UCLA Post-Game Thoughts
*Longshore starts. Alright. I’m cool with that. He’s experienced, and he can run the offense. As for his ankle injury, I’m sure Tedford wouldn’t start Longshore unless he didn’t think Longshore couldn’t perform. And throughout the game it didn’t look like it bothered him that much. I don’t think his injury had that much of an impact on his performance.
*I was sure glad to see Desean Jackson get so many catches early in the game. I think Tedford was making a serious effort at getting him the ball and UCLA wasn’t double teaming him as much as other teams. They sure paid for it but I also think that their decision is the right one. When teams double Jackson, Hawkins blows them up. When teams don’t double Jackson, Jackson blows them up. Take your pick.
*One thing that did bother me about THA1 was that he was so concerned with getting a defensive pass interference flag every time he didn’t catch the ball. It seemed like regardless if there was contact and THA1 didn’t catch the ball he was looking to the refs for the hanky. I know there were definitely some instances where they PI-ed him, but geez… Just play the game, do what you can, worry about what you can control.
*Cal’s run defense. Alright, plain and simple it sucked. Surpringly the stats say they only averaged 4.1 yards per carry. I thought it would have been more. Time after time it just seemed like UCLA would do a simple run up the middle, get stopped by the initial pile, then slip out for a 5 yard gain, get stopped, then fall forward for another 1-2 yards. Our run D just couldn’t stop the UCLA backs. Oh, and UCLA rushed the ball 45 times. They shoved the ball down our throats and tired out the D.
*Poor tackling. Lots and lots of "hitting" and not wrapping up the ball carrier. I think we saw a lot of this when trying to tackle the UCLA runningbacks and also in the secondary.
*The defense in general. Well, I thought Gregory would do his usual BBDB but he actually brought heat. Or I should say, he brought heat more often than he normally does. Cal blitzed moreso this game than I can remember in most games this season. Unfortunately our blitzes didn’t get much pressure. Obviously Gregory wanted to try and get Cowen running around early on and put his toughness to the test. I felt that as the game went on, Gregory backed off on the pressure. Towards the end we were rushing just the front four, which is fine but the effectiveness of the D relies heavily on quick pressure by the DL. Needless to say, we didn’t get that much pressure on Cowen.
*Our inability to run the ball. Yeah, we couldn’t run worth crap. Cal had a 2.2 yard rush average. Forsett had a 3 yard average which is sub-par for college football. This inability to run falls on the shoulders of the Cal OL, TEs, and FB. These guys just got out played. Oh, and our shotgun draw plays didn’t work that well. I like the fact that we’re running from shotgun because it keeps our offense balanced based on formations but I also think that UCLA’s D is too fast and smart to get fooled by draws. Similarly, UCLA’s D was all over our screens. Plain and simple, UCLA’s D was pretty well prepared today and played with great awareness. Gotta give props when props are due… UCLA’s D gets my props.
*Our passing game. Since we couldn’t run that well, we had to rely on our passing game which is something we all probably did not want to do considering Longshore’s injury. We saw lots of short and intermediate passing. Methodical and efficient, but hardly the type of offense that fans find exciting and Sportcenter will highlight. It worked well in the first half but then I felt like UCLA’s second half adjustments put the clamps down on it. Oh, lots of outs routes too. Longshore’s pick six was an out route to THA1. Unfortunately, the UCLA DB was playing the ball well, and the throw was behind THA1.
*Turnovers. Once again we lost the turnover battle and the game. Officially we had 4 turnovers and UCLA had 2. I suppose you could say we only had 3 since Longshore’s last INT was sort of a jump ball desperation pass. Nevertheless, the other turnovers are unacceptable. Best’s fumble was a mixture of the OL’s fault for letting a defender come through gap so quickly, Best’s fault for not just catching the ball regardless of whether a defender is coming or not, and Longshore’s fault for putting the ball slightly behind Best. That play was just a very unlucky occurance of multiple mistakes all during one play.
*Field Goal kicking. One of the most overlooked scorers on a football team is the field goal kicker. I think a lot of fans don’t realize the importance of having an excellent kicker. They can seriously make or break the game. In this game, even though we only missed one field goal that field goal would have helped. It would have changed the entire scenario in the 4th quarter. Instead of us trying to make comeback, it would have been UCLA.
*Coaching. As for Gregory, I won’t even go there. Most Cal fans already seem to have an opinion of him. Some hate him, and some are okay with him. But as for Tedford… I think it’s safe to say that the honeymoon is over. For the past 5 years he’s been loved. But now I feel like a growing majority of Cal fans are ready to turn on him. I think their reasoning is that yes, he’s brought our program to a Top-25 team, but we haven’t gotten to that next big plateau - the Rose Bowl or a BCS bowl. I’ve heard other reasons too. He’s too conservative, he plays scared, he doesn’t play to win but plays not to lose, and he can’t win close games. Well, I can’t deny that he’s conservative. But that’s not a bad thing. As for "playing scared", I think people just mistake conservative, and methodical for "scared." And as for "not playing to win but playing not to lose", well, that assumption is natural. Conservative offenses that focus on safe plays are often though of "scared" and "playing not to lose." The same goes for defense. Gregory’s BBDB is more reactive and preventative, thus getting the "playing not to lose" tag as opposed to "playing to win" defenses that blitz 75% of the time. While it appears to be true, make no mistake about it, the coaches are trying to win and there are two ways to go about it. Fans just like the flashier way to win, the riskier way, the deep passes and lots of blitzing kind of way. Does it work? Yeah, it does. Is it infallible? Hell no.
