SB Nation User Blog: HydroTech

DBD 10.10.08 - What Goes Around Comes Around

HydroTech — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:36:26 -0000

Once upon a time there were two friends....

Then one friend beat out the other for the starting position but not really, cuz like a week later the Coach reneged, and the winner was the loser, and the loser was the winner.

But it's okay cuz Keller went to Nebraska and is having a jolly good time.

via stillfootball.files.wordpress.com

But Keller didn't forget how he got robbed of the job...

So he sent the pain train...

Then...

via frugalhoosiers.typepad.com

PAIN TRAIN WINS!!!

via blogs.tampabay.com

Sam Keller may not have got the starting job, but he got the girl - and that's all that matters.

via bp0.blogger.com

For more pictures of Sam Keller and his girlfriend, click here. (semi-work safe; no nudity but definitely some skin)

Jeff Tedford is "curious" about the UW Head Coaching position?

Boise State's Chris Petersen, BYU's Bronco Mendenhall, Ball State's Brady Hoke and Wake Forest's Jim Grobe are other current head coaches whose names have been inserted into reasonable conversation. Hill, the coach at Fresno State, supposedly is interested in the job. California's Jeff Tedford is at least curious about it.

21 AP voters including kirk Herbstreit voted for Cal last week:

[click the link above]

USC isn't the only Pac-10 team to play freshmen:

The complete roll call of true freshmen used this season: UW 12, UCLA 11, Arizona State and USC 10, Arizona 9, California 8, Oregon, Stanford and Washington State 5, and Oregon State 4.

....

FOLLETT FALLOUT: If Arizona State quarterback Rudy Carpenter learned anything this past weekend at Cal, it was this -- never mouth off to an opposing linebacker. It's like digging spurs into a bull with a bad attitude.

Hey look, Cal leads the Pac in the turnover margin!

Cal +6

Hey look! Cal's rushing defense is just about as good as USC's!

USC - 2.44 yards per carry allowed

Cal - 2.49 yards per carry allowed

[Note from HydroTech: this may include sack yardage so it might not be entirely accurate... i'm too lazy to figure it out]

Hey Look! Cal's passing defense is 3rd best in the Pac-10 based on yards per attempt!

UA - 4.4 yards per attempt

USC - 5.1 yards per attempt

Cal - 5.8 yards per attempt

[Note from HydroTech: Anything below 6.0 yards per attempt is getting deeerrrn good]

What's that you say? You prefer judging how good a defense is using "QB rating" instead of yards per attempt? Fine then. Cal's defense is #2 in the Pac-10!

Arizona - 88.73 QB rating allowed

Cal - 95.48 QB rating allowed

Gratuitous hot-girlfriend of athlete picture:

via bp3.blogger.com

Dump away...

Poll

Greatest DBD evair?

Arizona State Post-Game Thoughts

HydroTech — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:56:21 -0000

I'm always trying to out-do CBKWit, so while he did his post-game thoughts, I'm also going to do mine. The following are my post-game thoughts prior to re-watching the game.

via imgs.sfgate.com

(1) Lots of playaction. I'm not sure how many times we did it, but it seemed like Cignetti called up playactions at least 5-6 times in the first quarter alone. I like it. Unfortunately, ASU was playing good assignment football and kept going after Longshore instead of the runningback. Longshore did a great job dumping off those balls to avoid the sacks.

(2) Lots of passing early on. If I had to estimate, I think Cal's gameplan was to pass early and often. Perhaps as much as 75% of the time. It seemed like the usual "establish the run" offense turned into the "establish the pass" offense. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Tedford and Cignetti tapped Longshore to start - he has tons of experience, he has better knowledge of the offense and defenses.

(3) Great defensive gameplan. Gregory had a very nice gameplan today. What was that gameplan? Take away the deep ball with zones and 7 man coverages. I was by a bunch of guys who complained the entire game about "soft coverage." Little did they realize the same "soft coverage" they hated won the game. By taking away the deep balls, it forced Carpenter to take those short little 5 yard outs (which the guys next to me still complained about with loud "FUCKING SYD" groans when Carpenter would check down to short routes against Syd). By taking away the deep balls, it also forced Carpenter to hold onto the ball for a long time which resulted in some great coverage sacks. Carpenter CLEARLY was frustrated and injured by the 3rd and 4th quarter.

(4) Great individual effort by the pass rushers. Whether it was DL or Follett, those guys were all over Carpenter. As CBKWit already noted, Cameron Jordan had a beastly game.

(5) Vereen had a decent game. The OL never really opened up a huge gaping hole for a 40+ yard run but he took what daylight they gave him.

(6) Speaking of the OL, pretty solid pass protection and solid rushing. Neither was spectacular, but they weren't bad either. A good solid all around effort and performance in my opinion.

via imgs.sfgate.com

(7) Great game by the DBs. Sean Cattouse had a fantastic INT, and TD-breakup. Hagan had a phenomenal game. Syd played very well. I heard a lot of Cal students complaining about Syd today but I think he played without significant errors. The students around me who disliked Syd seemed to be finding complaint in the fact Carpenter was consistently taking little 5-7 yard outs on Syd.

Well, there are two things to note here. First, Cal played a lot of zone coverages and thus Syd isn't in man coverage and draped all over the WRs. Thus, fans should be aware that just because Syd may have been off the WR that it isn't a blown coverage. Second, Syd is defending the inside of the field. CBs almost always are going to defend the inside of the field and give up passes to the outside. Why? If WRs get to the interior of the field, that's often bad. That's where huge passes occur. To wit: Carpenter's TD pass to the WR on a slant (or post, I can't remember) over the middle of the field. On the other hand, passes to the outside are limited because the sidelines act as a barrier, and it's a much harder throw to the sidelines. Also, 5-7 yard outs are much better than 20 yard receptions and 40 yard TDs.

(8) Longshore was decent. Love him or hate him, he did alright. He wasn't great. He completely didn't see Tad Smith in the endzone on the first drive. He had some overthrown passes on the first drive and slightly off-target passes scattered throughout the rest of the game. But on the other hand, he wasn't bad either. He had some great TD throws, and great short completions too. The INT was questionable. Certainly, if Longshore saw beforehand that Vereen wasn't there, Longshore probably should have just thrown the ball into the ground, or taken a sack. But it's possible Longshore was expecting Vereen to get there and Vereen didn't quite get there. On the replay screen after the INT, Longshore and Vereen were having an animated discussion about that play. It looked like perhaps Longshore was expecting Vereen to be there but Vereen wasn't. A few friends of mine say that Vereen got blocked off by a defender or something. I guess this is something to look for when I re-watch the game.

