURPRISE.

Why is it that a couple times a year Tedford seems completely caught off guard by the adjustments teams are making to him? All of us saw what Stanford’s front seven was going to do to us a MILE away. And Tedford seemingly had no inclination or at best, and if that’s the best it’s terrifying, he had no answer to it.

The routes our WR’s were running were horrible. Lot’s of complex stuff that was slow developing. There must have been 10 different times I looked at the coverage and said “Oh, if WR X is running a quick slant, we’re golden.” But he NEVER was. Not when we were in the redzone when it should be the go-to play call.

I think Tedford out-thinks himself. “Everyone knows the right play here is a quick slant to Keenan, so I’d better not do that.” Take a lesson from Oregon coach… sometimes the reason everyone knows is because IT WORKS, and IT WORKS even when EVERYONE KNOWS. Oregon has something like 4 plays, but they run them with precision. The defense knows what it is up against and they still can’t stop it because it’s fundamentally sound.

I think part of why it ticks me off is because I really want Tedford to succeed. I like the guy and I want him to be successful in Berkeley. I think this game sealed his fate. Yes, if we come back and get bowl eligible, he’ll have saved his job, but I just don’t see it happening. Beating UW and OSU is not like beating UCLA. It won’t be that easy.

Heck, if he doesn’t change things, Utah may be good enough to follow Stanford’s lead and make WSU the last win of the season.

And I’m pretty sure Tedford needs AT LEAST 5 wins to save his job… and that assumes some intangibles that point in Tedford’s favor in the losses that remain.

So disappointing.

Jeff Faraudo says: “O-line delivers most encouraging performance yet”

The Bears offensive line ALWAYS looks good against WSU. I wouldn’t get too excited about that performance.

The game went about like I expected. If WSU had converted on one of those drives that died when they got close, my pre-game prediction (31-24) could have been exactly right.

Things I liked:

• The workman like quality of the win… the Bears knew what they needed to do and got it done.
• Keenan Allen… great game for him. That long touchdown was a thing of beauty.
• Secondary getting their hands on a lot of balls… FINALLY Steve Williams is back to his old self and the rest of the secondary is joining him in making far more plays on the ball than in the first few games of the season.
• Running backs… they all played pretty well and came in for each other as they got banged up. Bigelow is FAST. CJ is tough and has more speed than in the past. Isi might be the weakest of the 3 but is doing fine.
• Offensive line dominated like they should.

Things I didn’t like:

• Secondary penalties… I’ll definitely take the bad with the good here, I’d rather have them batting a lot of balls and getting a few penalties, but this could be improved.
• Bad calls by the refs… A few of those secondary penalties were pretty bogus. Also, the instant replay booth looks to be replaced by a monkey with a coin to flip. It sometimes went in our favor (and other times it didn’t), but there was no consistency in the booth.
• Maynard locking on Allen… 14 completions total, 11 of them to Keenan Allen? That will work against a weak team, but it will not work against the better teams.
• The last drive of the first half… were we running out the clock or were we going for the score? Because what we did was injure a couple of players doing neither.
• 7:30 game… they stink and need to be run faster.

Will post both the very late tOSU and WSU podcasts later today as well as more detailed thoughts in addition to starting to look forward to Stanford (and some thoughts on their game against ND.)

I’m off to Mass in a few minutes, but a quick post to say “WOW!”

Looks like my thoughts about the talent on the team weren’t unfounded. Where I was wrong, was thinking the Bears wouldn’t find it against UCLA. Boy did they ever!

And that was a pretty good UCLA team, better than ASU for sure.

I’ll be posting more after I get back from Church, including the OTRH podcast, and more on whether this game reflects a turning point, or whether this was that one game I was talking about where Cal comes up and beats a team they shouldn’t have.

I think it really boils down to four things:

1. Poor offensive line play
2. Under utilization of Bigelow
3. Maynard’s poor play
4. Poor redzone execution

That will doom you in about any game versus a reasonable opponent. You just can’t make 6 trips inside the opponent’s 22 yard line and only come away with 9 points, particularly when you’re not breaking big plays either because your best break away running back (Bigelow) is on the bench and your quarterback is missing open receivers for big gains.

