a fan of
San Francisco 49ers
California Golden Bears
California Golden Bears
RSSUser Blog
Cal vs. Stanfurd, Post-112th Big Game Thoughts
by HydroTech on Nov 30, 2009 6:23 AM EST
121 comments
(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).
121 comments | 4 recs |
Cal vs. Arizona Post-Game Thoughts
by HydroTech on Nov 19, 2009 4:52 PM EST
40 comments
(1) Cal won. Yay. I'll admit, I wasn't optimistic going into the game. I figured the safe bet was a Cal loss - a big loss. So when the game stayed close, and the fourth quarter came around, I felt like me and the entire stadium started believing - believing that we really could win the game. I mean, not in the theoretical sense that every game is winnable. But the sense that yeah, if we really stuck it out, got loud, played tough, that we would will a win. I can't remembered the stadium being that into the game in a long time. Memorial does get loud in key situations during your typical game but last Saturday there was energy in the air, and not just noise.
(2) Cal won thanks to its defense but Gregory still needs to go. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass that Cal won because of the defense. Gregory needs to go. The dude was still only rushing four pass rushers most downs. Doesn't he understand that you have to pressure the QB? Let's not forget that we only sacked their QB three times. That is unacceptable. I'd be willing to have anyone, even TwistNHook as our defensive coordinator. Anybody but Gregory, please.
40 comments | 3 recs |
Cal vs. Oregon State Post-Game Thoughts
by HydroTech on Nov 11, 2009 7:00 AM EST
162 comments
(1) To send more pass rushers or to not send more pass rushers? For most of the game Gregory was sending 4 pass rushers. Sometimes he'd send 5 if he was feeling a little frisky. But for the most part, only 4 pass rushers were devoted to pressuring Canfield. I agree with this strategy. I do not think more pass rushers should have been sent to pressure Canfield.
I'm sure that last sentence is quite shocking to a lot of Cal fans - especially the ones advocating for a more aggressive defense that sends more than just three or four pass rushers. Even I, initially, in the CGB podcast last week, suggested that perhaps this is the game where Gregory just needs to get crazy ultra aggressive and send lots of pass rushers because Canfield is so good that he can pick apart 7 and 8 man zones anyways.
I made that statement prior to seeing film on Canfield. Subsequently (but still prior to the game), I was directed to some video of Canfield's completions against USC's defense over at Trojanfootballanalysis.com. After seeing that film, I decided that blitzing Canfield was not really the correct strategy. Why? Canfield gets the ball out so quickly and efficiently. He hits his TEs and RBs on short check-downs to neutralize the blitz. When an offense's QB can get the ball out quickly against a blitzing defense, it just neutralizes the blitz and allows the offense to gain big yardage (see the final Cal drive of the 2009 Cal vs. Arizona State game for a pretty good Cal example of this). Blitzing against an offense that can get the ball out that quickly and efficiently is extremely risky, and has much less reward than normal blitzing strategies. Canfield was getting the ball out extremely quick - and against USC's very fast pass rush too! USC's pass rush is much faster than Cal's pass rush, yet Canfield neutralized them. It doesn't matter if Cal was sending five or six pass rushers per down to get a quicker pass rush, Canfield still probably would have been able to get the ball out. He did it against USC's faster defense and I have little doubt he would have done it to Cal's defense.
162 comments | 2 recs |
Looking Back At Arizona State: Playaction & The Domino Effect
by HydroTech on Nov 5, 2009 1:15 PM EST
34 comments
During the 2009 Cal @ Arizona State college football game, Arizona State scored on an 80 yard touchdown pass. Who was to blame for this defensive error? Most football fans use a general rule of blaming the closest defender to the offensive player. On this particular play, that was safety Marcus Ezeff. Such however, a rule isn't always correct. The closest defender to the intended receiver is not always the player at fault for the completion.
On this particular play, the defender who is more at fault for the touchdown is a cornerback, who is away from the intended wide receiver.
Here is the play at issue (please excuse my poor quality images, I no longer have photoshop on my computer):
Arizona State is facing a 1st and 10 from their own 20 yard line. Cal lines up in its 3-4 defense showing a two-deep look and with the cornerbacks showing man coverage. A two-deep defense is a defense which has two deep defenders each guarding the right and left deep halves of the field.
34 comments | 3 recs |
Cal @ Arizona State Post-Game Thoughts
by HydroTech on Nov 4, 2009 6:00 AM EST
49 comments
(1) Story of the game: Bad Execution Everywhere. Fumbles. Penalties. Dropped passes. Un-sustained blocks. Poor tackling. Poor recognition of offensive plays by defensive players. Poor passes. Bad playcalling. Missed field goals. This game was ugly and scary. How appropriate since it was on Halloween. While a lot of complaining has been made about the defense, and the offense, things would be a lot different if the players just executed and all won their individual player battles.