Overall, I'd give Longshore a 7 out of 10. If you like grades, I'd give him a "B." Any higher than a B would be unfair since it would probably ignore the slightly overthrown and off-target passes scattered throughout the day. But any lower than B would be unfair since it would probably ignore Longshore's 3 TD passes, the solid immemorable short completions, Longshore avoiding sacks on the playaction rollouts, and Longshore's expertise in the offense (directing motion men - at least 3 times Longshore had to correct the position and motion of WRs/TEs).

Did Longshore do enough to secure the starting spot for next week? Definitely not. But he certainly has made the decision even tougher for Tedford and Cignetti.

Final thoughts:

via imgs.sfgate.com

Let's not let the QB controversy sour the victory. Let's just enjoy the victory. Our D played great. We have two capable QBs. We're 4-1. Nobody got injured today. Be happy.

Go Bears!

Dispelling the Conspiracy Theories

HydroTech — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:27:56 -0000

We've got a lot of stuff coming up. Yellow Fever works his culinary magic. We've got a Q+A with House of Sparky and a preview of ASU. So, keep your eyes locked here.

Before we get to the YTT, we've been posting a lot recently. So, if you missed anything, look at our Post CSU thoughts, our CSU photos, photos, and more photos, the Fantasy Week In Review, and our debate over Top 25 rankings. Also, the Roundtable. And now back to the regularly scheduled Conspiracy post from HydroTech:

Let me preface this post by saying the purpose of this post is not to advocate any one QB over the other. Personally, I just want wins and if that's Riley, then fine, if Longshore, then fine.

The purpose of this post is to dispel some of the conspiracy theory talk floating around on why Tedford has started up the QB competition again mid-season. I want to dispel some of these conspiracy theories because they really are getting out of hand and ridiculous.

I know a lot of pro-Riley Cal fans are looking for some sort of way to explain why Tedford could put Riley's starting job at risk by opening up the QB competition again but let's stay grounded in reality here. Some of these theories are really far out there. Some of them are really grasping at straws. I merely want to try and bring some reality and reasonableness back to the conversation.

So let's get started with some of these "conspiracy theories..."

(1) "Tedford hates Riley"

This is pure speculation. I haven't heard anything in the media nor have I seen or heard anything during my time with the team. Furthermore, I do know that when the coaches recruit players, if any of the coaches has a negative experience or opinion about a recruit, Cal stops recruiting that player - no questions asked. Basically, should any of the coaches who are recruiting that player dislike something about a recruit enough to persuade that coach that the recruit should stop being pursued, the recruiting stops. Riley was recruited thus we should assume that (at least at the time Riley was recruited), all the coaches recruiting him (including Tedford!) did not dislike Riley.

Unless something in the media suggests this, or Tedford or Riley publicly state something of the sort, this theory remains nothing but a very speculative theory.

(2) "Tedford is setting up Riley for failure."

This theory is pretty far out there. Nothing definitive has come up to confirm this theory.

Furthermore, the logic behind this theory is extremely flawed and counter to common sense intuition. Why? If Riley fails, the offense fails. If the offense fails, the team is more likely to lose. If the team is more likely to lose, the team will lose more often. If the team loses more often, then Tedford is more likely to get fired. We should all be operating on the assumption that Tedford does not want to get fired. He's publicly said he likes it here at Cal. He likes the bay area. He likes recruiting with the ability to say recruits can come to the top public university in America. Tedford has a family nearby. Tedford's son is enrolled at Cal (perhaps even two by now). Getting fired would probably mean a new job, moving, and a huge hassle.

To believe this theory would be to believe that Tedford is willing to put his hatred for a player above winning. Above his job security. Above his family. No, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

To believe this theory also suggests that Tedford has lost or has no professionalism. I think most of us would agree that one of the concepts of professionalism is that you don't let your personal life get in the way of your job. We should all be operating under the assumption that Tedford has a high level of professionalism. If he didn't, then he'd be letting his emotions get in the way of of his job. His job is to win. If he doesn't win, he is at risk of being fired. I don't think he wants to be fired.

Tedford wants to win just as much as the rest of us do. If you don't believe that, you really really need to do a reality check. Setting Riley up for failure would not help the team win.

This theory is completely contrary to the goals of this team. This theory is completely contrary to the goal of winning.

(3) "Tedford is playing favorites" / "Tedford favors Longshore"

This seems to be the biggie. The favorite. It's easy to see why. It's simple. It seems plausible. No evidence is really needed to back it up since Tedford isn't just going to come out and say "I like Nate Longshore better."

But the logic behind this theory fails horribly.

I wrote why this logic fails in our CSU post-game blog post:

"It seems like people think Tedford favors Longshore…. still. Whether he does or not, I don’t know. But here’s where logic fails those who may think that Tedford favors Longshore. Assuming Tedford favored Longshore last year and such favoritism still persists, then why did Tedford choose Riley over Longshore as the starter for the 2008 season? If Tedford was playing favorites, he would have chosen Longshore to start the 2008 season over Riley despite numerous reports from Okanes (and a few quotes from Tedford himself) that Riley was playing better.

Tedford said last year that he stuck with Longshore because he gave Cal the best chance to win – from that we can assume that Longshore was outplaying Riley in practices. But let’s entertain and analyze the theory that Tedford plays favorites and merely likes Longshore and hates Riley. So let’s just assume for the sake of this remaining argument that instead, Riley was outperforming Longshore in practices during the post Longshore-injury part of 2007 as so many believers of this theory suggest, and nevertheless Tedford was playing favorites and stuck with Longshore. That means Tedford favored Longshore over Riley despite Longshore’s inferior play. Continuing with the analysis, let’s jump to this year. Prior to this season, Tedford said Riley would get the start against MSU which is contrary to the theory that Tedford favors Longshore. After MSU, Tedford said Riley “earned” the starting job since Riley played better than Longshore. This too is contrary to the theory that Tedford favors Longshore. Furthermore, the scenario immediately after MSU is the same scenario in 2007 (post-Longshore injury): that Longshore was not playing as well as Riley. Thus, since these are the same scenarios, then we should expect Tedford to choose Longshore as the starter both times since Tedford plays favorites. But in reality, Tedford chose Riley to start after MSU – which as I said earlier, is contrary to the theory that Tedford favors Longshore.

That was a lengthy and complex analysis, but the point is that if Tedford truly is playing favorites or “hates Riley” then Tedford would have made Longshore the starter for MSU, and would have chosen Longshore as the starter after the MSU game despite Longshore’s poor performance against MSU (since the logic is that Tedford will continue to start Longshore despite not performing as well as Riley – which supporters of the “Tedford favors Longshore” theorists claim to have happened in 2007). But Tedford didn’t choose Longshore to start against MSU. Tedford didn’t tap Longshore as the starter after MSU.

There is no favoritism for Longshore."

