There seems to be a lot of talk about coaching decisions.  I suppose there were some questionable calls, but hindsight is 20/20.  Had some of those coaching calls actually worked, nobody would be criticizing them. 

*4 running plays at the goalline.  All four apparently failed to get a score.  Should one of the plays been a playaction play?  Sure.  Maybe.  But we were at their inches and 1 yard line.  Our failure to score on the first three runs lands squarely on the shoulders of the offensiveline, tight ends, and fullback.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying Tedford isn’t void of criticism here.  I’m just saying that the OL and the rest of the blockers could take some heat too, not just Tedford. 

*The "squib kick" which set up Oregon State’s 52 yard field goal right before half time.  Read this quote from Tedford: "The kickoff was supposed to go the back guys, but it didn’t get there," said Tedford. "Sometimes you don’t want to front guys to field them and you want them to get out of the way. It wasn’t supposed to go to him."  So it WASN’T A BAD coaching decision by Tedford.  The failure of the ball reaching the back guys falls on the kicker.  (Quote can be found here from the BearInsider).

*Not keeping any time outs in reserve for a last second field goal.  This is debatable.  In the second half, our first time out was used to rest our defense when Oregon State was at our 1 yard line.  I am torn between what to do here.  The majority of me feels like it’s really hard to stop the offense from getting one yard so why use a timeout here on something so uncertain?  The minority part of me agrees that resting the defense to make a goalline stand is the right decision.  But the decision must be taken in context.  At the time Cal was up 21-20 early in the fourth quarter.  Protecting the lead, no matter how small is crucial.  But then again, saving timeouts for a possible comeback is also crucial.  I’m not sure if there is a right or wrong decision in this case.  I can see good arguments on both sides.  Fans may feel that Tedford shouldn’t have used the timeout here because we obviously needed one at the end of the game, but like I said before, hindsight is 20/20. 

*The other two timeouts of the second half were used to stop the clock when Oregon State had their final possession.  This was excellent coaching.  Both timeouts NEEDED to be used.  If we had only used one timeout, our offense would have only been left with 50-55 seconds or so to get down the field instead of 1:19 left.   

*Not kicking a field goal at the end of the game when it was first down.  Well, this was probably the right coaching decision - probably.  We had fourteen seconds or so left.  Tedford obviously wanted to get a touchdown if he could to just win the game.  I think going for the win with one more plays before a field goal is the right decision (but I also understand that merely kicking the field goal to take it to overtime is justifiable too).  As for what particular play Tedford called and if it was the right call for that situation, I don’t know.  I’d have to see the replay (all I can tell you right now that it was a shotgun play with a left bunch).  But the only person that is probably certified to make that judgment is Tedford himself. 

*As for our defensive philosophy.  Oh, this is a touchy subject.  I can tell from the comments on blogs and from posts on BearInsider.  I have been a protector of Gregory so far this year.  I’m cool with his philosophy, in general.  But I also do feel like there are times when changes must be made based on the opponent.  I thought using the BBDB was an excellent decision when we played Tennessee and Oregon.  Prior to this the game against Oregon State I was sure we’d see Gregory change to a more aggressive, attacking, and proactive defense to force Canfield into tough situations.  This, we did not see.  And honestly, this is where I am sort of disappointed in Gregory.  As we all know, even mediocre QBs can complete passes with enough time to throw.  I would have preferred to see Gregory blitz more but in Gregory’s forgiveness our defensive line (when we rushed four) also failed to produce consistent and impactful pressure on Canfield (I don’t think "impactful is a word but whatever).  Obviously, Gregory seemed to be banking on the fact that Canfield would eventually make a mistake and throw an interception.  This isn’t a bad assumption, but it sort of hinges on the fact that our defense be in position to receive the interception.  And as we all know, zones break down as the play progresses, defenders get out of position, and receivers find the seams of the zone defense.  BBDB can be a great defense IF the front four gets better pressure on the QB.  Otherwise the BBDB turns into the QB playing catch with the receivers between and underneath the zones.

*So who deserves the criticism for the defense?  Well, I think Gregory isn’t undeserving but player performance is too.  Let me explain.  The quick solution for getting pressure on the QB is blitzing.  This is also the quick answer and solution for every Cal fan who dislikes Gregory.  But please realize, blitzing is high-risk and high-reward. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.  If the QB gets the pass off, there are much fewer defenders in the secondary to make tackles, or swat balls.  We all remember Sportscenter highlights where the QB gets sacked off a blitz.  And we also remember Sportscenter highlights where the QB makes a brilliant tough touchdown throw.  But what often gets overlooked is that the QB made that brilliant tough touchdown throw against a blitz.  And that there weren’t any linebackers in the second level to help tackle.  Or how maybe the safety blitzed and thus the corner was on an island. There are tradeoffs for blitzing.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  It is HARDLY the easy solve-all solution for our problems. 

