SB Nation - Michael Mohamed

Ranking the 2009 Pac-10 Football MVPs: Part I

Avinash — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:00:29 -0000

Mike Mohamed had some big plays this season. Was it enough to be a Pac-10 MVP?

In case you missed it, here's Part 1: the LVPs of their respective teams.

This post got too long, so I had to split it into three. Here are the honorable mention categories and the Pac-10 players and units ranked #30 thru #21 (#20-11 coming this afternoon, #10-1 coming Friday morning). Let's dive into it.

Honorable Mention

Jeff Locke, Reid Forrest: You know your team's in trouble when your punters are higher than anyone on your offense. And in Forrest's case, you know your team is royally fucked when your punter is the only one on your team who appears on this list.

Donald Butler: Didn't really do anything spectacular this year, but 96 tackles will get you on this list.

Daniel Te'o-Nesheim: So will 9.5 sacks and 12.5 TFL. Too bad the Huskies defense ranged from 'sheer brilliance' to 'human atrocity'

Ed Dickson: I'll be nice as possible about this--FUCK ED DICKSON. AGGGGGHHHHHHHHH.

Damola Adeniji: Despite all the production of James Rodgers, he wasn't Canfield's main target on 3rd down. Probably because secondaries keyed in on Rodgers, Adeniji racked up 27 catches in that situation, 21 for first downs, 5th in the country. Only 49 catches overall, but considering he only had 1 last season, I'll say this is a slight upgrade.

Chris Polk: Finished this season on a tear: Five ninety+ yard games and a 1000 yard season overall. Hard to measure his impact though, since the Huskies lost three of those games and Locker and the defense were the focal points of the other two.

Trojan offensive line: Lost season for these guys. 17 sacks allowed, 40 tackles for loss allowed, only a top 40 rushing offense. Ho-hum for them. I would've dreamed of something like this for the Bears.

Mike Mohamed: Cal's most productive defensive player on a not-so-great defensive unit. You have to give massive props for a 100 tackle season (his 104 tackles were tops in the Pac-10). And he saved another Cal season from sliding into disaster with a crucial interception in the Big Game.

Kyle Williams, Dmitri Nance: Solid production considering their quarterback struggled to complete half of his passes. Plus I feel bad for Williams ending his career like that.

Syd'Quan Thompson: If Cal had ONE guy (Hagan, Hill, Nnabuife, Conte, Rope Guy, someone) step up at corner on the other side of the field, who knows how our season turns out. We sure as hell don't get lit up by Oregon, USC or UDub on defense (Syd's limited ability in the final game pretty much assured we were screwed against Locker).

He was still a fabulous open field tackler when he got the chance, and when quarterbacks threw to his side of the field, he usually shut down. Like Asomugha in Oakland, that kind of effort only gets rewarded with first team All Pac-10, and minimal impact on the box score. So while his talent is easy enough to gauge, it's really hard to measure his value. Which is why he's honorable mention and not on the top 30.

After the jump, here's #30-21. If there are any thoughts of players or units left off, or guesses as to who will end up in the top 20, leave them in the comments.

#30 Damian Williams, #29 Joe McKnight

via theoraclesays.files.wordpress.com

These two are actually the first since Bush and White to break 100+ all-purpose yards a game since Bush and Leinart. Solid seasons, but other than McKnight on the final drive against Ohio State and Williams tearing up Notre Dame, how many moments do you remember concerning these two? That kind of year for the Trojans. It's up in the air whether either will return too.

#28 Ryan Whalen

via www4.pictures.zimbio.com

6th in the Pac-10 in receptions, turned into Luck's best passing threat when Owusu went Section Eight in the biggest games. Thought about ranking him higher, but I don't have any Whalen moments to really justify putting him further up. Perhaps the Cardinal fans can refresh my memory...oh, wait, there are no Cardinal fans. #28 it is.

#27 Arizona's receiving corps (Turner, Criner, Roberts, Dean, Douglas)

via www.azstarnet.com

Five guys with 30 catches or more? Now that's spreading the wealth around. By contrast, Cal had only one receiver (Jones) catch more than 30. Obviously, Cal isn't built to be a passing offense, but still, this is a far cry from two-three years ago. Sigh.

#26 UCLA's secondary

via images.ocregister.com

I know Rahim Moore led the nation in picks, and Alterraun Verner had another fine year--but how good are these guys? Other than shutting down Jonathan Crompton and whoever the hell Kansas State's quarterback is, the Bruins pass D has been surprisingly average. Even Kevin Riley burned them deep. I repeat, KEVIN RILEY BURNED THEM DEEP. Does this happen to good secondaries?

Oh well...at least Moore is capable of that "deep, longing, alluring, penetrating, soul-piercing, heart-tugging look".

#25 Tyson Alualu

via cache.daylife.com

Kind of hard to say how bad the Bears defense would've been without Alualu cracking apart the line. His efforts alone helped shut down Minnesota's passing game in a tight 4th quarter. Extra linemen often were forced to commit to him, and it opened up the rest of the front to get after Arizona and the Furd's high powered offensive attack.

Unfortunately, he never really had a Mebane-like force on the line--he couldn't really disrupt the passing attacks the way his predecessors did How much of that was dictated by scheme or by his own pass rush methods is beyond my knowledge, but Cal's pass rush was far weaker than anticipated, far weaker than the 27 sacks they put up this year.

Still a great season for Tice though--Cal's run defense was top-tier, and a lot of that had to do with #44.

(Story that really depressed me this week: Bear Insider's look at how close Ndamukong Suh came to being a Golden Bear. Imagine Alualu and Suh coming together in the 3-4 the last two seasons, particularly last year. I'm getting bummed out now.)

#24 Jahvid Best

via www.pe.com

For a guy who was supposed to be a Heisman hopeful, it's shocking to see Best not even crack the top 20. But that's how it is in a frustrating season for Jahvid, whose season seemed to peak in Minneapolis. Still had some spectacular runs, but running behind the crappiest offensive line in the Tedford era, it could've been way, way better.

#23 Chris Owusu

via a.espncdn.com

A menace for us, and a big game-changer for the Furd, having huge returns on almost every opponent this year. Surprisingly (and stupidly), everyone in the Pac-10 continued to kick to Owusu long after he demonstrated he would outrace their coverage to the end zone. The Furd ranked 3rd in the country in kickoff returns, mostly due to Owusu's skills.

He gets bumped down a bit because if he could just hang onto a few passes (he dropped big catches in EVERY conference loss), the Furd are going to Pasadena.

#22 Kai Forbath

via tnjn.com

Laugh all you want that a kicker cracks the top 25. When a Bruins fan describes him as your most consistent player...well, that says a lot.

Take a look at the games Forbath swung this season.
~13 of UCLA's 19 points in a 4 point win over the Vols in Rocky Top
~11 of UCLA's 23 points in a 10 point win over the Sun Devils
~6 of UCLA's 24 points in a 1 point win over the Huskies
~11 of UCLA's 23 points in a 14 point win over K-State.

Add in these stats
~26 field goals, second most in the country behind Alabama's Tiffin
~99th scoring offense in the country

Not hard to say Forbath was UCLA's offensive MVP this season, isn't it? Switch Forbath with an average kicker and the Bruins win four games? Three?

#21 Shane Vereen

via dlerium.smugmug.com

(Image from dmo580)

Surprisingly had more impressive performances than Best this season, cementing away a Cal victory in Pasadena and being the workload in two upsets over the Wildcats and the Cardinal. Best racked up big numbers against two of the worst teams in the country and an FCS opponent, managing only one great game this season against a bowl-eligible team. Although Best ended up with more rushing yards, Vereen had more all-purpose yards thanks to his kickoff returns and his own pass-catching abilities. Most importantly, when the offensive line collapsed, Vereen had more of the elusiveness to slip away from encroaching defenders.

Best might be the better talent, but Vereen was the more valuable Bear for this Cal squad...but only by a little.

Coming this afternoon: #20-11.

Golden Nuggets: Awards Season

Berkelium97 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:30:14 -0000

Put your CGB tax dollars to work and vote in royrules22's top-25 ballot.

Last night was the annual Cal football banquet, where a variety of awards were handed out to members of the football team. Go here for the complete list of winners. Here are some of the highlights:

Most Improved Player
Skylar Curran

Lifter of the Year Freshman - Mark Brazinski
Senior - Tyson Alualu

Bob Simmons Award - Most Valuable Freshman
Offense - Matt Summers-Gavin
Defense - Aaron Tipoti

J. Scott Duncan Award - Most Valuable Special Teams Player
Bryan Anger

Joe Roth Award - Player best exemplifying courage, attitude and sportsmanship
Tyson Alualu

Everett Merriman Award - Demonstrating commitment to community service
Kevin Parker [AKA Rope Coach]

Bear Backers MVP Awards (voted on by team)
Offense - Jahvid Best and Shane Vereen
Defense - Mike Mohamed

Scout Team Players of the Year

Offense - T.J. Emery and Ryan Wertenberger
Defense - Steven Fanua and Keni Kaufusi
Special Teams - Tyre Ellison and Spencer Hagan

The scout team PotY awards caught me by surprise, as I didn't know Wertenberger was a QB until just a couple weeks ago. Remember the name Steve Fanua in the coming years, as he is certain to become a vocal leader on defense.

After the jump we have more awards as the All-Pac-10 team was announced, reactions from to the Poinsettia bowl from Cal/Utah players and coaches, a lolwut quote of the week as Wilner calls the BCS "fair and open," post-game quotes from women's bball's loss to Texas A&M, and more.