(4) "Tedford has double standards" / "Tedford stuck it out with Ayoob in 2005, and Longshore in 2007, but now he's not going to stick it out with Riley in 2008"

First, let's tackle the "Tedford stuck it out with Ayoob in 2005, but now he's not going to stick it out with Riley in 2008" theory.

This conspiracy of double standards is flawed because you can't compare 2005 and 2008. In 2008, we have Riley and Longshore. Who is better between Riley and Longshore is debatable and irrelevant to our analysis. What is essential is the assumption that both are very capable QBs. We've seen flashes of brilliance from Riley against Oregon State. We've seen Riley light up Air Force. We saw Riley put up a very strong performance against Michigan State. As for Longshore, Longshore in 2006 was "good." Longshore pre-injury in 2007 was "great." The talent level between Riley and Longshore is very close.

But in 2005, we had Ayoob and Levy. Neither was "great." Both had their limitations. Neither was a top Pac-10 QB. But Ayoob was always more of a talented QB than Levy. I know Levy won the 2005 Big Game and the 2005 Las Vegas bowl, but I stand by that statement. I've seen these two in practices. I've seen what Ayoob was capable of before his confidence got shot. Ayoob was the better QB and the talent difference between Ayoob and Levy was much much more than between Longshore and Riley.

And that's why you can't compare 2005 and 2008. They are different situations. In 2005 we had a much larger talent different between Ayoob and Levy. In 2008, we have a much smaller talent difference between Riley and Longshore (whoever is better is irrelevant).

This year, if one QB isn't performing, we have an almost equal backup waiting in the wings.

Now what about comparing 2007 and 2008? A lot of conspiracy theorists say Tedford has double standards in that he stuck with Longshore for so long in 2007 but isn't sticking with Riley for as long in 2008.

Fellow Cal blogger BeastMode from The Sporting Contrarian had some great thoughts (which just so happen to correspond with mine) on this conspiracy theory. In his most recent post, he wrote these comments in regards to opening up the QB competition again and Riley possibly riding pine:

Isn’t this exactly what Riley supporters and Tedford doubters wanted last year? When a player isn’t performing, said player gets pulled. Always comPETE. Sorry, just because Tedford stuck with Nate last year doesn’t mean he owes Riley anything this year. If things really have changed under Tedford, and Riley truly is ineffective in the eyes of JT and Cignetti, then Riley needs to sit.

BestMode's thoughts are very much on the mark. If the pro-Riley supporters wanted Riley to start because they thought Longshore was ineffective and they want the more effective QB to start, then they shouldn't be complaining about the fact that Tedford is considering playing Longshore instead when Riley hasn't quite performed up to his usual standards.

And maybe Tedford did make a mistake last year by sticking it out with an injured and less effective Longshore for so long, but like BeastMode said, that doesn't mean Tedford owes Riley the same deference.

Fellow Cal blogger BearsNecessity from BearsNecessity had this to say in our comments:

Could this be Tedford, you know, learning from mistakes?

I think another fellow Cal blogger hit the nail on the head. If Tedford thinks he did make mistakes last year by sticking with a less effective QB, then perhaps he's learning and being quicker to replace those players who aren't performing up to par.

Final Thoughts:

Those pro-Riley fans last year who wanted Riley to start because they thought he was more effective should be rejoicing this year that Tedford is considering playing a different QB, whom Tedford thinks will be more effective.

But I know a lot of pro-Riley Cal fans aren't rejoicing at the fact that Longshore might start this Saturday.

Again, BeastMode had an applicable quote in our comments:

What I don’t get is all these hypocrites saying Tedford has to stick with Riley. Aren’t these the same people that said Tedford is too loyal, that he stuck with Ayoob and then Longshore too long? Didn’t they want him to change that and pull a guy if he’s ineffective?

BeastMode asks very importantly, if the same people last year who said Tedford is too loyal to (favors) the ineffective 2007 post-injury Longshore are the same ones who want Tedford this year to pull a guy who is ineffective.

It seems like BeastMode assumes the answer is yes - that the same people last year who said Tedford is too loyal to (or favors) the ineffective 2007 post-injury Longshore are the same ones who want Tedford this year to pull a guy who is ineffective.

I propose the answer is actually no. They aren't the same people. If they were, then just as BeastMode suggests, these people wouldn't be complaining about the possibility of Riley riding pine. They would be supportive of the idea of playing a guy that Tedford thinks would be more effective.

So what are these people instead? These people are pro-Riley Cal fans who want to see Riley start no matter what. Their minds are made up. No matter how good Longshore may perform, or how bad Riley may perform, they just want to see Riley start no matter what - for whatever reason.

Every Cal fan is entitled to their opinion. I'm not here to dissuade pro-Riley Cal fans who want to see Riley start no matter what from their opinion.

I'm just here to defeat the growing number of ridiculous conspiracy theories which have popped up everywhere, and to bring some reasonableness back to the table.

There is a very logical, reasonable reason why Tedford has opened up the QB competition again:

Cal may have a more effective QB on the sidelines.

Again, I'm not saying Longshore is a more effective QB. I'm saying Tedford may think that.

I know the above reason is not one which many Riley-should-start-no-matter-what Cal fans like to hear, but it's a much more plausible, reasonable, and logical answer to why Tedford has opened up the QB competition again than "Tedford is setting Riley up for failure," or "Tedford hates Riley," or "Tedford has double standards," or "Tedford is more loyal to/favors Longshore."

Riley-should-start-no-matter-what Cal fans are entitled to their opinion, but I so respectfully propose that perhaps their unwavering opinion is blinding them to the so very simple, logical, and obvious reason why Tedford may start Longshore.

DBD 10.02.08 - This One is For the Ladies

HydroTech — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:34:26 -0000

Every once in a while we get an email from one of our lady readers asking how come we don't post more pictures of guys.

Well, I'm sure about 90% of readership is men, thus the exorbitant amount of pictures of women and the advent of Cougar week.

But we don't play favorites here at the CGB. All of us here like men. Maybe not in the same way that we like women. But you know what I mean. Well, except for Twist. He might like men just the same as women. He has a pink scarf!!! And he likes to get up close to the sidelines to get closeup photos of our football players! All very obvious signs that Twist's allegiance may be straying.

So since we don't play favorites here at the CGB. Today is dedicated to our lady readers.

I don't know what the opposite of a cougar is, so I don't know what to call today. I'll just post eye-candy for the ladies. (guys, you can just skip all these pictures.)

via fashionista.com

via www.solarnavigator.net

via barefoot.provocateuse.com

via sharrow.files.wordpress.com

via www.nosumo.com

via farm3.static.flickr.com

All right, enough of that junk.

Let's get to the good stuff.

via media.canada.com

Better. Much better.