*Defensive front four pressure.  Ideally, the BBDB works best when the front three or four gets good pressure on the QB without the aid of a blitz.  This forces the QB to throw against 7-8 men in coverage.  Without good pressure on the QB, well, you know what happens.  So maybe Gregory should have blitzed but then again a good argument can be made that he’s just relying on the DL to get good pressure.  While I’m sure the DL was playing tough and a very physical game, I’m sure they’d all agree that they weren’t as successful against the Oregon State OL as they would have liked. 

Anyways, the point of this post is to just try and bring some reason and rational to the discussions of coach criticism.  I’m seeing way too much blind bashing without reason to justify.  I’m not saying coaches are above criticism, but that there needs to be justification and reason behind the criticism.  There needs to be thorough examination of the thoughts and reasoning behind the coaching decisions before one blindly rails a coach for something which didn’t go right.  And remember, for the most part this is all relative.  Had we won, there would be A LOT less criticism about our defense (I’m not saying there would be none, just that there would be a lot less).  And finally, hindsight is 20/20.  Just because something worked doesn’t make it right.  Just because something didn’t work doesn’t make it wrong either.    

Well, after a review of various online Cal voices, it has become exceedingly clear to me that this team is done.  So, whose bandwagon are *you* going to jump on?

Me, I’m going with TCU.  I mean according to the transitive property they just upset USC.  At home!  Unbelievable.  I never saw that coming!

And it’s not like the transitive property is ever wrong.  It’s a mathematical certainty.  

GO HORNED FROGS! 

*Longshore or Riley?  Who should start?  Obviously, I think this decision might have had the biggest impact on the game.  While Riley played very well for his first start, I think it’s safe to assume that this would have been a whole different game with Longshore in there.  We might have won.  Or actually, we still might have lost. 

*The pressure to start an injured key player.  Tedford isn’t the kind of coach to start a player who isn’t 100%.  We’ve seen this before in past years and this year with Hicks, Tau’ufo’ou, Follett, Davis, and Malele.  And while we all want to win the game, we should be in agreeance that Tedford’s policy is the right choice.  Is it really worth potentially further injuring a player, and having him sustain a serious career or life ending injury, just to win a game?  No.  The answer is no all the time.  No.  No.  No.   

*What killed us?  The turnover battle.  Cal had three.  Oregon State had one.  Fumbling is inexcusable.  Tedford has said this before, and I know the runningbacks would all agree too.  We can’t fumble the ball.  I’m no lawyer but I think there is some sort of thing in law called "strict liability."  Essentially, it means you’re liable for the act no matter what, even if you didn’t intend it.  Fumbling is like that.  Runningbacks are strictly liable when it comes to fumbles.  No excuses.  It shouldn’t have happened.

*As for the interception, I think that’s a team interception.  I really don’t think we can say it was Riley’s fault.  Afterall, he didn’t see the hit coming (IIRC, he was hit from the back side) and what happens with the ball when he gets hit is up to random chance - just ask Erik Ainge. 

*Note to fellow Cal fan student in the student section who yelled "cover up the ball!" after Riley was hit and subsequently intercepted: Riley didn’t "cover up" because he was trying to throw the ball.  Riley didn’t see the hit coming.  If anyone is to blame it’s the offensive line.  I understand your frustration, but please direct it accordingly. 

*Where was Desean Jackson today?  Well, drawing double teams of course!  Honestly, if THA1 had game performances just as good as his Oregon performance throughout the rest of the year, he’d win the Heisman easy.  I was hoping today would be a repeat of his Oregon performance.  Sadly, it was not.  No fault of his though.  Wide receivers are inherently disadvantaged to quarterback Heisman candidates because QBs pass the ball 20-75 times a game (ahem, Colt Brennan against San Jose St.).  Runningback Heisman candidates will run the ball 20-35 times a game such as Arkansas’ Darren McFadden.  On the other hand, wide receivers only catch the ball 1-10 times a game usually.  They get much fewer chances to impact the game and make a Heisman statement.  Enough with the Heisman talk.  I know Tedford was trying to get the ball to THA1 so he can do his thing, but I just wished they had been able to do that more. 

*On the bright side, THA1 opens up things for Lavelle Hawkins.  Hawk had 9 catches for a buck ninety-two and two TDs.  Let’s not forget a few clutch catches.  He caught our final touchdown of the game, and also that critical 4th and a mile conversion on the last drive.  With stats and performances like that, it’s no wonder he’s been such a fan favorite this season.  Although I just gotta say that I’ve been reppin’ Hawk from day-1 (yes, even the year he only had 18 receptions, 171 yards, and 1 TD) as having NFL talent. 