Cal Football

The All-Pac-10 team was announced this morning. Tepper, Alualu, Syd, Mohamed, and Anger all made the first team. Jahvid Best was the lone Cal player on the second team.
Ted Miller provides a brief preview of the Poinsettia Bowl. With its struggles at quarterback, Utah sounds like it won't have an easy time lighting up the Bears' defense like Locker did.
Utah looks forward to playing Cal in the Poinsettia Bowl. Utah's coach Kyle Wittingham says it will be an interesting matchup, as Ludwig knows Utah's defense very well while Wittingham is very familiar with Ludwig's. JO has quotes from Tedford, Wittingham, Vereen, and Tepper, as they react to the bowl announcement.
After getting blown out in their last game, many players want to redeem the season with a win over Utah.
Cal drops to seventh in Ted Miller's Pac-10 power rankings.
In the lolwut statement of the week, Wilner says "Texas’ game-winning field goal was the most important kick in BCS history because of what it did to the BCS: It made the flawed, oft-criticized but incredibly successful system appear fair and open."

Cal Basketball

Boyle was pleased with the effort, aggressiveness, and rebounding in the loss against Texas A & M, but she was disappointed with all the missed free throws.
Monty's team fell out of both rankings after splitting last week's games. They received 5 points in the AP poll and 10 in the coaches' poll.

Golden Nuggets: "I can sleep like a baby because I know he's running the rock."

Berkelium97 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:00:15 -0000

Once more, Shane Vereen will be expected to lead the Cal offense this weekend.

Now, as they head to Seattle for Saturday's regular-season finale against Washington, it requires no exhaustive video study to identify the key figure in Cal's offense. He wears No. 34, bursts through holes with striking efficiency and, much like Best, is difficult to catch in the open field.

Here's telling statistical evidence: Vereen, not Best, might extend Cal's streak of having a running back gain 1,000 or more yards (seven years and counting). Vereen stands at 738 yards this season, so he needs to average 131 against Washington and Cal's not-yet-determined bowl opponent.

That's realistic, especially if Best misses the bowl game. Best, with 867 yards, could reach the century mark if he returns for the bowl game and reclaims his starting job.

Either way, the ball remains in reliable hands - and among friends. Vereen paid tribute to Best on his eye black against Arizona, wearing Best's jersey number (4) under one eye and his initials under the other. Best, standing outside Cal's locker room after the Big Game, said simply and nonchalantly of Vereen, "I knew he was just as good as me."

"I'm very pleased with how Shane has come in and done a fantastic job," Gould said. "I'm not surprised at all. ... I told him I can sleep like a baby because I know he's running the rock."

...

Gould and head coach Jeff Tedford insisted they didn't plan for Vereen to run the ball 42 times against Stanford. Tedford said he was "shocked" to hear the number after the game, figuring Vereen had about 30 carries.

But Tedford wasn't surprised Vereen could handle it - Tedford didn't hesitate to say he could envision Vereen carrying the ball 42 times again.

"He can do that because he's in great shape," Tedford said.

The Bears probably will lean on Vereen against Washington, partly because of December weather in the Pacific Northwest. The forecast is decent - a high of 44 degrees, low of 32, no rain expected - but the chilly temperatures still seem better suited to running the ball, especially if Cal takes an early lead.

After the jump I have more confusion for Cal's bowl season, the gameday weather forecast, more on Vereen, a look at a couple Bears who attended high school near Seattle, a couple previews of the Cal-UW matchup, Wilner's pick for Cal-UW, injury updates, and more.

Cal Football

Rumor has it (according to kicker David Seawright) the Sun Bowl will select Stanford no matter what. This would likely leave the Emerald Bowl to choose Cal again. They really must want to see The Great White Hope try to take on the impressive (except against Texas Tech) Oklahoma defense. Thanks for pointing this out to me royrules22!
Saturday's gameday forecast calls for temperatures in the high-30s, cloud cover, and a slight but steadily increasing chance of precipitation as the game goes on. The chance of rain will turn into a chance of snow later in the evening (so let's take care of business in regulation, okay Bears?).
Seattle Post-Intelligencer previews this weekend's matchup. It will be a battle between two teams with momentum, confidence, and a feeling that their offensive and defensive units have that have come together with great performances at the end of the season. SportingNews.com also has a preview of the game.
It has been confirmed that Matt Summers-Gavin will miss the Washington game due to his concussion. Thankfully, Syd returned to practice and should be good to go on Saturday.
Vereen says his body is all healed up and ready to go after the heavy workload in the Big Game.
Wilner picks Washington to cover the spread, but believes Cal will ultimately win the game.
Mike Mohamed is in the running for Pac-10 defensive player of the year. As the two-time winner of the player of the week award, Mohamed might be the favorite to win it.
Defensive linemen Trevor Guyton and Deandre Coleman will have a bit of a homecoming this weekend, as they both attended high school in Washington. Coleman looks forward to playing in front of a home crowd, but he'll probably have to wait until 2011, as he's still learning the ropes of the 3-4. Whether either one will wear a purple suit to the game, like Anthony Felder did in 2007, remains to be seen.
News Tribune looks at Cal's turnaround on defense this year. After some poor performances earlier in the year, they have really done a great job in the past few games. The article had an interesting pair of statistics at the end:

The stream of criticism has died down, at least for now. And compared to seasons past, Cal’s total-defense numbers and takeaways are pretty much in line with the others.

In fact, if Cal fans stepped back, they’d realize in terms of bang for their buck, they are getting a pretty solid return. Gregory’s defenses have averaged nearly 26 takeaways in his eight seasons – which would rank in the top 20 nationally almost every season.

All this despite the 46-year-old still being the third-lowest paid defensive coordinator in the Pac-10 ($241,320).

Cal Basketball

After the blowout loss to Baylor, Joanne Boyle is pleased with how her team responded when facing Ohio St, another top-10 team. Although the Bears lost, they kept it a relatively close game and were much better about establishing a consistent tempo and flow throughout the game. With a likely matchup against Texas A&M, Cal will have another chance to take on a top-10 team.

Cal vs. Stanfurd, Post-112th Big Game Thoughts

HydroTech — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:23:42 -0000

More photos » by Marcio Jose Sanchez - AP

25 days ago: California players celebrate an interception by Mike Mohammed (18) late in the fourth quarter against Stanford during a NCAA college football game in Stanford, Calif., Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009. California won 34-28. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Browse more photos »

(1) Tedford's decision to center the ball on 3rd and 8 was a conservative decision but not a wrong decision. Let's get something out of the way first. Tedford centered the ball. He didn't take a knee. I see a lot of people, and newspaper writers who seem to think the only point of that play was to not stop the clock and make Stanfurd use their last timeout. If those were the only reasons, then Tedford would have just called a run play. But Tedford centered the ball. Centering the ball places the ball directly between the hash marks to give the kicker a straight-line kick. As we all know, the further you move left or right from directly between the hash marks, the smaller the width of the uprights become due to the angle. Thus, centering the ball is more crucial in college football than the NFL because the hash marks in college football are wider than the NFL. And centering the ball is also more crucial the closer you get to the goalline because the angle of the kick is harsher from the 10 yard line right hash (for example) as opposed to the 30 yard line right hash. In short, Tedford centered the ball. He did not just "take a knee."

This decision to center the ball was clearly a conservative decision. I personally would have run the ball left (because Cal was on the right hash). Running the ball left serves two purposes: (1) it keeps the clock running; and (2) it can potentially center the ball. Of course the runningback might take the ball outside one of the hashes rather than keeping the ball between the hashes and thus the ball is no more centered than it was earlier, but the benefit of actually running the ball is that there is a potential to score a touchdown. By centering the ball, Tedford gave up any chance that Cal might score a touchdown. At the time of that 3rd and 8, Cal was up 31-28 with about 2:45 left on the clock in the 4th quarter. A touchdown would have made the game 38-28 (assuming Cal goes for the PAT and makes it). That would have made the game a two-score game and essentially would have iced the game - or at least made it very difficult for Stanfurd to come back. On the other hand, centering the ball and kicking the field goal merely assured that Stanfurd needed a touchdown to win, as opposed to 10 points to tie or 11 points to win (if Cal had scored a touchdown on the 3rd and 8 with a play).

I suppose it's possible that the team could have executed a run play to the left and told Vereen to directly between the hashes as much as possible. Such a play preserves the chances of getting a touchdown (although those chances are probably reduced because Vereen is restricted to his running space), but it also serves the purpose of centering the ball (although the centering probably won't be as accurate as a QB-centering).

I do believe that centering the ball is more important than most critics of Tedford's decision realize. This should not be confused with saying that centering the ball is extremely important. However, critics of Tedford's decision don't even mention the lowered chances of a successful field goal kick from a far hash at extremely close range. To them, it appears, as if there is no difference between kicking a field goal from the 11 yard line far hash, and from the 11 yard line center. This is where they are wrong. Clearly there is a difference and kicking from a far hash is harder. How much of a difference does it make? It's a small one. Small enough that many coaches will just ignore the diminished percentage, and essentially trade a slightly bigger chance at missing the field goal for a chance at scoring a touchdown by running a play on 3rd down instead of centering the ball. Using numbers, it might sound like this: a kicker has a 95% chance at making a field from the 11 yard line center; a kicker has a 90% chance at making a field goal from the 11 yard line far hash; and the team has a 15% chance at scoring a touchdown on a run play from the 11 yard line. Most coaches will gladly take a 5% less chance at a field goal to keep that 15% chance of scoring a touchdown. Obviously Tedford isn't one of those coaches.

Was Tedford's decision wrong? No. I don't think so. There are two ways to win the game in Cal's situation. You go for a touchdown on third down, and if you get it, you ice the game with a 10 point lead. Or you kick the field goal, go up 6 points, and force the offense to score a touchdown. Both ways are valid ways to win. Of course one is more conservative than the other, or one is more aggressive than the other, but neither way is wrong. What is a wrong decision in football? Had Tedford passed the ball on the 3rd down to get a touchdown, I think that would be a wrong decision. You clearly want to run the ball on the 3rd down to make the offense use its last timeout. Even if Tedford passed the ball and Cal scored a touchdown, I would still criticize the decision as being wrong. Anyways, I don't think Tedford's decision is "wrong" as so many of his critics suggest. Conservative? Sure.