Okay...

Stewart Mandel predicts Washington is going to lose a ton of games:

Now that Jake Locker -- the only reason to watch a Washington game to begin with -- is out 6-to-8 weeks with a broken thumb, it's conceivable the 0-4 Huskies will soon slide to at least 0-8. And yes, that includes a projected loss I would not have forecasted before the season, one that would be a particularly cruel nail-in-the-coffin for Tyrone Willingham: Oct. 25 against Notre Dame.

Pac-10 is the best conference in the past 10 years against BCS opponents:

Pacific 10: 54.5%
Southeastern: 50.8%
Big Ten: 50.5%
Atlantic Coast: 50%
Big 12: 48.8%
Big East: 45.9%

New numbers for the BCS computers coming soon? They also show Cal had the #10 best offense last year:

There's an intriguing article at the numbers-heavy "Football Outsiders" website talking about applying the standardized statistical principles that are now accepted and commonplace in both baseball --remember Moneyball? And the SABR crew? -- and professional football.

And U$C photoshopped out a song girl in their yearly photo or something:

After this year's song girl photo was taken, Allison Daniels was offered... [insert joke here]

DUMP AWAY.

Poll

What did you think of today's DBD?

Colorado State Post-Game Thoughts

HydroTech — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:39:50 -0000

Here are a few of my post-game thoughts after reviewing the game on DVD.

via www.mybearterritory.com

(1) Audibles. I have never seen so much changing of the plays at the line of scrimmage (audibles) by Cal QBs. While the QBs aren't given free reign of the playbook to call whatever they wish, they do have the ability to change the plays at the LOS (line of scrimmage). Such adjustments can be as simple as changing the direction of runs, choosing between run or pass on "option" plays ("option" as in the QB has a choice between two plays, not the Air Force type of triple-option), or calling up predetermined runs or passes out of certain personnel sets and formations.

Riley changed numerous plays at the LOS, as did Longshore. Clearly, it appears as if both have been given more control of the offense at the LOS. We can infer from this that both QBs must adequate knowledge of defensive formations and schemes to gain such control.

(2) Colorado State couldn't stop our run plays. I guess this is one of those "duh" observations. But let me just elaborate.

Cal didn't even run its usual power run game with the pulling backside guard. Instead, Cal opted for a different man-blocking scheme with straight ahead blocking. No pulls, not a lot of fancy backfield motion. Just plain and simple "we're going to run the ball at you" runs. Boy did it work.

I think Cignetti must have called the same basic bread-n-butter run play out of different formations and motions at around... 17 times by my count. Colorado State knew what was coming and they couldn't stop it.

Why couldn't CSU stop our running game? Well, besides us probably have more athletic and skilled players, I think this has to do with Cal being very physical during the bye week. For those of you who didn't know, Tedford and the players reported that the bye week following the Maryland loss was one of the most, if not the most, physical bye week they've ever had.

The logic behind "going live" (actual hitting and tackling in practice) is debatable since this increases the chances of injury, but it does have its benefits too. Those benefits are getting in real actual football practice rather than the sort of practice mock football practice (where players aren't allowed to tackle and block low on each other, etc.). Like the song says: Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing. It's hard to prepare for something when you haven't really experienced it (see Cal's defense versus Air Force's triple option offense in the first half of the 2007 Armed Forces Bowl).

USC is probably one of more notable programs that has tons of hard-hitting live practices ALL. YEAR. LONG. Petey likes it because the players compete and it gets them ready for games by putting players through everything they'll experience during a game at real speed and real collision speed. Many USC players have often said that practices are tougher than games - that's how hard they go at it in practice. It's hard to prepare for something when you haven't really experienced it.

But like I said, live practices means more injuries which can ruin a team's season in an instant. I guess USC can sort of get away with it since they have more blue chip talent than the other 9 Pac-10 teams combined.

(3) Screens. I get the feeling that Cal fans are tired of seeing screens. Perhaps it's because we seem to call them up so often (but how much is "often"?). Or perhaps fans think those plays are boring and they'd rather see straight dropback passing. I think it's both but slightly in favor of the former latter [Writer error]. I mean, it's like NASCAR racing. Fans like to see the crashes. They want to see the blood, guts, gory glory. Football fans get bored when there's no scoring, big gains, big losses, turnovers or sacks. Methodical offense makes for a boring offense to watch. Fans prefer tons of deep passing - and if deep passing fails there is always the sack or INT to keep the excitement high. But with screens, the QB teases the DL by inviting them in. The football fan is teased at the illusion of a possible sack. But then the QB passes the ball off and it's a big letdown because it's not a dropback pass for 30 yards or a sack or INT.

We all love exciting football, but sometimes the boring screens have to be called. Screens keep the defense honest by punishing them for blitzing and being too aggressive. By calling screens early and often, you're telling the defense to be more passive or pay the price. A less aggressive defense usually means the QB has more time to pass when he does actually drop back for that oh-so-exciting 40 yard bomb.

But certainly I'm not dismissing the idea that Cal screens a lot. Of course, the question is: did Cal screen too much? Or more speciically, how many times did Cal screen against CSU? Five times. Five times out of 26 passes. That's not too much. That's not too much considering CSU was being moderately aggressive on defense with blitzes.

So is Cal screening too much? I don't think so.

"Can never have enough of these out on the field! via artstyleonline.com

(4) Longshore showed great prowess... on defense. I'm not saying he didn't on offense. I'm saying that on the one play when Longshore needed to make a tackle, he did.

I'm sure you're all wondering when Longshore had to make a tackle against CSU. It was when the field goal was blocked. Remember, Longshore is the holder for PATs and FGs. When it was blocked, there was a large mob of CSU defenders fighting for the ball amongst themselves. The other Cal players on the field slowed down their pursuit thinking the play was over and didn't set up outside containment on the mass of CSU players - nobody except Longshore. Longshore looked like Ray Lewis out there. He saw that the play wasn't over and that the CSU defenders could easily wall of the Cal defenders from the sidelines for a touchdown. So what does Longshore do? He cuts to the outside, slicing through CSU's outside containment, and makes a textbook low tackle on the CSU player who had picked up the ball and started running with it.

(5) Riley. Well, he had some good ones and some bad ones. He had some not so good throws under pressure, and he had some not so good throws with little to no pressure. I think even the biggest Riley supporter would have to admit that he hasn't been playing "great" or "good." Perhaps "okay" is the proper adjective. Does this mean it's time to bring in Longshore? I don't know. I'm not Tedford. I haven't seen both QBs in practice. I'm not entirely sure of the extent of their offensive and defensive knowledge. So I'm going to refrain, for now at least, from saying whether it's time for a change.