*Finally, I think a growing number of Cal fans are seeing other programs succeed where we haven’t and figure that the solution is whatever they do that we don’t. In most cases the instant solutions that I’ve heard thrown around are slant passes, deep passes, blitzing, and lots of 4th down attempts. Basically being ultra aggressive. This does have its benefits, but also its own drawbacks. Maybe we do need to be more aggressive. But I just ask that before Cal fans demand our coaches to be more aggressive, they at least consider the drawbacks of such a team. Everyone considers the positives but they never seem to consider the negatives.
*For the past two years, the DumpDorrell campaign has picked up steam. After this win, their cause might suffer a bit of a setback. But I fear that this loss might start a new campaign. If we tailspin out of control and lose another 2-3 games this season, I fear we’ll have our own campaign to dump our head coach, the DumpTedford campaign. I believe we’re only a few losses away from an explosion of more and more Cal fans calling for Tedford’s firing. I fear for this day. While I do concede that he’s probably lost some games he shouldn’t have, he’s still a great coach. He may have yet to prove that he’s an excellent coach but he’s great. I don’t think it’s time to turn on him and just hope other Cal fans are reasonable in their criticism and don’t just let their emotions cloud their judgment.
The very idea that Cal “fans” would even think on calling for Tedford to be fired is egregious. Anyone who would replace him will be undoubtedly worse, and all the athletic projects would sink back into the Dark Ages.
And to be honest, if Tedford is forced to leave (leaving of his own accord might be a little bit more tepid), so do I. A group of fans who dump the only remarkable presence on their franchise is absurd. We’re still 5-2, and these losses were against teams that matched up well with our weaknesses. Sometimes you have to look at the field and not at the coaching.
Comment by Avinash — October 20, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
The statistics aren’t lying. Cal’s run defense wasn’t too bad today, except for the one long run that set up UCLA’s sole first-half TD. Where the defense failed was too many 3rd-down conversions allowed (almost always via the pass) and not enough turnovers. But make no mistake: this game was lost by Cal’s inability to run the ball–or do virtually anything offensively in the second half. Whether it be play-calling, poor offensive line play, lack of production by the playmakers, or simply a kick-ass day by UCLA’s fast defense, who knows. But Cal’s defense did not lose the game today.
I, for one, haven’t given up on this team. Just this week, 2-loss Florida and Rutgers pulled off some big wins. And the Bears have a great chance to get this turned around next Saturday in Tempe. While a return to the Holiday Bowl is fast becoming the revised goal, you never know how things will shake out the next several weeks.
Comment by California Pete — October 20, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
I think that complaints about Tedford’s conservatism are specifically directed at situations where we only have a small (ie field goal or less) lead. Tedford’s philosophy when we have a lead of any kind is to run, run, run (ie 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down, regardless of how much we have to go). If we get first downs on the run, then it works out pretty well in terms of getting the clock down. But when that first down doesn’t come, we’ve given the other team the ball back with a chance to take the lead. It relies too heavily on our defense, which may play well at times but can in no way be considered dominant or even consistent.
I don’t think Tedford is in any danger of being fired… he’s a very good coach (and the highest paid employee in the UC system). He’s taken us to our highest ranking in half a century. And, even if we only see Holiday Bowls and Las Vegas bowls for the next five years, we know how that the Cal AD condones mediocrity (see Ben Braun).
Comment by Nikhil — October 20, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
(Although, the Holiday Bowl is significantly better than mediocre)
Comment by Nikhil — October 20, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
To be honest, the thought of firing Tedford didn’t even cross my mind–but the fact that we’ve lost two in a row worries me that perhaps Tedford could leave of his own accord.
Meanwhile, I’m stuck, because I know we have talent on our team–but why are we so inconsistent? There is something about playing teams that are seemingly inferior in talent or coaching that brings out the worst in our team.
Tennessee, Oregon–those were big games, our team understood the absolute necessity of winning them, and we did. But against the others: Colorado State, Arizona, and OSU, it seemed we just didn’t play up to our potential, didn’t bring the game, and now UCLA. Could our team possibly need wake-up calls every week, that they need to bring their A game every week? They say it every week when they’re interviewed, but they sure as hell aren’t playing like it.
Where is our motivation?
And the interception returned for the touchdown. I don’t know if it was the camera angle or what not, but the corner was defending DeSean Jackson–why did I not see an attempt to run down the corner by DeSean? With his speed, he could have at least tried.
I’m disappointed. So disappointed. I haven’t given up, with a few lucky breaks, a few losses by some other Pac-10 teams, and we still have a shot (very slim, but still a shot) at the Rose Bowl. I think. Please?