If you want to talk about "wrong" decisions, then let's talk about Stanfurd Head Coach Jim Harbaugh's decision to go for it on 4th and 8 on his own 23 yard line with 3 timeouts remaining. That was wrong. That decision pretty much gave Cal a very good chance at scoring a touchdown that would have put Stanfurd into a 10 point hole, and at the very least it gave Cal an extremely good chance at a field goal which would put Stanfurd into a 6 point hole. The 6 point hole now required that Stanfurd get a touchdown to at least tie the game or win it. On the other hand, if Stanfurd had punted the ball on the 4th down and subsequently forced Cal's offense to punt on Cal's next possession, then Stanfurd would only need a field goal to tie the game. If Stanfurd scored a touchdown, they would have gone up 35-31 which then would have required Cal to get a touchdown to win the game.

Clearly, Tedford's decision to center the ball on 3rd down was conservative, but it was nowhere near as "wrong" as Harbaugh's decision to go for it on 4th and 8 from his own 23. That decision was clearly wrong (no quotes).

Addendum:

Coincidentally, Cal's first field goal of the game, was from the 11 yardline right hash - the very same position that Cal was in during the 4th quarter with just under three minutes remaining. Tedford had no problem kicking the field goal from the far hash then. On their face, these situations seem the same, and people might suggest that Tedford's actions were inconsistent. But the situations were slightly different. The first field goal kick was early in the game and Cal had tons of time left in the game to score again even if the field goal was missed. But the second situation was near the end of the game. Cal needed points and knew that they might not get the ball back this game. Thus, the added risk of a far hash kick may be less acceptable, hence why Tedford centered the ball.

And, of course, CGB did delve even further into these decisions last week, which you can read about here.

(2) Tedford should have gone for it on 4th and less than one yard. Another conservative decision. I personally would have gone for it. It's hard for the defense to prevent the offense from gaining less than a yard. That first down which never occurred could have led to a touchdown drive or perhaps another field goal.

(3) Gregory kept the 3-4 defense on the field on most third downs. When Cal forces opponent offense into 3rd downs, Cal usually brings out its 3-3 defense. However, in Big Game, the first thing I noticed was Gregory keeping the 3-4 defense out on the field for third downs, even third and longs. Why? He clearly wanted greater run support against Stanfurd runningback Tony Gearhart. Cal's pass rushing linebackers, and nickleback are less effective in run support than Cal's bigger 3-4 linebackers. I liked this decision by Gregory. It did concern me though because this decision also allows Stanfurd to put a slot WR against LBs. That is a huge mismatch that Stanfurd tried to exploit, but believe it or not, Cal's linebackers played very well and didn't allow too many easy completions against them.

(4) The wildcat might be better served if it handed the ball off to Sofele on the fly sweep more often. When Cal uses wildcat, the runningback will usually keep the ball. Usually may be an understatement. I think that perhaps 95% of the time, the RB will keep the ball. Stanfurd's defense was clearly not respecting the fly sweep action much during Big Game and was just hitting their interior gaps to stop Vereen. They were pretty successful too, as since Vereen was mostly limited to tough 2-4 yard gains. If Cal handed the ball off about as equally as the RB kept the ball, it would get the defense into more of a read-and-react mode allowing the offensive line to push back the DL with more ease, and freeze outside defenders who are responsible for outside containment of the fly sweep allowing Sofele to gain an advantage. But since Ludwig has the RB keep the ball a very high percentage of the time, the defense is less likely to be read-and-react, and will just play the RB as opposed to the fly sweep.

(5) Cal's offensive line shows up for once! The run blocking clearly wasn't the best we'd ever seen, and perhaps it wasn't even "great" but it was better than we have seen for a couple of months now. I don't know what Marshall did during the week to motivate the guys, but it seemed to work.

(6) Trick plays; the flea flicker. When they work, everyone heaps praise on the coaches. When they don't work, everyone always says something like "that was a wasted play, why'd they get fancy when they didn't need to?" The announcers said pretty much exactly that after Cal tried to run a flea flicker. Cal's intended WR (Boateng?) was open deep too and had beaten the deep defender. That could have been a touchdown if Riley had space to step up into the pocket. But instead, Cal's LG (Summers-Gavin) got beat very badly on the play. The LG lost his individual battle and his defender was the one who pressured Riley to scramble and throw the ball away. Again, it takes 10 men winning their individual position battles and executing for plays to work.

(7) Cal throws in a new blocking scheme! Cal's past power running scheme has utilized a backside pulling guard. There have always been just one pulling blocker. But against Stanfurd we saw the revealing of a new scheme where Cal had two pulling blockers. This occurred out of the 12 personnel set (1 RB, 2 TEs, 2 WRs). Cal would put two TEs to one side of the formation. One TE would be on the LOS in their normal position just outside of the offensive tackle, and the second TE (sometimes called H-back) would be just back and outside of the first TE. The side that the two TEs are lined up on is the strong side. Cal would actually run to the weakside and pull the strongside guard (the backside guard), and the second TE. This play works well theoretically for two reasons: (1) it breaks Cal's tendency to run strongside; and (2) it makes it riskier for the defense to overload on the strong side of the offensive formation in anticipation of a strongside run. Cal also ran this same scheme with 21 personnel (2 backs, 1 TE, 2 WRs) from the Weak-I formation using the fullback on a pull in lieu of the second TE.

(8) The outside zone returns! I'm not really sure why Big Game was the game that it made a reappearance. But in the 4th quarter we saw it run a few times. Perhaps Ludwig saw something schematically that he wanted to exploit, but that doesn't quite explain why we didn't see the outside zone earlier on in the game. Or, perhaps Ludwig felt that the Stanfurd defense was getting tired and would be too slow to stop the outside zone. He did use a new wrinkle in that he used some pre-snap motion to the playside with the fullback. This pre-snap motion gives the fullback a head start on his block, and allows him to get further outside.

(9) Cal covered up the TEs a lot. This was actually something that I did notice slightly during the game but had forgotten about by the time I got home. Commenter Missing Barry asked me about this, and despite his questioning I still didn't recall these plays. But after watching the game again, yes, I did finally remember some of these plays.

Cal rarely covers up their TEs. By "covering" or "covering up" I mean that the TEs become ineligible receivers and thus cannot go downfield for a pass. Cal rarely does this because it removes the TE as a passing threat to the defense. Why does Cal do it then? Well, if covering up the TE removes it as a passing threat to the defense, then the TE becomes a blocking threat to the defense. Because of this, the defense has to respect the run a little more. And that's just what Cal wanted the defense to do. Cal, in formations where the TE was covered up, would mostly playaction pass. In other words, Cal purposely used formations where the TE was covered up to cause the defense to bite harder on the run-fake (because the defense expected run due to a covered TE), to open up the pass.

When Cal covers up the TEs, it's usually out of the I-formation with twin WRs to the side of the TE (the strong side). Because the rules requires that the offense have at least seven men on the line of scrimmage (LOS), one of the WRs has to be on the LOS. 5 OL guys, plus 1 TE, plus 1 WR, equals 7 men on the LOS. However, in these formations that Missing Barry noticed, Cal was covering the TE up with 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TEs, 2 WRs) rather than the usual 21 personnel (2 backs, 1 TE, 2 WRs) for I-formation.

(10) Cal's punt which was blocked was due to a player not winning his individual battle. I know we all love to hat ("hate" for all you CGBers, or non-CGBers who are unfamiliar with our slang) on Alamar but I'm not sure we can blame that blocked punt on him. Cal's long snapper, Rios, missed his block pretty bad and thus his defender got into the backfield for the block. I know lots of people might be thinking, "well, It's Alamar's job to prepare his players so if they mess up then its the coach's fault." My response is that the players play the game and not the coaches. At some point, you have to stop blindly blaming the coaches and you have to start looking at the individual players. Does this mean I don't think Alamar is on the proverbial hot seat? No. He definitely is. Not for this blocked punt, but for many years of sub-par kick return and especially kickoff coverage.

My point here is that there isn't a lot or any blame to be placed on Alamar for this blown play. It wasn't a scheme issue or confusion between players on who to block. All the Cal blockers knew who to block, it was just a matter of the defender beating the long snapper. Rios just got beat bad. He knew it too. Despite him recovering the blocked punt, after the play he had his head down and slowly walked off the field. He knew he was responsible for that block.

(11) The 112th Big Game was perhaps Riley's most clutch game. I don't know if I would say it was his best game. That was probably the Maryland game earlier this year where Riley finished with a 65.4% completion rate, four touchdowns, and zero interceptions. But Riley sure was clutch towards the second half of the game. He got yardage when nobody was open, and he threw some great balls too.

I sort of hate using that whole cliche "maturity" line, but after the Arizona State game and this game, I do feel like Riley's matured. Matured not in the sense that he's been messing around and now he's finally decided to get his head in the game, but matured in that he's seasoned. He's seen it all. He's been through lots. He's played in a variety of situations to the point where it's nothing new and he's more familiar with things. He's probably less rattled about the situations than before. And I hate making these kind of statements based off of snippets of TV coverage, but he did just seem more calm, poised, and "in the zone" than ever before.

In the podcast this week, some of my fellow Marshawnthusaists expressed the idea that perhaps Riley is now the second best QB of the Tedford era. I whole-heartedly disagree with such a notion (imo, at least two other QBs come to mind before Riley), but I do admit that this game has inched him up the ladder a little bit. If he really turns things around in 2010, perhaps he can take the title of the second best QB of the Tedford era, but that's going to take a lot of work.

(13) Empty set is killer. I love empty (when Cal spreads out the defense with five receivers - and not necessarily wide receivers). I love it for two reasons: (1) Cal seems to be fairly successful out of it; (2) if nobody is open Riley seemingly is always able to run for a few yards of gain. I'm glad that we've seen the use of empty formation increase over the past few weeks. I've been advocating for it quite a bit as since Cal usually runs seam routes, and vertical routes out of this formation and those routes are routes that Riley is pretty good at hitting.