(2) Cal played sloppy and deserved some of those penalties, but ASU got some calls which they shouldn't have. Tepper's hands to the head call? Totally deserved. Jones' facemask penalty on his deep sideline go route? Totally deserved. But Conte's pass interference call? That was a bunch of crap. Receivers and defenders have equal right to the ball. Conte played the ball, and it just so happened that the ASU WR ran his route right into Conte. That should not have been a penalty. Miller's holding call? More bs. I can understand that to the ref who threw the flag that it might have looked like holding based on the way the defender fell down, but Miller didn't hold. It seemed like due to the sloppy nature of the game, that the refs were even more ticky tacky and threw even more flags. I don't remember a single call going against ASU that shouldn't have. But there were definitely at least two flags on Cal that shouldn't have been flags. I don't mind losing games with fair penalizing, but I hate it when a loss is aided by the help of incorrect flags from the refs.
49 comments | 2 recs |
DBD 11.04.09 - I'm not trying to jinx us but...
by HydroTech on Nov 4, 2009 5:59 AM EST
841 comments
I was just looking at stats. Did you know that California Football, under Jeff Tedford, has only lost 10 games at home through today?
3 of those 10 losses occurred during the 2002 season when Cal Football was at its weakest. In other words, through 6.5 years of Cal Football home games, Cal has only lost 7 home games. That's about 1 a year at home. That's not too bad.
Is that some home field advantage or what?
Okay, that's all I got. I apologize.
841 comments | 0 recs
Cal vs. Washington State Post-Game Thoughts
by HydroTech on Oct 28, 2009 5:28 AM EDT
45 comments
(1) New kickoff coverage scheme? Today I noticed something I hadn't noticed before. Most teams have the entire kick coverage team get a running start on the kick, and all the defenders are at the line of scrimmage right when the ball is kicked. This is what Cal has done in the past, and if I'm not mistaken, what they've been doing this year. However, today on kickoff coverage, two of our defenders would hang back approximately 5 yards at the instant of the kickoff instead of being right on the line of scrimmage at the time of the kick. Thus, Cal has eight kickoff coverage defenders going down the field full speed at the time of the kick from the line of scrimmage, and three defenders moving down the field behind. It's as if there are now two waves of defenders (eight then three) as opposed to one wave of defenders (of eleven men if you want to counter the kicker too). Now, I suppose some of you might be thinking I was just seeing things and the two guys were just being lazy about not being right at the LOS at the moment of the kick, but no. It was intentional. I'm pretty positive. They were distinctly and purposely further back than the initial coverage net to give more depth to the coverage net.
45 comments | 4 recs |
Cal @ UCLA Post-Game Thoughts
by HydroTech on Oct 21, 2009 6:15 AM EDT
73 comments
(1) Riley played well. I can't really remember any bad passes off the top of my head. He looked pretty sharp today. His passes to Marvin Jones were right on the money. His pass to Best was perfect. There was even a quasi throw-away pass that Riley threw on the run which was perfectly placed where only the wide receiver could catch it (although the pass ended up being incomplete). I was really impressed with Riley's ball placement today. He wasn't just making the throws today, but also was placing the ball very well too.
Riley showed pretty good pocket presence and would scramble when things started breaking down. His gutsy play on his QB scrambles and QB draws was inspiring. He just seemed calmer and more poised today than in previous games. Perhaps it's mental, or perhaps it's because the offensive line wasn't sucking like it did against Oregon and the offense wasn't facing USC's defense. Riley's completion percentage today was 60.1% - which is fair, but I think Riley played better than his completion percentage suggests.
73 comments | 3 recs |
DBD - 10/16/09 - Tebow will be a great NFL QB?
by HydroTech on Oct 16, 2009 4:57 AM EDT
416 comments
via tophatal.files.wordpress.com
So a friend of mine is a Florida fan. After Florida's win over LSU last week, I emailed her saying something along the lines of: "congrats on the win, i was rooting for lsu, i'm tired of all the tebow love."
Later my friend emails me back saying something along the lines of "am I correct in assuming that if Tebow was on Cal's team that you wouldn't dislike him?"
I sent back a response essentially saying: "Well, I would actually not care much of Tebow was on Cal's team because Tebow probably wouldn't even be starting on Cal's team. He's not the pro-style QB that Tedford wants or uses in his offense. Tebow isn't even that great of a QB. He has a slow release. He doesn't even spiral the ball half the time (which gets problematic on deep throws and windy conditions). He doesn't get good RPMs on the ball (again, problematic for windy conditions). His accuracy is questionable. He doesn't have the experience or maybe even the ability to drop back from under center and make a read. I don't think he's going to make a good QB in the NFL. Right now he's a great college player because he's surrounded by blue chip talent, on a great team, and in the right system."