*Oregon State has a good run defense?  Maybe so.  But we have a good rush blocking offensive line.  Forsett had 150 yards on 28 carries (5.4 yard average).  Not bad, not bad at all.  

*Well, as for that "we have a good rush blocking offensive line" comment, I think we do but we couldn’t punch it in on the goalline after 4 tries.  So that comment shouldn’t be unequivocally accepted.   

*Anybody want to mention Andrew Larson?  He had 4 punts for a 55.8 yard average, with that long of 73 yards!!!  I’m not quite sure who was Cal’s player of the game, Larson or Hawkins?  

*I’ll have to download the torrent of the game and watch it before I can provide much detailed and accurate analysis but here are a few thoughts:

*We seemed to run the ball a lot from shotgun at first.  Most games we only run from shotgun around 3 times.  I think we ran from shotgun 3 times in our first possession.  

*If it wasn’t obvious, Tedford’s gameplan was to run the ball early and often with Riley as the quarterback.  I don’t think this says that he doesn’t have faith, but that he just wants Riley to get over those initial first game jitters before throwing the ball other than on 3rd down.  

*Riley looked like he pulled out from under center early on the first snap of our first possession.  If that’s what happened then we’re lucky we didn’t get a false start penalty. 

*Riley also appeared to forget a few of the playcall numbers.  I watched Van Meter signal in the plays, and a few times it appeared as if Riley had to request a repeat of the signals from Van Meter because he forgot what play was called by the time all the players congregated in the huddle. 

*BUT, Riley did catch a coaching error out there.  On one particular play we were supposed to have 12 personnel out there (1 RB, 2 TEs, [2 WRs is implicit]).  Van Meter signaled in the play to Riley.  Riley read the play out to the players in the huddle, then realized that one of the TEs was missing.  He then turned to the sideline and signaled that we should have the 12 personnel set out there.  The coaches saw this and sent in the appropriate player.  So despite Riley pulling out from center early, and forgetting a few of the playcalls, he did catch a coaching mistake.  Good job, Riley.

*The defense was it’s usual BBDB self (bend but don’t break).  Few blitzes, lots of LBs dropping back into zones.  Overall the defense did a decent job.  Oregon State was held to 339 total yards, and Yvenson Bernard was held to 3.3 yard rush average on 33 carries which is just okay for NCAA football.  

*On the negative side though, the defense’s pass rush was lacking.  It seemed as if Canfield had beautiful pockets all.  day… long.  Like, all day.  The solution is either to blitz (the quick answer) or just get a better pass rush from your front four (ideal).  

*As for Riley’s performance, he started off shaky but got better as the game went along.  Obviously I think his shaky performance to start the game was just because he was nervous.  Otherwise he had some great throws.  Even some of his incomplete throws were still good throws.  His long balls were pretty darn good.  A few were off, but a few were absolute cash money.  Specifically the one to Hawk going towards the south endzone and along the west sideline, and the one to Jordan going north along the east sideline.  Those two throws were SICK.  Tedford said earlier this week that Riley has the best long ball of all his prior quarterbacks, and honestly, based on what I’ve seen I’d have to agree.  

*Riley is also excellent in the pocket.  Did you notice how naturally and fearlessly he slides and steps up into the pocket after his dropbacks?  Doing this allows the OL to better maintian a pocket and helps open up passing lanes. 

*Riley also has pretty good pocket presence too.  He knows when things are breaking down and when it’s time to tuck it and run.  Unfortunately, this also probably caused him to make that error at the end of the game.  We all know he was supposed to throw the ball away to stop the clock and he knows it too but things aren’t that easy out there when you’re on the field.  The play is unfolding quickly, adrenaline is pumping through him, he might have been nervous a little bit still.  But why didn’t he throw the ball away?  I don’t know.  Mental error, brain fart, all of the above?  I propose this explanation.  Tedford has always taught his QBs not to force the ball.  And so when nobody is open they are supposed to tuck the ball and run (or throw the ball away if they can’t run).  In that situation, Riley thought nobody was open so he did what he has always has done, what he has been taught to do, what has been made instinctual to him, and that is tuck the ball and run.  Obviously, in the future he’ll have to remember that in those situations he’s supposed to throw the ball away but in that situation I think his inexperience got the best of him.

*Aside from the shaky start and the mental error at the end of the game I am very pleased with what I saw from Riley.  He has a strong arm, a good looking deep ball arm, good pocket presence, footwork, timing, and accuracy.  Is it too early and bold for me to say that I think he might be Tedford’s next truly "great one?"