(6) Longshore getting the moving pocket plays (rollouts). This seemed to be on everyone's mind. All the Riley-supporters were screaming bloody murder that Riley didn't get any but Longshore did. They all want to know why. Some speculate that Tedford is setting up Riley for failure. This is completely ludacrous besides completely ignoring the fact that Cignetti is calling the plays not Tedford.

While none of us may every know why it is that Longshore got (only) two moving pocket plays and Riley got none, there are a few much more reasonable answers.

First, Longshore just got the luck of the draw. Seriously. It's only two plays. It's not like Longshore got 8 rollouts (out of his 13 pass attempts). Perhaps Cignetti just thought the situations presented to Longshore were more appropriate for moving pockets.

Second, ball location. Coaches like to run plays which flow in a certain direction towards the open side of the field (the side of the field with more room if the ball is on a hash). This factor sort of ties in with the "luck" factor. Perhaps it just so happened that when Longshore was the QB, Cignetti thought the location of the ball on a certain down and distance was the perfect time for a moving pocket. I believe that on Longshore's first roll-out play the ball was on the offense's left hash. Thus the resulting roll out play right is more likely than normal.

Now, I know Riley had plays when the ball was off to one hash. I'm sure some people are wondering why Riley didn't get roll outs in those situations. Well, like I said, it's just luck. Perhaps Cignetti didn't feel rollouts were appropriate in those down&distance situations, or the pass didn't match up with Cignetti's script or run/pass balance.

Third, Riley is injured. Now before all the Riley-supporters go freaking out, let me just say I have no inside information on this what so ever. None at all. But if Riley has some sort of lower body injury, it would make sense to limit his execution of plays requiring running. Now, I bring up this highly highly speculative point only because on one passing play, I clearly saw Riley hop-stepping/limping after making a throw and getting hit. Furthermore, on a dropback play with little to none defensive pressure, Riley had extremely poor footwork (which resulted in a high pass). I will admit though, that I didn't notice any visible limp or other upper body injuries during the game and my DVD-rewatch, but that doesn't necessarily mean Riley wasn't injured. Anyways, it's just speculation. Let me repeat, I have no inside information on this issue, nor am I suggesting the Riley is injured. This is merely a possible explanation for why Riley didn't get rollouts whereas Longshore got two.

via www.mybearterritory.com

(7) Gregory blitzed and stunted. As hard as it may be to believe for all the Gregory haters, Gregory did the unthinkable. Yes, he blitzed rather frequently and the DL stunted a decent amount too. I will admit, it's nice to see this, but it should be noted that blitzing and stunting is does have its drawbacks. I say this because all too often I hear people say "the defense needs to blitz" as if there are no drawbacks. While blitzing does have higher reward, it does have higher risk. And while stunting can confuse the OL, it can also result in the DL stunting its way out of position to stop run plays.

Anyways, I'm not saying we shouldn't blitz or stunt, but merely just reminding us all that blitzing and stunting comes with risks.

DBD 09.22.08 - Even Though It Isn't Monday Yet...

HydroTech — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:12:14 -0000

Why only put up the DBD when it actually is the day it's supposed to be? The last DBD is getting a little stale so I figured it's time for a new one!

Let's see what we have on tap. Um, Cal beat BYE Week 107-3, so that's good.

Here's a cool article by SFGate about Cal's renovations:

Major construction will start in January and will cost $140 million, but it doesn't address the experience of the paying customer. That comes with Phase II, retrofitting and modernizing the west side of the stadium, which won't start until summer of 2010 at the soonest. Phase III, the east side, follows, but no start date has been set.

Originally scheduled to follow Phase I, there is now talk of doing Phase II concurrently to lop a year off the timeline. The retrofitting will require Cal to play the 2011 season elsewhere. The entire project is expected to be finished in 2014.

This much is known: The Beaux Arts bowl - John Galen Howard was the architect - dedicated to "Californians who gave their lives in the World War" (Phase I not II), will not be compromised, nor will the proximity of seats to the playing field. They aren't going to pop on an upper deck to double the seating. The bowl may lose 10,000 seats for code requirements, but they aren't going to sacrifice capacity for comfort by lopping off thousands more seats.

There will never be luxury boxes. There will be 4,000 stadium chairs and special seats in the press box for donors, but there probably won't be backrests or armrests for the other 55,000 or 60,000. They will have to settle for more restrooms and access to concessions, and avenues of egress in the event of a major eruption.

Guess what? Cal is predicted to finish 3rd in the Pac by ESPN's Schlabach and 2nd in the Pac by ESPN's Feldman!

Schlabach predicts that the Sun Bowl matchup will be:

California vs. Oklahoma State

Feldman predicts that the Holiday Bowl matchup will be:

California vs. texASS

I'm a douchebag!!! via upload.wikimedia.org

I would like nothing more than for Cal to play TexASS and beat them the holy-fuck down (sorry NorcalLonghorn). Mack Brown and his cowboy followers will be no match for the faster than ESS-EEE-SEE speed Jahvid Best, the moxy of Kevin Riley, and the oh so dreamy Brock Mansion. Yeah, so screw all of TexASS, it's fans (except NorCalLonghorn - whom we all adore), and all things TexASS including Burnt Orange Nation - they're a bunch of wackjobs anyways.

California >>> Texas
Blue >>> burnt orange
earthquakes >>> hurricanes

Poll

Who is a bigger douchebag?

Reviewing Cal @ Maryland: What Happened to Cal's Running Game?

HydroTech — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:04:48 -0000

I apologize for my lack of posting (prior to this post, I've only put up one meaningful post this entire month). School is now in full swing and unfortunately it takes up quite a bit of time leaving me little time to put aside a large chunk of time to blog or even sleep. Nevertheless, despite the busy life I lead, Maryland has been on my mind.

You see, I was perusing the internet a few days ago and read something by fellow Cal sports blogger sdgldnbear of The Bear Will Not Quit that caught my attention. Sdgldnbear wrote in his Maryland debriefing:

I have read a lot of criticism that the Cal o-line was "dominated." This is simply untrue. Yeah, they got beat a few times, but their problem was missing blocks and blocking the wrong guys most of the time. In my pregame write-up, I predicted this very thing would present problems for the Bears vs. Maryland, because I noticed Wazzu have some moderate "success" with it when their linebackers played aggressively, rather than passively. I was worried that with the odd numbers, pre-snap shifts, and overloads, Cal's blocking schemes would be frustrated.

This got me wondering, was Cal's OL really "dominated?" Off the top of my head, I want to say Yes. Perhaps "dominated" is a bit too harsh of an adjective, but I don't think I could say the Cal OL played excellent, great, good, well, above average, or even average. Maybe "dominated" is a bit much but I thought it certainly was below average.