First set of thoughts after the game…

• Bigelow comes in for one drive, gets 4 caries for 30 yards, gives some life to the running game and then… DISAPPEARS FOR THE REST OF THE GAME. What. the. heck!
• This was a pretty typical “good” loss to USC. Outmatched for the most part, and yet the Bears do their best to hang in, but are ultimately doomed by a lack of offense.
• Speaking of which, 6 trips deep into USC territory, 9 points. That is just never going to get it done. What USC does best against Cal is win the redzone battle.
• Just like last week this game can be viewed very differently depending on what your perspective is. Here’s a few:
  • If you’re wondering if Tedford has this team where it should be after 11 years at the helm then there’s nothing other to be than disappointed. The 2012 Bears are NOT conference contenders. There’s just no other way to say it.
  • If you wanted to see Cal make the next step after coming close against tOSU, then this game is a disappointment. USC was better than tOSU and the Bears played similarly against both. Cal got fewer breaks and didn’t have as good of luck, but overall it was a similar performance.
  • However, if you assumed the Bears were going to come home from the brutal 2-game road trip with an overall record of 1-3, but wanted to see the Bears in a position to win games after that stretch, then this game feels like a continued step in the right direction. D’Amato got some of his mojo back. The defense has cleaned things up. The offense is having better execution. This team probably would have beat Nevada and can beat a lot of the teams in the conference. It’s not unreasonable to hope/expect this team to get to 4-3 after the next 3 games (ASU, UCLA, WSU).
• The key is going to be team chemistry and emotion after this loss. It doesn’t have the same positives as the tOSU game. Tedford and the coaching staff, and the leaders on the team have a big task in front of them to say: The season starts now.
• But it bears repeating, where. in. the. name. of. all. that. is. good. was BIG-E-LOW!?!

Various thoughts on the first half of the USC game…

• D’Amato: There’s no doubt he’s got the shanks and it’s all inside his head. Nice to see him get a chance to kick a short one to get some confidence back. While we should definitely bias against kicking, but I wouldn’t completely give up on him yet.
• The 2 interceptions have saved this from being a much more lopsided game. That’s both good defense and a bit of luck.
• At the same time, the run defense is a real problem. Very intermitant play. Some good plays, but also WAAAY too many plays getting blown off the ball and seeing it go for lots of yards.
• Offense hasn’t been horrible, but also has been too inconsistent as well. Too many botched plays. Also, the offensive line is loosing the battle at the line of scrimmage. Considering that deficit, the rest of the offense isn’t doing half bad.
• WHERE THE HECK IS BIGELOW!?! This is where I get pretty frustrated with Tedford and his staff. They act like they get it, but yet then they never seem to ACT on what they get. Bigelow’s carries so far: ZERO! Unbelievable.
• Touchdowns, not field goals. That has to be the mantra when playing a better team and so far we’ve got two redzone possessions and two field goal attempts.
• The Bears are going to have to play a much better 2nd half to win this one, but it’s not entirely out of reach yet. Scoring on their first drive is pretty important to swing momentum and then the run defense has to improve.

Oh, one more thing… why couldn’t we have the good luck of the Furd in when we match up against USC? They played them without their kicker or their lauded center. Both are back to face Cal. Ugh.

That said: No excuses, win this game!

Well, that was an interesting one. I can’t decide if I’m happy that the Bears have improved dramatically and represented us well in Columbus, or whether I’m disappointed we let one slip away.

Let’s start with the slip away:

• 9 points lost on 3 field goals
• A very ill-advised thrown ball that ended the Bears last hope
• A VERY blown coverage on the play that gave tOSU the lead.
• Why did we see so much of CJ Anderson down the stretch when Bigalow was on fire?
• How did Cal let Braxton Miller score that first touchdown? We had him totally corralled.
• 100 more yards, 7 more first downs, better 3rd down efficiency, 16 more plays, more time of possession… we dominated in every statistical category except the only one that matters.

So that’s pretty frustrating.

Yet, at the same time, compared to where we have been and the expectations going into this game, how could it be anything other than a success?:

• See those dominating statistics above? That’s a good thing.
• Turnovers were not a big problem… well, minus the one interception being at an inopportune time.
• Only 4 penalties for 40 yards.
• Maynard completed 70% of his throws, made lots of good decisions, and had only a couple of misthrows.
• Generally very few miscues and mistakes. The team seemed to have a lot more discipline than in the previous two games.