In previous post-game thoughts against Arizona, I've noted how Ludwig had been using 5 WRs in the empty set. Such an observation was significant because Cal used to only use 11 personnel (3 WRs, 1 TE, 1 RB) out of empty. So the switch to 5 WRs out of empty was a surprise. But in Big Game, Cal went back to using 11 personnel. Why this special change? Well, first of all, using 11 personnel helps disguise the empty set. Cal uses 11 personnel in other formations, so when Cal sends 11 personnel into the huddle the defense doesn't really know if Cal is going to line up in empty or another regular formation. But when Cal was using 5 WRs for empty (and Cal only uses 5 WRs for empty and nothing else), the opposing defenses knew they would be seeing an empty formation. Because the defense knows this prior to the defense breaking the huddle, the defense can call a play in response to not only just the personnel group, but the formation too; whereas with using 11 personnel, the defense can only call a defensive play in response to the personnel grouping and not formation.

Side Note: The defense can call a play in response to the offense's formation without seeing the formation post breaking of the huddle based on tendencies. For example, Cal usually passes from shotgun on 3rd and long. Defenses, can extrapolate from this and can make the (generally correct) assumption that if Cal sends 11 personnel on the field, that they are going to see a shotgun formation too.

Cal was also using a little neat trick with the empty sets to get player mis-matches. Specifically, Ludwig would put the TE and RB out as the widest receivers leaving the slot receivers (the WRs) inside and lined up against safeties and linebackers. This is a very simple tactic to get mismatches. I will cover this in-depth in a frame by frame analysis later on.

(14) Luck's ill-fated pass. So Mohamed did a great job reading Luck's eyes and getting the perfect depth. Even if Mohamed wasn't there, I think Cattouse might have INTed the ball anyways. Cattouse was on the intended receiver like white on rice. If Cattouse hadn't intercepted the ball, he definitely would have at least defended the ball. I can see why Luck thought his receiver was open, because his guy definitely was for a moment. But by the time that Luck threw the ball, and by the time the ball would have gotten to the intended receiver, Cattouse had cut in front of the intended receiver to defend the pass. What Luck needed was to put more air under the ball to get it over Mohamed. But more air under the ball might not have helped anyways actually because Cattouse was there to pick anything thrown near him. So I guess what I'm saying is Luck was screwed even if Mohamed wasn't there and even if Luck had put more air under the ball like he had wanted to.

(15) Vereen rushes 42 times! Not much to say here but Vereen was beastly. Sure he's a bit slower than Best, but what he lacks in pure speed, he makes up for in his uncanny ability to gain a few extra yards when surrounded by four defenders and having no business getting any additional yards. He just has that subtle elusiveness to intricately weave through the defenders and trash to get those yards nobody really thinks he'd get. I suppose this is a bit surprising because Cal really hasn't had a RB like him before. Previous RBs just brutally powered their way through the trash and defenders (Lynch, Arrington, Echemandu). Best sort of puts his head down and runs through them but without tons of power. But Vereen just kind of slips through them - like magic.

(16) Cal owns the time of possession 39 minutes to 21 minutes. Stanfurd's defense had to have been tired. Being on the field for that long, having to defend 88 offensive plays!!! Geez. Cal has been averaging 65.2 plays per game prior to Big Game with a 4.87 standard deviation. It's been a while since done statistics, but doesn't that mean something like 95% of the data points will be within two standard deviations greater than and less than the mean? So that means 95% of the time Cal will run anywhere from 55.46 to 74.94 plays per game. Running 88 plays in a game put Cal 4.68 standard deviations above the mean! That's ridic. Straight ridic. Perhaps this is why Ludwig wanted to try some outside zone late in the game; he wanted to see if the Furd defense had the energy in them to defend the outside.

(17) Cool story, Hansel. So my parents' neighbor went to Big Game. He apparently knew some big Furd donor and got to go with him to the game or got his tickets or something. The Furd donor has luxury box suites. The neighbor got to the stadium early before most of the fans got there. In the luxury boxes, there was tons of free food around. My neighbor, taking advantage of the situation, began gorging himself on all the food set out for the rich Furd donors who hadn't arrived yet - everything from fancy burgers to monster sized hotdogs. When the Furd donors arrived, they were quite stereotypically, old and white. Stanfurd, quite intelligently, had a coffee bar in the luxury suite area so the old fogies could stimulate themselves to an awake state to watch the game. Also, quite intelligently, the luxury suite area had a full bar where the rich donors could then drink themselves into a stupor after the loss. Some famous people that were in attendance in the luxury suites: Condoleezza Rice, and Jim Plunkett. Best part of this story: the old Furd donors did not appreciate the loud cheers of the neighbor. Quite literally, when the neighbor would cheer, the old Furd donors would turn around to him and say for him to not cheer so loud. Something about the cheering overloading their hearing aids or something. How rude of the neighbor. Doesn't he know that he's at a football game? You're not supposed to make noise!

************************

Bonus Thoughts from college football games from the weekend of Friday, November 27th, to Saturday, November 28th.

Texas vs. Texas A&M - Exciting game. Texas A&M got risky and frisky with some blitzes and man coverage. They got burned. Perfect examples of what can happen when you roll the dice. I'm not saying Cal shouldn't be more aggressive (sending more pass rushers) on defense because this is what happens, but this certainly is what can happen. We should all be aware of the risks. Also, if I recall correctly, Texas A&M missed a short field goal from far hash that could have made a difference in the game. Just another reason why perhaps Tedford isn't completely crazy for centering the ball on that 3rd and 8.....

Alabama vs. Auburn - Auburn really showed some 2-minute drill ineptitude at the end of the game. They needed to drive the field in about a minute, and ended up calling about 3 plays in all that time. Their QB was confused. The coaches weren't getting playcalls into the game quickly. It was one ugly hot mess. That is what happens when you don't practice the 2-minute drill and you don't have a system to get playcalls into the game quickly. Thankfully, you'll never really see Cal do the epic failure that Auburn did. First of all, Cal practices its two-minute drill every practice. Every single day, they practice scoring in under two minutes.

Second, and I've talked about this before, but Ludwig has installed a great two-minute drill system. In previous years, the sideline QBs would signal in the playcall to the starting QB. The signals would take a few seconds to signal in, and then the starting QB would spend another 15 seconds telling the play to the players - in actual team language. Meaning, the defense can hear what the offense's playcall is. Sometimes, you can figure out what parts of the play will be based on the terminology (some of the terminology was too closely tied to the words/routes that they were meant to represent). But now, the sideline QB just signals in a number, one through nine. This takes about half a second. The QB will then yell out the number to the offense. All the offense players have those 9 plays memorized. The players need only to merely line up and run their play. This takes less time than the previous system. The additional benefit of the new system is that the actual playcall terminology isn't being yelled out by the QB so the defense can't hear it, thus further protecting the playcall.

To Center the Ball? Or to Not Center the Ball?

Texas vs. Texas A&M - aTm doesn't center the ball and misses a short field goal that would have made a difference in the game.

Arkansas vs. LSU - Arkansas doesn't center the ball and misses a short game-tying overtime field goal.

Arizona vs. Arizona State - Stoops centers the ball for a game winning field goal and the kick is good.

It's like the football gods are talking to us and telling us to center the football. This weekend might be the undeniable proof that so many center-the-ball haters need to finally appreciate Tedford's decision.

Was Jeff Tedford Too Passive? Was Jim Harbaugh Too Aggressive?

Avinash — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:47:35 -0000

Who's a better head coach, Jim Harbaugh or this 5th grader?

There've been a lot of hand-wringing about the playcalling by the coaches by Cal fans, about how Jeff Tedford nearly gagged away the Big Game with ultra-conservative playcalls that would've made Pat Robertson shudder. It could certainly be argued that taking one or two extra risks would've ended the game instead of leaving the door at open for the Furd to climb back into it

What was lost in the shuffle though was the absolute badness of Jim Harbaugh's aggressive calls. Unlike Tedford's calls, where there's some debate as to whether they were prudent or imprudent, there's not much debate about Harbaugh's playcalls.

Twist and I discuss the following calls after the jump.

1) Tedford choosing to punt on 4th and short rather than going for it--next drive led to a quick Furd TD to cut the lead to 3; we both agree it was an ok call, although we wish

2) Harbaugh going for it on 4th and 8 deep in his own territory--led to a Cal FG that made it a touchdown game; we both agree the call was stupid.

3) Tedford choosing to kneel and center the ball on 3rd and goal--prevented a chance for a Cal TD, settled for the FG; we both agree the call was a little conservative, but again had merit and did make the Furd's chances of winning much longer.

4) Harbaugh passing the ball on 1st and 2nd down with Gerhart available--led to the game-clinching interception. As this 5th grader above us says, very questionable.

Twist: These calls were certainly controversial. To fully understand the situation, let's try to look at them in context at the time they were made. I wanted to take a closer look at the 4th and 1 call.

Here's the thing. If it was up to me, I probably woulda gone for it. But I'm also the person who does fake punts in Madden on 2nd down and has a "No Kicking" policy, too. I'm an imbecile. I realize that here in the blogosphere, we are supposed to have extreme opinions that create a lively, if oftimes redick discussion and, most importantly, hits galore. That's never really been my style, per se. Like I said, with my limited knowledge, I probably would have gone for it, but instead of talking about what I would have done or even what one *should* have done, what I want to do was take a closer and clearer look at the situation that Tedford faced. Try to get a better understanding at the decision that Tedford faced at that time, instead of after the game or days later.

I fear that there has been a lot of miscommunication based on faulty remembrances about Tedford's decision. Personally, I have seen people say things like:

"Tedford shoulda gone for it to ice the game."
"Tedford shoulda gone for it, because we couldn't be stopped."
"Tedford shoulda gone for it, because after they punted, Stanford was right back there just a few plays later."

via calbearsonline.com

Based on the ESPN Play By Play, here is the drive.