Friend of the blog and fellow sturdy Cal sports blogger Avinash over at Bears Necessity wrote in his report card review:

Run blocking: What does humidity do to these guys? The same problems emerged in the Tennessee game, where Cal could not move the ball or protect the quarterback. Chet Teofilo and Noris Malele did not look sharp. Even Alex Mack went mad. Everytime [sic] early in the game it seemed the offense made a big play, the offensive line committed a stupid penalty to bring it right back.

The Bears had three rushes over seven years [sic] the entire game. They had three rushes over forty yards last week. This is a slight downgrade.

Grade: F

Pass protection: Kevin Riley got sacked five times and knocked to the ground a few more times. Some of it was due to his holding the ball, some of it wasn’t. This was still their worst performance in years, especially considering the underwhelming performances of the the team they were facing. Oh well, Maryland’s pass defense seemed to finally awaken after their trashing last week.

Grade: D-

Avinash seemed to think the OL didn't do so well. So here, we had two notable Cal sports bloggers differing in opinion.

Naturally, I began wondering if the OL didn't really play well at all such as Avinash suggested or if there were other problems such as sdgldnbear suggested, namely that Cal's OL was frustrated by "the odd numbers, pre-snap shifts, and overloads" (sdgldnbear supra).

Sdgldnbear finds confirmation of his theory in a quote by Jahvid Best:

"They loaded up the box. They came with a lot of blitzes. They overloaded on the strong side. It was just hard to pick up the right guys and make a read so we just got to go in there and watch the film and get better at it."

Well, a careful reading of the quote seems to verify that indeed the offense was stymied by "overloads" as sdgldnbear suggests, but only a very big stretch in interpretation of the quote can be conclusively read to confirm the two other factors that sdgldnbear suggests: odd numbers (fronts), and pre-snap shifts.

Of course, this doesn't mean that sdgldnbear is wrong. He could very well be right. But I wanted to find out what really the problem. Jahvid Best seems only to suggest it was because Maryland loaded the box. Sdgldnbear suggests it was a combination of 3 factors. Avinash seems to suggest the OL just straight up didn't play well. Who was right? Was it just because the Maryland D loaded up the box? Or was it truly a combination of the three factors suggested by sdgldnbear? Or did the OL just not play well as suggested by Avinash? Or was it a combination of all of those reasons?

To answer my question, I watched the game over again...

In my analysis, I only focused on Cal's running game which, as many of you hardcore Cal fans know, is the stamp of a Tedford offense instead of the passing game.

So my question was: what went wrong with Cal's running game?

The answer I found: Maryland's defensive alignment. More specifically where their DL guys were lined up as opposed to the fact that there were only three.

Here's what I saw...

Above is the pre-snap look. Cal has "base" personnel ( aka 21 personnel - 2 backs; 2 WRs; 1 TE) on the field. Maryland is in their 3-4 look with the leo as a stand-up linebacker on the LOS to the offense's left.

But then the defense shifts into a different formation. It's not a 4-3 (four down linemen and three linebackers) but it more or less looks like one but there are some critical differences.

The big difference is the location of the Maryland strong side DE which I've circled above. In a 4-3 defense, that player circled above would be a DT and would be lined up on the red triangle instead of where the player is currently lined up. See, in a 4-3 defense, the DT usually lines up to the outside shoulder of the guard (in a 3 technique) which is where the red triangle is. But Maryland uses its 3-4 defense and plays its strong side DE shaded to the outside shoulder of the offensive tackle (in a 5 technique) which is where the player currently is above. The location of the strong side DE will cause lots of problems which we'll get to later.

Before we can understand how the location of the strongside DE will affect Cal's blocking schemes, we first must understand how Cal's power running game works against a 4-3 defense. Why a 4-3 defense? Because that's what most schools use for their defense (at least the ones that Cal faces in the Pac-10). So the purpose of understanding how Cal's running game works against a 4-3 defense will allow us to see what Cal normally tries to accomplish with their power running game. So in the picture above, I've photoshopped out the Maryland players on the LOS (line of scrimmage) and put triangles where Maryland's defensive linemen would be lined up if they played a 4-3 defense. Those positions would be to the outside/left shoulder of Cal's LT (left tackle), to left shoulder of Cal's C (center), to the outside/right shoulder of Cal's RG (right guard), and to the outside/right shoulder of Cal's TE (tight end).

There are a couple of ways in which Cal can block against a 4-3 defense. I will explain one particular way. So when Cal wants to block against a 4-3 defense, the center will block the NT (nose tackle) and the LT (left tackle) will block the WDE (weakside defensive end). I've put the blocks as blue lines above.

On the play side, Cal's RG and RT would provide a combination block, a block where both the RG and RT engage the DT (defensive tackle), with one of the players later breaking off to block the WLB (weakside linebacker). Which player breaks off to block the WLB depends on the angle which the WLB takes to the ball carrier. If the WLB takes a lower angle, the RG will break off to block. If the WLB takes a higher angle, the LT will break off to block because he'll have a better angle (an angle that is more head-on and not so perpendicular). Anyways, I've shown the combo block as yellow lines. The Cal TE also blocks out the MLB (middle linebacker).

Then the Cal FB (fullback) kicks out the Maryland strong side defensive end.

And finally, the Cal LG pulls around and blocks the Maryland SLB (strong side linebacker). As you can see in the picture above, all 7 players in Maryland's 4-3 defense would be blocked by Cal's 7 blockers leaving the Cal RB to run free.

But Maryland isn't in a 4-3. They're in their 3-4 which is shifted around to the strong side.

So what happens, is that because the Maryland SDE is lined up shaded outside the RT instead of the RG, the combo block must be carried out by the Cal RT and TE because the SDE is between them instead normally being between the RG and RT. I've shown the combo block of the Cal RT and TE above (the RT and TE will still work to block the a Maryland backer but this time it's the MLB instead of the WLB). The RT & TE combo block is a problem because the SDE has a better angle of attack into the backfield when combo blocked by the RT and TE (rather than the RG and RT) because the TE has to reach on his combo block and is later left alone to block the SDE at a bad angle when the RT comes off the combo block to block the MLB. As we'll see later on, the bad angle results in the TE giving up inside leverage to the SDE who gets in the backfield to stop Cal's run. But first let's finish up the blocking assignments...

Continuing along with the rest of the blocking scheme, the backside guard (the LG) pulls to block the Maryland MLB, and the fullback kicks out the Maryland SLB. I've shown these blocks with blue lines above. I've left out the other blocks, but essentially, C, LT, and RG would block the three remaining Maryland defenders who are a part of the 3-4 defense.

Now let's get to the problem with the location of that Maryland SDE. Here is a post-snap picture. I've circled the RT and TE executing the combo block on the Maryland SDE.