When I’m being positive, those good signs are very encouraging. We had all accepted we’re going to start 1-3, and while that wasn’t good, what we were even more worried about was whether we could beat teams in the middle of the conference. Who thinks we can’t beat UCLA, ASU and WSU now?

Yet on the flip side, imagine Cal didn’t lose to Nevada… what would we be thinking about the lost opportunity today?

Please vote in the poll on the right. I’m only giving two options. No wishy-washy voting allowed!

(Much more to come!)

What a bi-polar game. Were the Bears vastly superior as the stat line suggested, outgained them 517-367 and held them to 72 yards rushing, or is the slim 20-17 lead in the 3rd quarter more indicative of the performance?

Personally, I think it was a little of both.

The Bears hurt themselves early with penalties and turnovers. Cal committed 50 of the 95 penalty yards in the 1st quarter and 8 of their 9 penalties in the 1st half. Those 50 yards of penalties killed Cal’s 2nd drive and contributed to the demise of the 3rd drive.

Which brings us to turnovers. The Bears 3rd drive ended on a long 2nd and 18 with an interception (more on this later) giving Southern Utah the ball at the Cal 28. Somehow the Bears managed to sack S. Utah out of field goal range, saving at a minimum 3 points. Yet 2 plays later Keenan Allen fumbles the ball bringing a swift end to the 4th drive of the game and giving S. Utah the ball yet again on the fringe of field goal range (this time they convert it).

Point being, S. Utah’s points and Cal’s lack of offensive progress, all fall on stupid mistakes. While frustrating, stupid mistakes have the upside of being correctable fairly quickly.

Let’s look at the next few drives:
#5: 8 plays for 78 yards and field goal
#6: 7 plays for 95 yards and a touchdown
#7: 4 plays for 60 yards and a touchdown
#8: 9 plays for 44 yards and a field goal

That looks a lot to me like what the team we hope Cal can be should do against a team like S.U.. Cal had 3 drives in the 2nd half (a pick-6 and a punt return for a touchdown reduced the normal number) and the results were one punt, one field goal and one touchdown. Not horrible stuff at all.

I was pretty hard on the defense in the OTRH podcast which I’ll be posting shortly, but looking at the stat sheet, minus one drive to start the 3rd quarter and the fluke Hail Mary to end the 1st half (more on this later), both of which were pretty disappointing, the 1st string defense did pretty darned well. Minus those, they gave up 84 total yards.

Once the backups started getting on the field, the S. Utah offense got rolling, adding 150 yards to their otherwise mediocre numbers (217 before then) and 14 points.

This doesn’t diminish much of my criticism. I’m still seeing poor tackling, failing to wrap them up. That’s going to burn us against better teams. I’m still very disappointed in our secondary coverage. How Marc Anthony and Steve Williams (and to a lesser degree Josh Hill) lost the ability to make a move on the ball before it gets to the receiver, or failing that, to rip the ball out, is a complete mystery. To add injury to insult, their coverage has been sub-par and way too many open receivers have been the result of the corners getting beat.

We should be very thankful that the S. Utah receivers have hands of stone and the QB isn’t more accurate than he was. They could have really torched us at a number of points with better execution.

But somehow, I have this lingering feeling it wasn’t as weak a performance as it seemed, that the stupid penalty and turnover mistakes masked an otherwise acceptable offensive performance and the defense was not as bad as 31 points would suggest.

Various random thoughts on the game yesterday:

• Bridgeford looked terrible. His decision making was horrendous, but his passes were. And although they weren’t bad decisions, they were a bit on the slow side. If he’s the best thing we’ve got for a backup QB, we’re in trouble.
• Keeping Maynard out of the game may have been the decision that lost the Bears the game. We lost almost the entire 1st quarter of offensive play, gave Nevada too many early possessions, and Maynards slow start meant that there was very little offense for the first third of the game.
• That’s not necessarily to say I think it was the wrong decision (more on this in a separate post)
• As for Maynard’s performance, this rumored “big leap” he made in the off-season is a cosmic joke. Sorry, this is the same inconsistent Maynard we saw last year. He played worse in this game than he did against Fresno State to open the season last year. While I think Tedford can use a similar strategy as he did last year to win some games (rely on the running game and use Maynard to keep them honest, particularly by rolling out and threatening the QB run), we won’t be seeing the kind of improvement we had hoped for specifically because of QB problems.
• Seriously, how is that possible? I’m really starting to be at a complete loss as to why Cal can’t find/develop a good QB. No one can take away from Tedford his past of developing good QB’s, but whatever it was, he doesn’t have it any more. Either that or he’s a terrible recruiter of QB’s and just can’t tell who has the real tools and who is going to succumb to the Peter Principle when they get to college.
• The more I think about it, this game was lost in the trenches. The defensive line was a big disappointment, they were hardly disruptive at all. The offensive line did fine in pass protection, but did a poor job of opening up running holes.
• While the offensive line issues weren’t terribly surprising, the defensive line problems are. These guys were supposed to be the veteran unit that anchored an otherwise inexperienced group.
• Speaking of under-performing experienced players, both corners in my opinion did a poor job in pass coverage. Yes, they made a lot of tackles, so their run support was good, but the number of open receivers and the lack of getting a hand in to break up completions was very troubling, particularly considering how good they played last year.
• I think we may have underestimated the impact of all the injuries this fall. Wilkerson was experienced and very good. Backup cornerback Stefan McClure showed great promise last year and was solid and needed as a backup. Cecil Whiteside was likely to be a keep piece amongst our linebackers. That’s three important players on defense. Add in Galas on the offensive line and that was a tough group to lose over the course of training camp.
• Along those lines, the inexperience was showing itself during tackling. I saw a lot of diving at feet and WAAAAY to many instances when players weren’t wrapping up. Luckily, it didn’t really burn them at any point, but there were a lot of inside runs that were for 4-6 yards that could have been for 2-3 with proper tackling.
• I stand very much behind my podcast statements that CJ Anderson getting the bulk of the carries was a big mistake. I didn’t see any meaningful improvement in him and he never has been as good as Isi Sofele. Isi need to get the bulk of the carries. That could have the difference in this game too.
• Allen had lots of traction problems, obviously, and it makes me wonder if there were lots of traction problems in the trenches which are not as obvious from the stands. Seriously, how can this be? It’s the practice field. There should be no surprises. The equipment crew needs to solve this ASAP.
• I was very disappointed with Tedford’s decision to hand it off to the RB on 3rd and 16 from their own 6 yard line. Look, I get it that it’s a tough place to play from and in the 1st half, I accept being conservative. But there’s 3:30 left in the game and your defense isn’t sitting on a great track record of stopping the opposition. You can’t just give up on 3rd down and punt it away and hope for the best.
• Back to the secondary, one thing that was really disappointing was how often they had a guy in the area, but he wasn’t reaching in and breaking the pass up. Right down to the final drive, when Josh Hill could have made a move on the ball instead of just hitting him to tackle him, there were too many uncontested 3rd down completions… and not because there was nobody there to contest it.
• Both of the outside linebackers, particularly early in the game, didn’t anticipate the speed of the Nevada QB. We had a guy in position to tackle him (McCain) on his long TD run, he just got burned.
• For a defensive positive, although early in the game the defense was still figuring it out, by the 2nd quarter, it wasn’t the pistol itself that beat the Bears. They eventually got it figured out, although the overall quality of the Nevada offense, in particular the passing game, in the end proved too much.
• Final thought: Redzone defense… not where it needed to be. It sure seemed like the defense lost their heart right about the 20 yard-line.

So, in summary, I see 3 main reasons we lost:

1. Maynard being benched for a quarter
2. Losing the game in the trenches
3. Too much of CJ and not enough of Isi

I didn’t do a OTRH podcast this week, in part because I wasn’t at the game. Things got a little bit crazy on the home front and I just couldn’t justify going. So I had the odd sensation of watching a game on TV that I had paid for 6 tickets for the family (and from the looks of it, we could have sat just about anywhere). Of course having to miss the game means things are in dreadfully bad shape and thus the likelihood I’d be blogging anytime soon is negligible. So Wednesday it is before I had time to write something down.

As for the game itself, I think Cal did just about everything right in this game. I kinda wish we had saved this performance for OSU. The defense looked really strong again. It might just be the conference’s best defense at this point. While the corners get called occasionally for pass interference, they’ve found a way to harass the receivers relentlessly without getting called most of the time. As for the front 7, anybody who dares to run against them, particularly on the inside, looks destined to fail (with the possible exception of Stanford).