California at 12:47		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at CAL 27	Shane Vereen rush for 4 yards to the Cal 31.	31	21
2nd and 6 at CAL 31	Shane Vereen rush for 5 yards to the Cal 36.
3rd and 1 at CAL 36	Timeout CALIFORNIA, clock 11:07.
3rd and 1 at CAL 36	Kevin Riley rush for 1 yard to the Cal 37 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 37	Shane Vereen rush for 3 yards to the Cal 40.
2nd and 7 at CAL 40	Shane Vereen rush for 6 yards to the Cal 46.
3rd and 1 at CAL 46	Kevin Riley rush for no gain to the Cal 46.
4th and 1 at CAL 46	Bryan Anger punt for 41 yards, fair catch by Michael Spanos at the Stanf 13.
DRIVE TOTALS: Cal drive: 6 plays 19 yards, 03:34 Cal PUNT

The first misconception that I've seen is that this play happened much later in the game. However, this drive starts with nearly 13 minutes left in the 4th quarter. It ends with a little over 9 minutes left in the 4th quarter. The play, in specific, took place with probably about 10 minutes left in the 4th, although it is slightly unclear to me exactly when from this play by play. So, to me, the concept that Tedford could have "iced" the game here seems laughable. You can't ice a game with 9-10 minutes left. Period.

I realize that the counter argument is that if Cal successfully continues the drive, they can a)take more time off the clock and b)go up either 34-21 or even 39-21! Certainly, 39-21 with 9 or fewer minutes left in the 4th does seem unbeatable, no matter how much Cal Cal is. And Cal is fairly Cal, let's not forget that.

But that seems to assume a lot. If Cal converts here, they are at their own 47 yard line. Not Stanford's 22 or something like that. They still have 53 more yards to go to hit pay dirt. So, to me, attempting and perhaps even successfully converting the 4th down conversion does not an iced game make. So, hopefully, looking at the play by play can clear up that conception.

The second thought I've seen out there is that Cal shoulda gone for it, because they've been doing really well in the running game and could probably have just pounded it home there. That is a fair point to me. We had been performing really well in the running game.

But we had also been performing really well on defense. After Stanford jumped out to a quick 14-0 lead in the early part of the 1st quarter, Cal's D had held Stanford to merely 1 Touchdown since. If my math is accurate, Stanford had gained 110 total yards between scoring their 2nd TD with about 5 minutes left in the 1st quarter and the play call in question here. 69 of those yards came on their sole TD drive in the 3rd quarter. Basically, that's roughly 38 minutes of game time, 2+ quarters, with a grand total of 110 yards given up by the Cal D.

Any way you cut that, that is incredibly impressive. Luck goes 4-14, which is......not good. Just the drive before, Stanford had showed wild desperation, throwing long on its first 2 passes and going 3 and out quickly and quietly. So, the concept of forcing them to drive 80 yards to pay dirt after holding them down for so long doesn't seem so bad to me. Tedford was banking on his defense being able to hold Stanford down at that point.

via calbearsonline.com

Avi: CBKWit mentioned in the podcast he disagreed with this decision more than the 3rd down kneeldown one (which we're building up to). I'd say this call was very similar to the Belichick playcall (2 minutes, up a score at your own 30 seems about the equivalent as being up 10 points at midfield). Unlike the Patriots coach, Tedford chose not to take the risky decision and trust his defense, which up to this point had shut them down.

Now as Smart Football and Advanced NFL stats pointed out, going for it on 4th down at this range isn't that bad a call. The stats seem to favor going for it--at that range, the success rate is around 75-80%. However, there's still a 20-25% chance that it fails, and given how hard we've been pushing Vereen, and the fact that we couldn't pick up 1 yard on a 3rd and short on a quarterback sneak (which is usually a sure thing), I can see that Tedford would be heistant to go for it and hand the Cardinal any momentum. As Bill Simmons said, statistics can only tell you so much; you have to assess the situation too.

The referees had been handing out questionable spots throughout that drive, and the possibility you get screwed again always factors in.
You're on the road (yeah I know, the least intimidating road stadium in the world, but it's still the road) trying to protect an upset bid.
The crowd had been dead most of the game, but give them the first down and there's a chance you rev them up for the remainder of the 4th quarter.
You've been holding Furd's offense in check the entire game.
You don't want to hand the Cardinal a short field and give them a quick chance to cut the lead to a one score game.

Twist: Of course, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Cal D was not able to hold Stanford down at that point. I have seen many people claim that Stanford was right back at the 50 just a few plays later. It wasn't actually even just a few plays later. It was merely one, the big 37 yard play where Luck hit Owusu. Certainly, I'm MUCH happier that Stanford hit this 37 yard pass from their own 13 as compared to Cal's 46.

Stanford at 9:03		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 13	Andrew Luck pass complete to Chris Owusu for 37 yards to the 50 yard line for a 1ST down.	31	21
1st and 10 at STAN 50	Andrew Luck pass complete to Chris Owusu for 12 yards to the Cal 38 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 38	Andrew Luck pass complete to Ryan Whalen for 12 yards to the Cal 26 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 26	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Ryan Whalen.
2nd and 10 at CAL 26	Toby Gerhart rush for 21 yards to the Cal 5 for a 1ST down.
1st and Goal at CAL 5	Toby Gerhart rush for 5 yards for a TOUCHDOWN.	31	27
	Nate Whitaker extra point GOOD.	31	28
	Nate Whitaker kickoff for 66 yards returned by Jeremy Ross for 24 yards to the Cal 28.
DRIVE TOTALS: Stanf drive: 6 plays 87 yards, 01:44 Stanf TD

In 1:44, they travel nearly the length of the field, gaining over 2/3rds of the yards they have gained in the last 38 minutes of the game. Andrew Luck is 3-4 and Gerhart averages 13 yards a carry (kind of a skewed stat there). Certainly frustrating after it looked like Cal might gone for it on 4th and taken more time off the clock and even gotten up by 18 points!

Was the Stanford O hyped by the Stanford D stopping Cal on 3rd down? I don't know. But they woulda been, it follows, even more inspired if Stanford stopped Cal on 4th down. And only had 47 yards to go instead of 87.

Yes, it is a lot of fun to imagine Cal performing the best case scenarios. And it is frustrating to compare the reality of the situation with what could have been. It's also important to look at the worst case scenarios that Tedford was attempting to avoid and compare those to what might have been. Here, my frustrations lie less with the call, although I am not sure I necessarily agree with it, and more with the fact that the Cal D allowed the Stanford O to go 87 yards in 6 plays and 1:44.

I think people are viewing the call as a negative call, because of the negative result (the following Stanford TD) that did not have much to do with that call per se. And if the Cal D had stopped the Stanford O on the next drive, nobody would have much discussed the 4th down punt. Although, certainly if the 4th down attempt had failed and Stanford had quickly scored and gone on to win, people would have lambasted Tedford for that odd 4th down call, claiming the D was playing great and it woulda been better to just trap Stanford deep in their own territory.

Hopefully, this has cleared up the situation and will allow us to look at the decision making process with the facts that existed AT THE TIME OF THE CALL as compared to the 20/20 hindsight and misconceptions that I think many are currently laboring under. Again, the idiot that I am, I probably woulda gone for it there, but, being the risk adverse person that I am, think I have a grasp of how Tedford's decision making process went.

via calbearsonline.com

Avi: Indeed, that's the outcome bias working--we're judging Tedford for decisions made based on what happened afterwards as opposed to the value of the decision at the time it was made. It's human, but it's erroneous to blame Tedford for this decision because the Furd happened to score.

Twist: Let's go one drive before that:

Stanford at 4:27		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 21	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Coby Fleener.	31	28
2nd and 10 at STAN 21	Toby Gerhart rush for 2 yards to the Stanf 23.
3rd and 8 at STAN 23	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Chris Owusu.
4th and 8 at STAN 23	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Jim Dray.
DRIVE TOTALS: Stanf drive: 4 plays 2 yards, 00:50 Stanf DOWNS

This is the drive preceding. Luck not looking so good on there. But the key portion here is the 4th down play. Stanford is on its own 23. Roughly 4 minutes and change left. All 3 time outs. In the previous two Cal drives, we had gone 12 plays for a total of 35 yards. Most of which came on one 18 yard pass completion. Two punts. Clearly, the momentum had shifted back to Stanford at this point. So, if you punt and can hold Cal, you got another great shot. Certainly, if Tedford was in this situation, he would have punted. But Harbaugh decided to go for it. On 4th and 8. On his own 23. With 3 time outs and 4 minutes left in a 3 point game.

Avi: Unlike the 4th and inches, which you could consider either good or bad, this was a truly atrocious call. There's a small chance Luck succeeds here and scrambles for the first down, but only the remotest possibility that he throws for one (9 for 26 on the game up to this throw). It's 4th and long too, so the odds of a run are totally minimal, leaving the defense likely to play mainly the pass, and maybe a Luck scramble.

More importantly, YOU ARE HANDING CAL POINTS IF YOU FAIL. A field goal means you now need to drive down the field, likely without the majority of your timeouts. A touchdown ends the game. If Tedford had made a decision like this I'd be tearing my hair out. You punt the football and trust your defense, which has stopped the Bears from scoring the last two times (with some home town reffing helping them out, but whatever). Get the ball back and all you need to do is drive for a field goal, which given Furd's quick strike offense is totally feasible.

Imagine if the Furd had gotten to the red zone down 3 instead of down 6--think that the playcalling changes bigtime for Harbaugh? I feel that way.

Some Cal fans out there might prefer Harbaugh's aggressiveness because it's manly. It's ballsy. It sticks it to other opponents, it makes you feel awesome if it succeeds, it reinforces all the cliches of a football coach. It's just more social biases at work--we feel better because he played to win rather than playing not to lose. It doesn't excuse the fact that it's a bad decision the same way Les Miles's decision to dial up a throw to the end zone with 7 seconds left in field goal range. Ballsy, but literally fucking stupid.