In the picture above, the RT has broken off from the combo block to engage the Maryland MLB leaving the TE to block the SDE. As I said earlier, the SDE has inside leverage on the TE leaving the TE reaching on his block. Thus the TE is not blocking the SDE head on but sort of at a 45 degree angle. Unless the TE gets his feet around quickly to block the SDE head on during the brief combo block, the SDE will get leverage on the TE and get into the backfield. That is what exactly happened on this play. I've circled the TE and SDE in the picture above. It's hard to see, but the SDE has already beat the TE and is heading into the backfield.

And once in the backfield, the SDE hits Jahvid Best in the backfield which would result in a tackle for loss (picture above).

That's the problem with Maryland's defensive line alignment with their 3-4 defense.

Now, this play I just broke down was Cal's 5th offensive play and Cal's first attempt at running their power run game against Maryland's defense. So, on Cal's first rushing attempt with their power run game (which has traditionally averaged over 5 yards per attempt), the play results in a definitive tackle for loss.

After this play resulted in a loss, Cal switches immediately to a zone blocking scheme for run plays (except for a few special circumstances due to the design of those plays). Cal normally likes to use man-blocking and has traditionally been highly successful with it against 4-3 defenses. But things change when facing a 3-4 and Cignetti switched to zone blocking.

I think Cignetti wanted to run Cal's power running play once to see how well Cal's players could execute against Maryland's alignment. If it worked well, I think Cignetti would have stuck with it. If it didn't, Cignetti was ready to switch the zone blocking. As we saw here, it didn't work and Cignetti made the switch.

Now, Cal can be successful with it's traditional man-blocking scheme against the 3-4. Certainly, it's not impossible to use Cal's normal blocking scheme against a 3-4, which is what Cal tried to do, but it requires that: (1) Cal's players block against a scheme they are not used to, and (2) some of Cal's players execute from a less desirable position - namely the TE. Who is Cal's starting TE? Morrah. What's his strength? Pass catching.

Later in the game, Cignetti gave the man-blocking power run game another shot and called up the same play above (formation flipped). The following play was called in the 2nd quarter.

Note that the formation in the play above is flipped than the first play. This play was once again supposed to be man-blocking with a backside pulling guard (in this play the RG). Maryland shows their usual 3-4 defense. The "leo" linebacker is the one to the offense's right that is on the line of scrimmage.

But then Maryland shifts over to the strong side. If you look at Riley, he is looking towards the RB and FB and conveying that the play has been changed. Yes, Riley has changed the play. Riley was probably under direction by Tedford or Cignetti to change the play to a zone blocking scheme should Maryland shift back over to the strong side. Cal knew that Maryland would be ready for the play and this time Cignetti was ready to change out of man-blocking to zone blocking.

Here's the post-snap picture. As you can see, there is no pulling backside guard. The entire OL blocks left trying to open up some sort of seam for Best.

But unfortunately, there is no seam. A Maryland defender comes in down in a gap of the zone blocking (circled above), and...

tackles Best for a loss (above). For those of you with the game still on your Tivo, I would suggest watching this play. The entire sequence of the defense shifting, and Riley subsequently changing the play is very obvious.

Anyways, Maryland had Cal's running game scouted out pretty well. You see, Cal has a HUGE tendency to run its power run game out of the formation seen above (I-Formation). I think this tendency is somewhere near the 75% range and perhaps even more. It's something I've noticed over the past few years but have refrained to point out for the team's protection but it's just so painfully obvious now that it doesn't matter. It was blatantly obvious to me, and apparently it was obvious enough for Maryland to notice on game film. Whenever Cal showed I-Formation, Maryland seemed to shift over in anticipation for the run.

Cignetti needs to improve the playcalling diversity out of this formation for the team's protection, success, and efficiency.

So, going back to the whole point of this post: what happened to Cal's running game?

Cignetti didn't like how our man-blocking power run game was matching up against Maryland's defensive line alignment and went to zone blocking (which we rarely use). As I said earlier, the very next run play after the disastrous first run play was a zone blocking scheme. The following few run plays were also zone blocking plays (aside from a few select plays which were different in nature). The Cal OL is not as effective zone blocking as they are with man blocking. The blocking wasn't as good. Runs weren't as effective.

In the end, I do think both Avinash and sdgldnbear were correct in their theories. Avinash is correct in concluding that Cal's OL didn't play well - they certainly didn't. Sdgldnbear suggests that perhaps "dominated" isn't the correct adjective to describe their performance since there were missed blocks and missed assignments as opposed to hitting all the blocks and assignments and still getting overpowered. Sdgldnbear has a point but I'm still inclined to believe that Cal's OL was not creating holes for the RBs as they normally do, and as they are capable of doing. Thus, I can't quite agree that the Cal OL wasn't "dominated," but I can agree that "dominated" is perhaps too strong of a word choice.

As for whether the pre-snap shifting and the odd fronts was also a problem for our OL. Well, certainly they had an effect, but I think the greater underlying problem was not that Maryland uses an odd front (3 down lineman) and executes pre-snap defensive shifts, but the bigger problem was where those defensive players were lined up. The location and scheme of their defense was the greater problem last Saturday which forced our offense to adapt by executing in a manner that wasn't their specialty.

Cal @ Maryland Torrent

HydroTech — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:05:10 -0000

Cal @ Maryland Torrent

Torrent for Cal @ Maryland. Thanks to Chicagoaubear.

Post-Maryland Thoughts: Cal 27, Maryland 35

HydroTech — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:30:31 -0000

So, there are a lot of reasons for why we lost today.

via imgs.sfgate.com

Let's start with the refs. They certainly didn't help. Bad calls: (1) Holding on Teofilo later in the game when he wasn't holding; (2) facemask call on Rulon when there was no facemask; (3) non-call safety depriving Cal of 2 points and another possession; (4) no false start call on Maryland late in the 4th quarter when Cal was trying to get the ball back... I'm sure there were others.

But we can't just blame the refs. In fact, as bad as some of the calls were today, the team itself played worse than the refereeing.

Let's start with the many reasons why:

(1) Bad OL blocking. Some might blame Jahvid Best. Afterall, he only had 25 yards and a 2.5 yard average. But astute fans would have noticed nothing was wrong with Best but instead the problem was with the OL. There was nary a sliver of daylight for Best today.

(2) Riley's slow start. Today's game was a big test for Riley - starting a somewhat big away game with a hostile crowd in the early morning. Plus, we wanted to see Riley bounce back from his overthrow-athon last game. Well, unfortunately, Riley started out slow. A few overthrows meant zero chance of conversions.

(3) Young WRs. You know, it's always hard to critique the WRs because they're always off the screen and thus you can't see them, but with a young group of WRs they almost always have a few problems with running routes, reading defenses, and in plain language: just getting open. Today was probably one of those days when the WRs were just getting blanketed and couldn't really break free.