Maynard looked to have gotten back to his form of the Utah game and a big part of that was the play-calling. It was very geared towards him and he bloomed on the first couple drives with it. I really hope that seeing it happen twice is all the evidence Tedford needs to get it through his sometimes thick skull how to game-plan for Maynard.

The other thing I like about the team I saw play on Saturday was their mental state. Seeing the joy on Will Kapp’s face when he scored that TD was awesome. This team seems to have a joy for playing that’s very healthy. Plus, they’ve got a lot of fight in them. I don’t think this team looks at OSU as their last shot at bowl eligibility (although I think everyone including the team and the coaches agree it would be nice to get it out of the way). This team truly believes they can beat Stanford with the right game and frankly doesn’t even see ASU as overwhelmingly challenging.

And you know what… if the run defense can be as good against Stanford as they have been recently against pro-set offenses (OK, I know that’s a BIG if) and the secondary continues to play well, theirs a 30% shot at a win. I still remember the Luck who got rattled two years ago when the Bears won the line of scrimmage in the 2009 Big Game. Yes, yes, I know Luck is a lot better now, but in part that’s because he’s got so much confidence in his team and his team doesn’t often let him down. His uniform is usually ridiculously pristine at the end of the game. If we can rattle him, there’s a chance, in part because he doesn’t get rattled very often. We need some guys in the backfield, A LOT. And guess what, the Luck I saw in Corvallis on Saturday was not Luck at his best. He’s got some mediocre games in him. And I’m pretty sure he remembers what the Bears did last time we were all in Stanford stadium.

But long-shots aside, I think this is a team that in many ways is starting to gel at the right time. This feels more like 2009 than it does like 2010. And for those who have forgotten, we beat two of the best teams in the conference, teams we were both supposed to lose to, to turn the season on it’s head after mediocre play to start the season. Yes, I remember the face-plant against UW and Utah (in the bowl). But I think people forget the other part, beating UA, a team that at that late point in the season controlled their destiny to the Rose Bowl with Oregon coming to town after the Cal game, and Stanford, a team that hadn’t lost at home all season and has only lost one game since (@Oregon last season).

Particularly since this next game against OSU is at home, I feel a lot better about things and it’s starting to feel like UCLA was the aberration, not Utah or WSU. Look at how Utah has done the last two weeks. Teams that are on the rise don’t often make step-functions. They have regressions. UCLA was a massive regression. More regressions are possible, but it’s feeling like the team has turned the corner.

GO BEARS!

Ken will be joining you. I’ll be in a car for most of it.

Here are some of my thoughts after the game:

• This defense is getting better every week. It was obvious after the 2nd week of the season that this Bear defense was not going to be as good as we were expecting. The loss of talent of the “Big 3” was harder to absorb than we all thought. But as it turns out, it looks like this defense might be every bit as good as last years was… we were just unfairly comparing the defense at the end of the season versus the team at the beginning of this season. Lest we forget, last year’s defense did give up 52 to Nevada’s offense in week 3 last season. It started coming on very strong after that, although the setback versus USC is still hard to swallow. But the point is, this year’s defense may just be taking a couple more games than last season to come on strong. Last week’s performance against USC was a vast improvement over the previous season and the Oregon game was half of what the previous season’s effort was (being half way through the season compared to last year). That performance yesterday had the feel of the UCLA and ASU games last year, when the defense turned the corner and never really looked back.
• Another way to look at the above thought is all of you who are complaining about poor coaching at least need to limit it to the offense. There’s no doubt that the defensive coaching the last two years has been excellent and it’s easy to see how the defense continues to improve each week. Pendergast and his staff are doing great things.
• Moving to offense, I saw one that looked to be significantly improving this week. It had the look of a unit that was getting back to the basics and having confidence in the players. It felt like the coaching staff did all the right things in the last week of practice and game planning.
• Maynard had corrected all of his major problems from the prior weeks. While he had one pass that he was very lucky it didn’t get intercepted, my gut feel on that one was the wide receiver (Michael Calvin) didn’t run the right route, or at the very least the DB beat him to where he was supposed to be going. It wasn’t clear that was Maynard’s fault. But it wasn’t just the lack of stupid INT’s. Utah forced him to throw a lot of balls to the outside and Maynard was on target for almost all of them. There was a time or two he could have put a little bit more touch on the ball. There was a time or two he over-threw it a little bit. There were a handful of times he threw low forcing his receivers to go down to the ball to catch it. But overall, I thought this game was a substantial improvement. He also looked a lot more comfortable in the pocket. Plus, mark my words on this one: He’s going to escape the pocket up the middle in some game soon for a big gain. He had two plays where he was about to run for a big gain but got tripped up just as he was running for it.
• Another player I’m really pleased with right now is Tavecchio. His kickoffs are good, his extra points are getting up quick, and he has yet to be the cause of a missed field-goal (he’s 11-of-13 and the two misses were both blocked at the line of scrimmage with too much penetration). I think he’s getting that senior season magic.
• The offensive line deserves a lot of credit for this win. Maynard had time and the holes opened up for Sofele, while not great (particularly on the inside) considering how good the Utah front 7 is said to be, the offensive line made them look somewhat average.
• Overall this felt like an offense that was getting back on track and should be in good shape to be at the top of the heap of all the “also rans”. We’ll see when Cal plays ASU, but the team might have been good enough to be the south winner, were we not in the North.