I might have pissed off my friend because then she sent back a response saying that we should make a bet on Tebow being a great NFL QB and that she thought he would be a great NFL QB. She seemed genuinely upset that I dissed Tebow.
So, my fellow CGB denizens, I ask you for your opinion...
DO YOU THINK TIM TEBOW WILL BE A GREAT NFL QB?
I mean, don't let this information sway your decision, but draft experts such as Mel Kiper have already said Tebow is probably like at the highest, a third round draft pick ... AS A TIGHT END. Others have said similar things saying he has no chance at playing QB in the NFL. Or at least, he has very little chance at making it in the NFL as a QB.
I'm not the only one that has reached this conclusion.
Random CBS writer says Tebow ain't going to be great:
He has an NFL body, he has NFL athletic ability, and he has an NFL head and heart. He just doesn't have an NFL arm. Nothing wrong with that. Very few college quarterbacks -- very few Heisman Trophy winners -- have an NFL arm.
Weaknesses: Absolutely horrendous footwork ... Plays in a run-option offense and it will take him 2-3 years to learn an NFL offense ... Horrible touch on the football, which is difficult to catch ... Nice accuracy on the deep ball, but it's very inconsistent in the intermediate routes ... Extremely long release ... Shown no improvement in his mechanics over his career ... Locks on to primary receivers all the time ... Speed at wide receiver made a lot of his throws look better than they actually were.
Summary: Tim Tebow lacks the basic precision passing qualities for what it takes to be an NFL quarterback, and as of now I'm giving him a fourth-round draft grade ... Needs to improve mechanics drastically ... Transition to being an NFL signal caller should take some time ... Needs to be more of a calm/cool/collected leader on the field rather than being so emotional ... Second halves against Michigan and LSU showed Tebow's great flaws when they neutralized the run option and forced him to be a pocket quarterback ... He could be a solid fullback in the NFL with his running style if it doesn't work out at quarterback.
Mel Kiper says Tebow will have a great NFL career .... as a Tight End:
Kiper said ... that Tebow is likely to play tight end when he enters the NFL in 2010.
"I think an H-back, tight end projection, like we've had quarterbacks move to wide receiver in the past," Kiper said. "That's what I think he will be. ... (Tebow) can have a very successful career in the NFL, but not at quarterback."
So what do you guys think? Many of us has seen Tebow play. Certainly, if the NFL team that drafts him wants to tinker with their offense and make it more Florida-like for Tebow, I think he can be *productive* in the NFL.
But in my opinion, he's never going to be Peyton Manning good of a passer. I just don't see the mental acuity, I don't see the mechanics, I don't see the arm.
So should I take up the bet with my friend? Or shall I be a gentleman and tell her to keep her money and thank me in 3 years when Tebow is 4th string QB on some NFL team or playing fullback or tight end?
416 comments | 0 recs
2009 Cal vs. USC - The Presnap Chessmatch
by HydroTech on Oct 14, 2009 6:00 AM EDT
24 comments
Based on the feedback from those of you that participated in our Golden Feedback, it appears as if many of you really enjoy game film play analysis. I'm sorry for not providing more game film analysis on a regular basis, but school has once again kept me fairly busy (15 units and 6 classes: Mediterranean Cuisine, French Sous-vide, Advanced Sauces, Delicate Desserts, Unusual Proteins, and Dangerous Foods Preparation). I will try to provide a little more analysis here and there. Please bear with me in the following analysis as since I no longer have Photoshop on my laptop and I had to use Paint instead.
While watching the Cal vs. USC game between practicing my Julienne cuts and while waiting for some creme brulee to finish cooling down, I noticed something pretty interesting. I noticed USC's QB Matt Barkley make a fantastic pre-snap adjustment to take advantage of the Cal defense. At the college level, it doesn't seem like a lot of QBs are allowed to make pre-snap adjustments. Some offenses merely have the entire offense look to the coaches on the sidelines before the snap, to get signals from the coaches which will dictate whether the offense will run the original play or run a different play. In these offenses, the QB is just a stupid mindless automaton that directs the offense under the command of the sideline coaches. Other offenses allow the QB some control to change direction of runs or change the play to a few select pre-determined plays (Cal's offense). And then there are only a few QBs at the college level are allowed to pretty much do whatever they want (if I recall correctly, I think Boston College's Matt Ryan was given the freedom to change the play at the line of scrimmage to any play he desired - don't quote me on that but I could have sworn I read that in an ESPN Magazine or something). USC's QBs are either the second or third option, meaning they definitely can change plays around and perhaps they can even do whatever they want with the offense.
24 comments | 5 recs |
Showing 1 - 10 of 159 Older
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