(4) On defense, we couldn't stop their basic power run scheme. I mean, they KILLED us with their basic power run pulling guard scheme. Our defensive guys weren't flowing to the ball, they were getting picked up by the blockers... ugly all around.

(5) Zone coverage. Our zones were getting pickd apart pretty darn well today. But there's not a lot we can do really other than get a faster pass rush, and perhaps have better anticipation on passes. Because we got picked apart in zones necessarily mean we should switch to man? Not really. There seems to be a huge dislike of zone coverage by many Cal fans. The reasoning seems to be that zone coverages don't work. Well, today they didn't, but zone does work and has in the past in previous years. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more than 50% of our INTs in the past 3 years were from zone coverages rather than man coverages. Anyways, we did use man coverages today too and Maryland threw a touchdown on us when we did. Both types of coverage work and sometimes they don't work either.

(6) Pass rush. Well, we seemed to have a few rare plays of decent pressure, and even a few sacks, but for the most part we just couldn't seem to get Chris Turner rattled. He was 15-19 for the day and threw 2 TDs. Plain and simple, Turner played like a stud today. He threw some great passes and played tough.

(7) Run defense. Did I already touch on this? Well, I'll say again... Maryland's runningbacks averaged 4.6 and 6.3 yards per carry. Holy hell. 4.6 is good. 6.3 is reaching Marshawn-esque. Good god we were getting gashed. Sort of reminded me of the first quarter of the Armed Forces Bowl last year.

(8) Weather. I'm not a big fan of the whole heat and humidity argument - that our players aren't used to the heat and we were shocked by it or something and we got our panties in a bunch because the humidity was 80% or something. I mean, yes, it has an effect but I think the weather was pretty minimal in our loss today. Instead, I think the...

(9) Time change was a bigger factor. Tedford flew out the team on Friday after supposedly trying to acclimate the team to east coast time here in CA. Frankly, I didn't like this decision. I would rather fly out the team on Thursday. One of Tedford's reasons was that he doesn't like going out early because there just seems to be too much dead time. Well, I'd rather have too much dead time than having players not acclimated for the time change. The players seemed a little dreary in the first half. In contrast, it didn't seem like it was until the second half when we were getting our butts kicked for a good 1.5 hours that the team started to show a little life, and energy.

(10) Coverage sacks & bad sacks. So we gave up like 6 or 7 sacks today I think. Some were "coverage sacks" meaning that the QB has to hold on to the ball longer than he should due to the fact that the defense has all the WRs covered and thus is sacked. I think there were clearly 3-4 coverage sacks this game. I think Riley has to sort of learn that the ball has to be gone by a certain time. This is one aspect of QBing that Tedford emphasizes (I know myself since I heard him preaching getting the ball out on time all the time in practices).

via imgs.sfgate.com

On the other hand, Cal clearly had some plain sacks given up due to getting beat on the line. Most noticeably, I think we were getting beat at RG and LT. Most especially on the blind side, Teofilo seemed to be having a really tough time dealing with Maryland's RE. Overall, pass blocking was not good.

(11) Riley vs. Good Defense. I wrote this in our Previewing the Season: Maryland post earlier this season:

Speaking of the 3-4, while our 3-4 is getting put to the test against Maryland's tendency to run, our offense is going to be going up against Maryland's 3-4 defense. The last time Cal faced a 3-4 defense was against Air Force last year in the bowl game. We all know what happened that game - we blew up Air Force's secondary and zone coverages. Now we'll have to see if we can do that again but against BCS quality players. To wit: Terp MLB and senior Dave Philistin appears to be the stud of linebackers who tallied 124 tackles last year; SLB and senior Moise Fokou started all last year and logged 83 tackles; CB and senior Kevin Barnes has 4.45 speed and tallied 65 tackles in the secondary; and starting at FS for the Terps will probably be the very very highly touted transfer and former Southern Cal Trojan Antwine Perez. These guys aren't your average Air Force cadets. These guys can definitely put up a good fight for the Cal offense.

Well, the big point I was trying to make was that Maryland's defense has some pretty good players on it and it would be interesting to see how Riley (especially) would perform against a better defense than the Air Force defense. Riley carved up Air Force pretty bad but the AF defenders weren't half the players that Maryland has on defense. Anyways, Riley and the WRs seemed to have a much tougher time against Maryland's better defense.

*****

The positives. Look, let's try and be positive. Today was a bad game, but most of our expectations of us blowing out Maryland was due to Maryland sucking it up their past two games rather than because of our own team. We knew we were a decent team that performed very very well last week but we also were playing WSU who is as bad as Duke.

So my point is that if it weren't for Maryland sucking it up the past two weeks, we'd have expectations that this game would have been close. After Maryland lost to Middle Tennessee State last week, they came out with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove. They looked energized at pre-game and brought a better game to the table than they did last week.

Anyways, back to the positives:

(1) Riley did get into a groove. It took him nearly 3 quarters but he finally did. So, it's not like he played 4 quarters of mediocre play. It was like 1 quarter of sub-par play, 2 quarters of okay play, and 1 quarter of above average play. In the end, Riley was 33 out of 58 for the day (56.9%) which isn't great or good - more like "eh."

(2) The 4th quarter was good passing practice. Nothing is quite like a real game against a real defense. Being down and having to pass every play was good practice for Riley and the WRs. In the future, if Cal is down again and needs to pass to comeback, I'm glad we'll have some prior experience.

via imgs.sfgate.com

(3) I'm trying to say something positive about the defense but I'm not sure I can. They just didn't seem to elevate their play later in the 4th quarter. I know they were trying when the offense started putting up points but they just gave up another rushing touchdown right off the bat after our first onside kick.

(4) Riley's leadership. Okay, this is possibly the biggest benefit of today. On the sidelines, Riley could clearly be seen pumping up his teammates, and trying to rally the troops. That's what we need. We need that Brett Favre kind of guy (without all the interceptions) who can rally the troops, spark a comeback, and inspire hope.

Anyways, these are my post game thoughts.

Yes, today sucked but I don't think we need to panic. We all thought Maryland was worse than they were and we were wrong. They played down to their opponents the first few games and we got surprised by them early and were affected by the time change.

Keep positive. The sky is not falling.

Poll

How are you feeling after this game?

Live Blog for USC vs. Ohio State

HydroTech — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:22:11 -0000

GAME OF THE YEAR!!! WELLS IS OUT!!! BUT CAN THE BUCKEYES STILL WIN?

We all hate Southern Cal, but we need them to represent the Pac-10 after a poor showing today by all other Pac-10 teams.

Go Bears! and Fight On?