Cal got stomped 9-30 by USC last night and boy was it painful:

• How does a team turn the ball over 5 times at home?
• How does a team put the ball on the turf at least 4 other times and get lucky enough to pick them back up? (I guess bad snaps aren’t considered fumbles because they don’t all show on the fumbles stat)
• How does a team go scoreless in the 1st half against a defense that gave up 41 to an Arizona team that just fired their head coach?

The Cal offense did not come ready to play, it’s as simple as that. The defense gave a valiant effort. USC only marched the field to get a touchdown once as this log of scoring drives shows:

• Cal 30 to Cal 22 for a field goal
• USC 13 to the endzone
• Cal 20 to Cal 12 for a field goal
• Cal 37 to the endzone
• USC 28 to the Cal 16 for a field goal
• Cal 9 to the endzone

Doing the math, the average USC scoring drive started on the Cal 40 and fully 2/3rds started within the 30, 1/3rd in the redzone.

That’s not how one sets up the defense for success.

Here’s what I saw on offense that troubles me:

• Bad defensive recognition by coaches: USC was playing these somewhat unconventional defensive formations with wide-spread defensive linemen and the outside line backers outside them (and remember USC plays a 4-3 where by default all the linebackers should be inside the defensive tackles). They were just BEGGING the Bears to run inside, a-la Oregon State’s upsets of the Trojans in recent years. Did the Bears run between the tackles? NOPE! We ran outside, right into those waiting linebackers. We also ran lots of slow developing run plays which play right into the hands of a talented but raw defense (gives them too much time to recover from mistakes).
• Calling Mr. Ayoob: That’s who I kept thinking of when I saw Maynard throw. This guy is getting worse. He’s losing confidence and he only has a couple of throws he can do somewhat effectively (over the middle slants). His mis-throws are getting worse. He can’t hit a receiver in the flat to save his life. I’ve gone from seeing a QB who was raw with potential to one who seems to be regressing each week. He’s making truly bad decisions (see ALL 3 ints). He’s getting worse, not better, with his accuracy. It was really troubling.
• Mistake prone: The rest of the offense didn’t make things easier on Maynard. Galas did a crummy job snapping him the ball. Botched handoffs put the ball on the ground. Too many catches dropped (although the receivers also bailed out Maynard on other occasions, so it’s not like the WR’s are on the negative side of the ledger). It makes getting into rhythm harder when balls are dropped or whatnot. It means the team is playing behind the chains.
• Bad playcalling: Why does one pull out the fake punt on 4th and 7 on our side of the field? How many times do you think you’re going to fool the defense with the receiver screen to Keenan? Why did we give up on the run game (see 1st point about recognition) so early? Why weren’t we playcalling to Maynard’s strengths in the 1st half like we were in the 2nd half? And for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY WHAT’S WITH THE RUGBY PUNTS!?! (In fairness, we stopped doing them later in the game). There’s just too many baffling playcalling decisions these days.