Twist: And his ultra-aggressiveness does not pay off. Of course, when Stanford turned the ball over on downs, Cal fans in my section and, assuredly, other sections started to believe that the game was done. Cal would punch it in, make it a 2 score game with a minute or so left and we all go home happy.

Then, this happened:

via calbearsonline.com

California at 3:32		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 23	Shane Vereen rush for 12 yards to the Stanf 11 for a 1ST down.	31	28
1st and 10 at STAN 11	Shane Vereen rush for no gain to the Stanf 11.
2nd and 10 at STAN 11	Timeout STANFORD, clock 02:55.
2nd and 10 at STAN 11	Shane Vereen rush for 2 yards to the Stanf 9.
3rd and 8 at STAN 9	Timeout STANFORD, clock 02:48.
3rd and 8 at STAN 9	Kevin Riley rush for a loss of 2 yards to the Stanf 11.
4th and 10 at STAN 11	Timeout STANFORD, clock 02:46.
4th and 10 at STAN 11	Vince D'Amato 28 yard field goal GOOD.	34	28
	Giorgio Tavecchio kickoff for 42 yards returned by Josh Catron for 14 yards to the Stanf 42.
DRIVE TOTALS: Cal drive: 5 plays 12 yards, 00:46 Cal FG

Let's take a deeper look here. Vereen starts off with a killer rush. However, his next two attempts net 2 total yards. Cal does not in any way attempt anything close to a pass in this situation.

Many people were greatly concerned about this lack of killer instinct. Maybe it is a lack of killer instinct, I don't know. But, in my belief, the downside of a pass attempt is FAR greater than the downside of any rush attempt. Forcing Stanford to use all 3 time outs limits Stanford's offensive playcalling on their next drive.

I know what you are saying here. But if we score, their next drive don't matter. A salient point. Here, Tedford is going for the least risky plan. Especially considering that they IN NO WAY trust Riley in the red zone. We saw it in the Arizona game and we saw it again in the Stanford game. After Riley throwing 3 picks in the red zone and fumbling once there also, once they get near the goal line, they would rather take 3 then risk a pick. Considering that Vereen had had an amazing day to that point, they put it into the hands of the man they trust the most. I believe they even used a WildBear or two, to try to mix it up. This is a point lost in all the "TAKE A SHOT AT THE END ZONE!" lines. The upsides of the plays called seem limited not because they have low upsides, but, because they just plain didn't work.

So, Cal decides to drain Stanford of time outs, force them to have to go the length of the field in roughly 2 minutes with no time outs. To ensure that, he decides to center the ball. At the close range, centering the ball becomes epically more important. The angles are much harsher the closer in you go. And Cal has certainly had its fair share of kicking troubles this year. So, I see no problem with this play.

IMG_9968 (via Monica's Dad)

Avi: There's also the matter of Riley's red zone struggles. This season, he's only completed 45% of his passes in the red zone. Worse, he's thrown three interceptions, one of which destroyed early momentum against USC, another which could've cost us the Arizona upset (the other was earlier in the Big Game and was not Riley's fault). Although he threw a TD early in the 4th quarter, it wasn't an easy throw. Plus with a 3rd and goal at the 8, Furd's defense will probably play hard to guard the end zone on a pass.

Imagine if the Bears had thrown an incompletion that stopped the clock and left the Cardinal with one timeout, or worse, thrown a pick with the Cardinal likely playing the run. You'd probably feel much worse waking up Sunday morning.

No, the only decision here is to run the football a la Arizona, preferrably up the middle to center the ball and hope that you find the crease to the end zone. I find it quizzical that in this situation (like on 4th and inches) you don't trust Vereen to secure the ball, considering he's not fumbled all game long. I would've liked to see a run, but I guess when they got nothing on the first two runs they figured Vereen was spent and decided not to get too fancy at the end and do something totally mind-blowing (and there've been plenty of mind-blowing finishes in college football before).

Leave the Cardinal with no timeouts and they have no choice now; score a touchdown or lose the game. You're limiting Harbaugh's options, and that might've helped force the last questionable decision of the game.

Twist: Of course, after hitting the field goal and kicking off, Stanford then proceeds to march the length of the field VERY quickly.

Stanford at 2:42		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 42	Andrew Luck rush for 12 yards to the Cal 46 for a 1ST down.	34	28
1st and 10 at CAL 46	Andrew Luck rush for 4 yards to the Cal 42.
2nd and 6 at CAL 42	Andrew Luck pass complete to Toby Gerhart for 29 yards to the Cal 13 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 13	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Coby Fleener.
2nd and 10 at CAL 13	Andrew Luck pass intercepted by Michael Mohamed at the Cal 3, returned for 6 yards to the Cal 9.
DRIVE TOTALS: Stanf drive: 5 plays 45 yards, 01:06 Stanf INT

The bulk of the drive is the one pass to Gerhart for about 30 yards. A frightening moment for any Cal fan. But one that we might have seen more of if Cal had attempted a pass and failed. Luck had looked terrible all day, going 10-30. Gerhart had certainly killed us, but Tedford's plan to drain Stanford of all 3 of its timeouts had limited Stanford's ability to use Gerhart. When you have the ball at Cal's 13, you want to go to your stud RB first, right? He averaged 6.8 yards on the day per carry. Give it to him twice and bam, you score the potential game-winning TD. But with no time outs, Stanford could NOT do that. They had to throw throw throw. And when you throw throw throw, what happens? Well, just the series before, you have 3 incompletes and fail. Here, Luck threw another incomplete and then a pick to the Prophet.

As a final thought, I know Cal fans love ballsy aggressiveness. I get that. They want to see stirring sacks and long bombs (although once you start at the 23, you can't really long bomb). But there are considerations other than proximity to goal line that come into effect here when choosing a play.

Tedford didn't necessarily see it as a difference between a 38-28 game and a 34-28 game, like many fans do. He saw it as a difference between a 34 (maybe)-28 game where Stanford had 1-3 time outs and roughly 3:30 left and a 34 (for sure)-28 game where Stanford had 2:42 and 0 time outs left. When viewed from that prism, I, the risk adverse person that I am, have to agree with the game management here. Sure, the otherworldy talent of Toby Gerhart nearly gave us all heart attacks. But when you have a limited playbook and have to rush your plays because of no time outs, bad things happen.

And a bad thing did happen. To Stanford! Especially compared to if Stanford had punted on the 23, stopped Cal, driven 30+ yards and hit a field goal to tie the game. This may be controversial, but I fully support Tedford's calls here.

Avi: I was baffled by Harbaugh's playcalling on 1st and 2nd down in the red zone. You have two minutes on the clock, and probably five-six plays to go. At this point, all you can do is score (turning the ball over ends the game), so why not run the football? If you score a touchdown immediately, you leave TWO MINUTES on the clock for Riley and the Bears to march downfield on a pass defense he's torched all game long.

More importantly, Andrew Luck is even worse with his accuracy in the red zone than Riley (after the Big Game, he's barely at 40%). Whether it's due to his receivers dropping passes or him making bad decisions. Although Cal held him down for much of the game, it was clear to almost any Cal fans we were more terrified of Gerhart running it up on us than Luck throwing it on us.

To be honest, I'm not sure Harbaugh should've even called that final timeout. You let Cal run the clock down to two minutes, keep that timeout in your back pocket, and in case you get to the goal-line (Furd's been a quick-hitting team all year, and their last drive only took 90 seconds), you have it ready so you can still factor Gerhart's running ability into the equation.

I hate to say it, but I feel the perfect college football coach choked a little under the spotlight. Just a little. (Actually, what the hell am I saying, I LOVE to say it.)

via calbearsonline.com

Who cares about us though, what were your thoughts on these calls?

Poll

How many of the playcalling decisions above do you agree with?

All four of them

22 votes

Three of them

27 votes

Two of them

60 votes

One of them

52 votes

None of them

22 votes

183 votes | Poll has closed

Where Does Shane Vereen's Effort Rank Among Greatest Big Game Performances?

Avinash — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:16:41 -0000

by Marcio Jose Sanchez - AP

Shane Vereen carried the Golden Bears to victory in the Big Game. Is this the greatest Big Game performance ever?

View full size photo »

Add Shane Vereen to the list of greatest Big Game performers, perhaps the best of the Tedford era. 42 carries, 193 yards, 3 touchdowns, gutted out first down after first down after touchdown. Like Hydro says, he runs dirty, and he got plenty mud on his boots tonight. We needed every yard tonight and Shane delivered the most thrilling Big Game win in ages.

But beyond the numbers, what really encapsulates his performance is this quote from Okanes.

After Cal linebacker Mike Mohamed clinched the victory by intercepting a pass with 1:36 remaining, the Bears needed only to take a knee three times. Vereen spent that time encouraging the Cal contingent in the back of the end zone to celebrate. When time expired, Vereen soaked up the on-charging crowd while pointing to his family in the stands.

"I needed to do anything I could do to help our team win," Vereen said, his voice choking with emotion. "I've never carried that many times, and I never thought I would carry that many times. I came into the game prepared for anything."

Wow. If you don't get a little misty-eyed reading that, Moscow might be the place for you--I hear Russians dig the heartless.

Defensive performance goes to Mike Mohamed, who showed us how fierce he can be with a a solid linebacking corps anchored with him. 10 tackles, 1 for a loss, and an interception punctuating a forgettable night for Andrew Luck. This picture makes me as happy as a 10 year old girl winning Jonas Brothers tickets (HT royrules).

What are your favorite Big Game performances through the ages, offensive, defensive, special teams? Where do Shane's and Mike's efforts rank for you overall? And who are the other players (Riley, the offensive line, ) you felt deserved some, if not equal dap?