As bad as the above seems, it wasn’t all bad. Maynard showed glimpses of his former self in the 2nd half. The offensive line did their job and probably would have opened up a nice run game if given the chance. Our WR’s continue to impress. But most importantly, the team had fight. They came out in the 2nd half and gave it a good go. Down by 14 (9-23) with 17 minutes to play and finally showing some offensive rhythm while the defense had started imposing its will on the USC offense, there was a moment where everyone realized the comeback was a possibility. That all ended with the interception with 6 minutes left deep in Cal territory (it was already getting a bit desperate), but at least this team keeps trying. Also, it was a pretty clean penalty game.

And of course I need to re-reference the defense in my “it wasn’t all bad” segment. They did a GREAT job and deserve praise. While McClure had his issues and was picked on, he didn’t do bad. When Marc Anthony comes back, the defense will be even better and it’ll be nice to have the depth (with some experience) that McClure gives us.

So where does this all leave us? Well, I’ll let everyone else speak for themselves, but it leaves me disappointed and worried, yet at the same time knowing all is not lost (yet). We all knew coming into this season that a 3-game losing streak with these 3 games was a real possibility. It’s frustrating because one of them was quite winnable, a second we played great for a half before locking ourselves in the woodshed and waiting for our beating and the 3rd, I think I’m not alone in thinking this team is capable of beating the USC team we saw last night despite not ever really threatening to last night. So yeah, it’s frustrating. But in the end, we have to remember what the expectations were for how we’d get to 6 wins and it didn’t include these 3 games. What matters is how many wins the team has in December. If the team can put those 3 games behind it (DANGER!) we now enter a stretch where if the Bears win 3 of 4, they’ll be bowl eligible.

All of these games are winnable, the Bears might even be considered a favorite in all of them. The Bears could probably win a couple of them even with something resembling the performance we saw last night. The other couple will take somewhat of an improvement, but there’s PLENTY of room for improvement that as long as Maynard doesn’t become Ayoob (DANGER!) and mistakes get cleaned up.

Frustrated and disappointed, but with hope. Sure feels like I’m an Old Blue.

Much more to come later, but I’ll sneak this in from work… Yes on Saturday:

• Oregon made two great halftime adjustments: 1. Emphasizing rushing up the middle (with improved success) while nearly abandoning rushing on the edge. 2. Abusing our backup DB’s, particularly McClure with Marc Anthony out with a separated shoulder in the 2nd half. That was the difference in the game.
• Why did Cal give up on the run game so early? It was pretty successful (in fact, it was one of the things I was most happy with) but it was entirely absent in the 2nd half.
• My biggest concern: Redzone efficiency. Not the fake kind that includes field goals, I’m talking touchdowns.
• Maynard’s inconsistency is troublesome, but won’t be what the season’s success hinges on.
• I’ve never seen so many holding penalty flags… er… wait, no they didn’t throw ANY of them despite the fact that there was abusive holding by Oregon all game long.
• To the Oregon fans who were booing at the game: YOU SUCK! Our players were actually injured (imagine Cal fans booing when James went down?) and you don’t know the pass-interference rules from a turd on the field. Show some class in the future.
• Speaking of James, I always hate to see a player injured, but I was glad to escape the state of Oregon this year without losing someone big (2007: Longshore, 2010: Riley). I sure hope for Oregon’s sake the curse hasn’t been reversed.
• My 2nd biggest concern: Inability to score in the 2nd half. Some of it can be chalked up to the situations, but I’m starting to see a troubling pattern.
• Do we have a conditioning problem on defense? Think about when these big plays happen… it’s the 2nd half. Colorado, Washington, Oregon. Maybe coupling the previous point, it could be across the whole team.
• Why is it the offensive line can open big holes most of the time, but when we really need 2 yards, they get abused. It’s part of our redzone problems, but it’s also why we’re throwing on 3rd and short so much. I’ve been pretty happy with the O-Line except for getting a good push on obvious rushing downs.
• Despite all of the above issues, I still like this team a lot more than the last few years. We’re not one sack away from terrible (Bridgeford). The team has a lot more heart and fight (losing by 28 to Oregon is not as bad as it seems, just because of the way the score points in bunches, this is a 13 point loss to any other team). There’s a lot of good buried inside the bad. I still like our chances in most of the rest of our games particularly with so many at home and still feel confident we’ll go bowling this year.
• Frankly, with the youth we have this year and how much raw talent I’m seeing, next year’s team I think will be pretty good and could make a run at the Pac-12 title.
• No OTRH podcast this week.

Yuck. (more…)