There'll be deeper insights about the Big Game coming up during the week (maybe some griping too, because, you know, we're Cal fans and all), but for now and the rest of this weekend, MORE REVELING!

Runner-up for Big Game MVP goes to the amazing Cal fans, for helping cause the most unintentionally hilarious acceptance speech in recent memory by Tiger Woods (someone needs to put that clip on YouTube, stat). For the first time that I can remember, he looked baffled and rattled, as if the chorus of boos from Cal fans and dead silence of Furd fans was as foreign as if he were addressing a group of berating Wookies. From that point on I knew the Bears would win; if you can rattle Tiger, you know something special's happening.

Poll

Shane Vereen's performance in the Big Game ranks among all time Big Game performances as....

Less than top 20

5 votes

Top 20

48 votes

Top 10

122 votes

Top 5

254 votes

#1!!!!!!

49 votes

478 votes | Poll has closed

Golden Nuggets: The Great Transformation

Berkelium97 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:36:13 -0000

SFGate looks at Tedford's recent transformation and the transformation of the program during his first 99 games.

Tedford, 48, will say he learned his lesson two years ago, when the Bears started 5-0 and then lost six of their final seven regular-season games amid rampant locker-room moping. Cal players say Tedford's transformation helped them avoid a similar plunge this season, after blowout losses to Oregon and USC. They since have won four of five entering the Big Game.

"I've noticed he's really more fiery this year - my first year here (2006), you didn't see too much of that," linebacker Mike Mohamed said. "He's more of an offensive guy, but he's also trying to get more involved with the defense, just so everyone feels like we're one big team and everyone can trust him.

"The yelling he's done this year, good yelling, some guys have said, 'OK, this is a new Tedford.' We get fired up because it's a side of him we really haven't seen before."
...

But as cranes hover over the west side of the stadium, and the facility begins to rise from a giant hole in the ground, other not-so-encouraging elements converge. Some fans grumble about Tedford's troubles in important games. They question his play-it-safe strategy and lament his inability to coax quarterback magic out of Riley, the way he did with Aaron Rodgers.

Then, on another level, an entirely different problem: Cal professors recently recommended the school stop subsidizing the athletic department's annual shortfall, given the bleak economy. That's especially relevant when the football coach will earn more than $2 million this year; Tedford's guaranteed salary is $1.82 million, and he pocketed another $500,000 in bonus money in January.

It seems fair to expect big results for big money. So has Tedford reached a crossroads at Cal? Will the Bears reach Rose Bowl/BCS glory under him, or will they stay stuck in the pack of good-but-not-great teams?
...
This much is certain: The Bears will be held to a high standard in the coming years. Offensive tackle Mike Tepper, on the verge of completing his sixth season in the program, flatly predicted that Tedford "will win a national championship at Cal, without a doubt."

After the yump we look at Sports Illustrated's Pac-10 fan survey, practice notes (Hill is back!), Ludwig's response to the UNLV rumors, post-Syracuse quotes from Randle/Montgomery, and instant recap, quotes, and analysis of today's loss to Ohio St.

Before we continue, let's take a moment to remember Uga VII, the University of Georgia mascot who died prematurely at age four (!) this week. May he be succeeded by more glorious Ugas who will rest comfortably on bags of ice and bite at Auburn players.

R.I.P. Uga VII

Cal Football

Sports Illustrated released its 2009 fan survey results. Among Pac-10 teams, Cal is last in "biggest conference rival" (3.3%), fifth in "favorite stadium to visit" (8.8%), third in rudest fans (I blame the tree-sitters) (9.2%), and, paradoxically, third in most polite fans (8.2%).
JO's practice notes: Derrick Hill will return in a limited role Saturday. After missing the last practice with a deep quadriceps bruise, Marvin Jones was back in action last night at full capacity. Tedford addressed the issue of kickoff coverage, particularly since Cal will be responsible for slowing down Chris Owusu. Tedford says he has no idea where the axe is kept throughout the year, as he only sees it during Big Game Week. If Tedford himself doesn't know where the axe is, whoever is in charge of it should consider putting it in a more prominent location.
Ludwig says no one has contacted him about the UNLV job. He says he has no interest in it at this point in his career anyway, he just wants to beat Stanford.
Tedford downplayed the fact that this is his 100th game. He says 100 wins would be a bigger milestone, and said this week is about the players, particularly the seniors, and their accomplishments.
Gregory and the defense talk about what is needed to stop Stanford's offense this weekend. They have to stop Gerhart and play smart to avoid letting Luck beat them through the air. Last week's performance seems to have given Gregory and his crew some confidence.

Cal Basketball

Farudo's game thread is a good recap of the game. Turnovers, fouls (questionable or not), and blocked shots killed Cal in the first 25 minutes before their rally fell short in the last few minutes. ESPN recaps the game.
CalBears.com has post-game quotes from Monty and Randle. Monty says the zone defense and the blocks huge in determining the outcome. Randle was pleased with the effort, particularly during the attempted comeback.
CCTimes recaps last night's loss to Syracuse. Without Robertson and Kamp, the Bears didn't have much of an inside presence and instead had to rely on jump-shots and threes. Unfortunately, the shots weren't falling. It sounds like the team is discouraged and lost its confidence. Monty hopes his team can bounce back Ohio St.
Monty and Randle have some post-game comments. Monty knew Syracuse's size and 3-2 zone defense would give Cal trouble, and he said some things they worked on in preparation for the game did not show up on the court. It didn't help that Syracuse hosted a block party in the paint. Monty said that really discouraged and shut down the inside game.

Cal 24, Arizona 16: Bears Play Spoiler. Can They Do It to The Furd?

Avinash — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:59:14 -0000

More photos » by Ben Margot - AP

The Golden Bears spoiled Arizona's rosy outlook this season. Can they do the same to their hated rivals across the Bay next Saturday?

Browse more photos »

After five home duds, we finally had a winner. The Bears avenged their 2006 defeat to Arizona with a game strikingly similar in its flukiness and heartbreak.

An upset goes two ways. Cal had a lot of lucky breaks, from dropped passes, to Nick Foles missing streaking receivers downfield, to surviving two really bad Riley interceptions (one on the offensive line, one on him), to Mike Stoops and Sonny Dykes calling a curious amount of runs to Keola Antolin on 1st and 2nd down, to MVP of the game Giorgio Tavecchio playing the game of his life on special teams defense (2 big tackles), to Foles catching his own pass and throwing it again...anything else swings the other way, Arizona walks ahead to an epic showdown with Oregon unscathed. Oh well, at least they know how we felt three years ago.

But Tavecchio hit clutch field goals, the defense stepped up, Shane Vereen played the game of his life, and the Bears held on. The question now is, can they replicate that effort against their cross-Bay rivals?

CBKWit will have more detailed postgame thoughts later. But I want your guys's thoughts. Based on what you've seen of us, and what you've seen of the Furd, how do you feel about the Big Game?

Poll

How do you feel about the Big Game?

TIMBERRRRRRRRR!!!!!

117 votes

We have a good shot, Tedford will have something planned.

184 votes

Probably losing, hope Harbaugh goes to Notre Dame.

135 votes

Drop a tree trunk on me. It's gonna get ugly.

102 votes

538 votes | Poll has closed

Golden Nuggets: "You Know...They Just Might Not Be Any Good..."

Berkelium97 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:30:14 -0000

Ted Miller has an interesting story asking a tough question: Why isn't Cal any good? He decided to write this after talking to a Cal reporter (JO?) who said Cal just might not be that good this year. Here are some of the highlights that explain why Cal hasn't lived up to expectations. He also talks about Riley, the secondary, and leadership, but I don't have space for all of it.

The rotating door at offensive coordinator hasn't helped: Andy Ludwig is the Bears fifth offensive coordinator in five seasons. Hmm. That can't help continuity. At this point, it would be fair to say fans at Oregon and Utah, where Ludwig suffered heavy criticism during previous stops, are giggling and pointing a mocking finger at Berkeley.

Replacing three starting linebackers in the 3-4 scheme was more difficult than originally thought: The big personnel loss from the 2008 team was almost entirely at linebacker, where Zach Follett, Worrell Williams and Anthony Felder needed to be replaced. Still, that was not a huge concern entering fall camp. Those guys were good college players but not exactly future NFL starters. The youngsters who were next in line were generally more athletic, while Mike Mohamed was expected to grow into an All-Conference player. This article does a good job of breaking down how things haven't gone well. Mostly, there's been a lack of continuity as coordinator Bob Gregory has tried to find who belongs where.

The offensive line misses Alex Mack and line coach Jim Michalczik: Mack is starting at center for the Cleveland Browns (so he's not much better off than his former teammates). Michalczik, widely regarded as one of the nation's best offensive line coaches, is now with the Oakland Raiders (so he's miserable, too). Entering the season, the general feeling was the line was talented and deep, considering injuries last fall forced many young players into starting roles. The line hasn't been terrible. It hasn't been as good as expected, either. And it certainly hasn't been good enough to beat defenses that are stacking the box to stop Jahvid Best.

The secondary has underachieved: The Bears secondary was the one area no one doubted. All four starters were back from a unit that ranked sixth in the nation in pass efficiency defense and grabbed 24 interceptions, which ranked third in the nation. The Bears presently rank 87th in the nation and have just four interceptions. Not to call one player out or anything, but did you see All-American cornerback Syd'Quan Thompson whiff on Joe McKnight's 38-yard TD run to open the scoring Saturday? That sort of play -- and pursuit angle -- won't help him get drafted

After the jump, we look back at Cal-USC and check in on the other Cal sporting events of the weekend (they didn't fare so well either). Can we get a mulligan for this past weekend in Cal sports? Looking ahead, I have the Cal-UCLA kickoff time (12:30pm on ABC) and Sandy's response to how administrators will respond to the dangerous crowd conditions at Memorial.

Cal falls to 8th in Ted Miller's Pac-10 power rankings.
Daily Cal on how this may just be the same team from 2008. Two stories on how the offense has begun to stagnate.
BusterSports gives Cal an F for their performance against USC.
Cal-UCLA kicks off at 12:30pm on ABC on October 17th.
Sandy Barbour responds to letters detailing the dangerous conditions at Memorial this past weekend.
In the second-biggest Cal sporting event of the weekend, No. 4 water polo loses 8-6 to No. 3 USC. Daily Cal on the men's water polo loss.
No. 9 women's volleyball loses to No. 16 UCLA in four sets.
Field hockey loses 3-2 to Iowa on Sunday and also lost 1-0 to Indiana on Saturday.
Women's tennis was successful in the Cal Nike Invitational Tournament.
No. 6/7 men's soccer defeated No.17/20 Stanford 1-0.
No. 10 women's soccer tied No. 11 Santa Clara 1-1 in a double-overtime decision.

2009 Cal Football: Hype vs. Reality

Avinash — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:45:28 -0000

More photos » by Ben Margot - AP

The Golden Bears were probably a little overhyped going into the season given their issues. We delve into what the real Cal will look like the rest of the season.

Browse more photos »

I know people are depressed with 72-6 the past two weeks, but despite the one-sided scores, there's much to be encouraged about. Like I said in yesterday's post, people seem to look at the final scores and see Cal getting destroyed in both games. I firmly disagree; the Bears adjusted and played miles better versus SC, especially along the lines. One big deficiency (quarterback) ended up submarining all of those hopes on Saturday, but it's a long season and easier opponents await. Don't forget that.

So now that the last two weeks have totally ripped away the gloss on our season, let's start separating the hype from the reality of our team. ESPN and the mainstream media did their dirty work early in the preseason, again falling in love with talented skill players without looking deep into the Bears and exploring weaknesses that only hardcore football enthusiasts delve into.

Now we'll get plenty of hype this week, only it'll be of the negative side. Just like the positive hype, most of it will be wrong. Let's take a look at some aspects of it. Add your own hype vs. reality discussions of the Bears in the comments.

Hype: California was returning 17 starters, most in the Pac-10. Perception? The Bears have a deep, experienced, unit.

Reality: California was returning 17 players with starting experience. Okay, let's break this down, because none of us really analyzed this well, me included.

Our starting QB got the call in the first four games last season, was pulled in the fourth game, didn't return until late in the sixth game, was knocked out in the eighth game, came back in relief in the ninth game, then was out for the bowl game. To say that Kevin Riley had a "typical returning starter" experience short-sells the situation.
As for the offensive line, Chris Guarnero is a returning starter despite playing only a third of the season and playing at a different position than center; Justin Cheadle was playing out of position much of last season, as was Mitchell Schwartz. These shifts don't mean the experience they received is worthless, but there is something to playing the same position week. And of course Mike Tepper is the furthest thing from returning starter--he hasn't played competitive football in a year, and it's clear he isn't close to his 2007 form.
There's also the receiver roulette, where it's hard to say Verran Tucker and Nyan Boateng had anything close to typical starting years, especially considering one only emerged as the starter after Michael Calvin got injured, and the other kept on dropping catches both this season and last. It's hard to say our receiving corps is playing up to form.
Mike Mohamed did start most of last season, but his role is drastically different from last year. Although he's played okay, we might've gone overboard with our effusive praise for his abilities. The Prophet was clearly effective at being the most productive linebacker last season because he was the last resort guy. Stepping into Follett's shoes has not been easy for him; he does not have great rushing abilities on the edge and the coverage suffers without him back there. So he's been sort of switched back and forth between outside and inside the past two weeks, with little result.

Thus, the only starters with typical "starting" experience were Best, the defensive linemen, and the defensive backs. Maybe Mohamed and Riley. That's about eight to ten starts with strong, stable starting experience.

Moreover, our losses were definitely crucial. Subtract our two best blockers from our offense, our best pass rusher from our defense, and half of our coverage players...and, well, we're going to have our woes. Hopefully the worst is over in that regard.

More examples after the jump. What are your thoughts on the hyped Bears versus the real Bears, both positive and negative?

I covered this yesterday, but I'll add it in here.

Hype: We have one of the most talented players in the country and we can go far if we ride him all the way.

Reality: He is only as good as the rest of our offense.

Jahvid has his weaknesses, there's no doubt--his pass protection and blitz pickup abilities need plenty of work. However, in terms of running ability, he needs his blockers to open gaps for him and a stable passing game that plays in tandem with his abilities. He got neither in Oregon and only average run blocking against the Trojans. And even if he had Alex Mack and Will Ta'ufo'ou, they too would have had their difficulties against eight to nine Trojans in the box in that first quarter when it was a relatively close one.

Besides, how can Best step up if his counterpart in the backfield steps down?

I should also note something about the malevolent influence of ESPN. When given so much to cover, they focus on what's most likely to intrigue the entire nation--Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, Tim Tebow's heart, Notre Dame, Tim Tebow's leadership, USC's daily drama, Tim Tebow's NFL Draft prospects... Their previews are painfully weak, usually looking back to last year's results for almost complete, blind guidance as to pick who will be back (and we see virtually the same teams that made last year's BCS getting picked again by the 'experts'!).

So obviously when Jahvid is our most prominent representative of the university, and he puts up almost a thousand yards of offense in the final four games of 2008...he's going to get pub. When he bursts for a 70 yard touchdown on Cal's first scoring drive or when he puts up all five scores in Minneapolis, it only gets worse.

This is a dangerous example of hyping a player to a level he cannot perform at, no matter the quality of the opponent. We always have to be prepared to lower our expectations in an age where media is dynamic in spinning messages that have no basis in reality (this is true in all worlds, entertainment, political or sports). Be careful how much you buy into the ESPN hype machine. They spin nothing but misinformation and lies, especially in college sports, when they tend to know only the barest of what's going on.

Listen to fools and be prepared to get fooled.

Now we turn it around the other way and blow up dumb hype.

Hype (of the negative sort): Our players showed no fire and heart this weekend. Holmoe era teams showed better spirit.

Reality: Are you joking? Did you watch the game? After the opening touchdown Cal's defense had three red zone situations where they could've caved and let USC blow the doors off. They gave up three points on each possession and kept it within a three score game late into the fourth. They even gave us a turnover that led to the Bears only points. If that's not heart for a team that didn't really have a prayer of winning in the second half, I don't know what it is.

The offensive line tried their best against eight/nine man fronts when it was clear Riley wasn't going to have his best game, even getting that bizarro Wildcat formation going for a full drive and chugging something out of it. You could tell Jahvid was trying all he could playing against overstacked run defense. There was occasional chippiness late, including a brief trash talking session with a Trojan on the Bears sideline.

The feeling I get is that fans are looking at the players glum, downcast expressions on the TV, and playing their best version of Dr. Melfi sans restraint. The team happens to be losing the biggest game of the season. Do you want them all to be doing push-ups on the sidelines and headhunting Trojan receivers to get themselves going?

Our guys played hard all the way to the end. It just happened that the more talented and focused team won. In football that tends to happen.

Hype: Jeff Tedford's stoic sideline nature is the reason we're falling behind the rest of the Pac-10.

Reality: People who believe this are the reason Roe v. Wade should never be overturned.

I'm usually nice to bitter, tired Cal fans. I don't mind people who glumly predict Tedford won't get us to the next level, because, well, it's normal for fans to feel that way after disappointing defeats. Especially when it happens in games we could've won if things had gone right here and here and here...

But I'm not tolerating stupidity, and this particular aspect below truly riles me:

There is this popular, annoying theory that what we need is not better recruiting classes, or even better playcalling, or we need USC to go on probation. No, what we need is firebrand leadership.

On whether he should yell at the team

We need to work hard. I’m never going to scream and yell at the guys. I’m never going to do that. They don’t deserve that. They play hard. I get e-mails saying you should chew them out. I’m not going to do that. I’m going tom motivate them and we’re going to work hard to get better and create a positive environment to get some confidence going.

In other words, what some Cal fans want is Tedford to go off on Riley and rip him for bad passes. Which, you might remember he did, last year against Colorado St. before inserting Longshore for the rest of the 2nd half. Moreover, they want Tedford going up to Best and ripping into him for not finding nonexistent holes, rip into Holley for not being Will Ta'ufo'ou, rip into the receivers for not catching uncatchable pases, rip into the defense for giving up 16 points through three quarters.

You know why? Because look at all the other 'great coaches' in the conference! Sarkisian RALLIED THE TROOPS and had everyone believing they can beat the mighty Trojans (it has carried onto the next two games, where the Huskies have won their next two by a combined total of negative 27 points). You've got Harbaugh getting mad and pissed at everyone, and clearly the Furd are a transcendent team. They beat UW, UCLA and Wazzu, who won a combined 6 games last year, by a combined 54 points. You've got Neuheisel chewing out Kevin Craft before sending him back out to the fire to throw another horrid interception. And of course you have Petie, who's a bigger cheerleader for his team than the Song Girls.

The solution, clearly, is to hire Rope Guy for Coach. He seems to get everyone fired up.

via cdn2.sbnation.com

Look. We have no idea how Tedford handles his team behind closed doors. The pregame stuff is off-limits, and we know he's ripped into his team during halftime after unsatisfactory first half performances. What does a coach ripping players in public accomplish other than to satisfy the libidos of idiot Cal fans?

Probably about the same as Pete Carroll at the Sanchez press conference: It makes you look like a dick.

Let's be thankful we don't have a coach who doesn't treat his players like shit when they decide not to return (see Aaron Rodgers his junior year, Marshawn and Desean after their junior campaigns, and probably the same for Best this season) and never, ever throws them under the bus. In the long-run, karma will pay us back for showing respect to someone who has put up with our and the media's slightly unreasonable expectations.

Unless the angry fringe Cal fans become the majority of Cal fans, that is. It's not a situation I'm interested in courting, so let's roar through the rest of the season to silence hype of all sorts, alright guys?