Comment by Calfan — October 20, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Calfan asks why are we so inconsistent? Where is our motivation? Excellent questions. I saw a great theory in the comments at College Hotline. Here’s the link:
http://www.mercextra.com/blogs/collegesports/2007/10/20/down-goes-cal-get-your-sun-bowl-tickets-now/#comment-55817
And here’s the money quote:
I do feel that the Cal “mindset” is the biggest weakness for this team, and for this program. And this weakness does start with Tedford, who is otherwise a great coach.
Great teams do not deny the existence of higher stakes. Great teams do not attempt to block out the significance of the larger context from the moment at hand.
Tedford’s Bears have a characteristic history of folding at exactly the worst time: at the biggest moments. It no longer seems coincidental.
I believe that the problem stems from trying to pretend that it doesn’t matter. (”We don’t care about the polls, we focus only on ourselves, etc. etc.”)
This game is about rising to the moment, and that moment is defined by the larger objectives that are at stake, as well as by the skill and the courage of your opponent. If you deny the pressure inherent in this critical aspect of the game, then you are likely to fold when that pressure becomes undeniable in the moment at hand.
Comment by Nonplussed — October 21, 2007 @ 9:44 am
You’re joking right? If Tedford goes, be prepared to relive 1959-2002. Do you want that? `
Comment by Bay Area Bear — October 21, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Not sure if Bay Area Bear’s comment was directed at me (the previous comment) but just to set the record straight… no way do I want to see Tedford go. With our facilities it would be difficult to attract another coach who could hold a candle to Tedford. Cal would certainly return to decades of mediocrity broken up only by brief periods of inspiration and heartbreak.
My point is that no one is perfect and even Tedford can improve his game. I don’t quibble with the conservative play calling. Les Miles will get his comeuppance in the long run. But something is missing in Cal’s (lowercase) big game preparations. The talent is now there…
Comment by nonplussed — October 21, 2007 @ 11:37 am
I think part of this might also just be pure talent. I’ve boasted of Tedford’s success to everyone I know because I think he develops talent as well if not better than anyone else in the country: Mack and Forsett were both 2 stars coming in, and look at them now.
Of course, stars are BS, they don’t measure a lot of intangibles, etc etc. Whatever. Going up against teams like Tennessee and Oregon, with all that talent, and beating them with a general lack thereof, that’s great coaching and talent development. But quite simply, there are only so many games that can be coached and played up to the fullest potential. Our O-line has come out in the past and really shown their heart (see: Oregon, 2nd half), but they simply can’t be expected to exert 100% of their efforts on every single play in every single game. The mental and physical toll is simply exhausting, especially for a bunch of 19 and 20 year old kids, and the difference, I think, between a team like ours and a perennially “great” team is that they can take the necessary time to store up the energy required for perfection for the big games and can rely on superior natural talent for the rest of the time.
I’ve said all season that we may or may not do great things this year, but I’m not worried about it either way. If the new athletic center begins its construction, with all the new attention and love we’ve had from the press this year, I think our recruiting can only get better. Then, the easy games will finally be easier, the should-be-blowout games will finally be blowouts, and days like yesterday will happen a lot less often then they have been. I hope.
Go Bears.
Comment by Atticus — October 21, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Why even mention souring on Tedford? Are you nuts? Cal fans need to learn the difference between wishes and expectations. We all wish for the best, but it’s just not that easy, so lighten up. Our team is sorely lacking depth. Getting better at it, but still not a 3 deep talent pool at all the critical positions. A few injuries and we’re in trouble. Do you think we wouldn’t have won easily against OS if our talented backup quarterback had had any previous experience? Or if our first string field goal kicker had been playing? Do you think Longshore’s injury didn’t affect the outcome of the game? It takes some time to build a top program. And it takes persevererance from all involved, including the fans.
Comment by View from here — October 21, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
UCLA won because of two reasons:
1. They have great defensive talent esp. the dline. They are big, fast and strong. And they have alot of them. I don’t know all their names. And Walker is a good defensive coach. With all that talent, you don’t have to have great coaching. It just has to be good.
2. Cowan is a very good quarterback. He consistently finds the open guy in critical situations.
You can talk about coaching all you want and yes, coaching is obviously very important but it was UCLA’s quality and quantity of talent that won this game for them.
Comment by georgio — October 22, 2007 @ 7:36 am
At least you guys have Rugby!
Comment by farthammer — October 22, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Any talk about Tedford going (by force or on his own) is as insane as Cal always running it up the middle on first down. We’ve lost two games. Sure, they were games well within our potential, but the fact is, conference games are ALWAYS doubtful.
Anyone thinking the honeymoon is over–or that it’s time to find a new coach–needs to think back just five years ago. Do you really want to go back to losing the Big Game every year? Losing to all but maybe one or two opponents season in and season out?
Do you really want to go back to being the unranked national doormat?! I don’t. I like looking forward to fall Saturdays. I like knowing that there is always a chance for something big and, even now, that the possibility remains.
Lose Jeff Tedford and we lose everything good that Cal has become. A 11-2 (even 10-3) season?! That’s pretty tremendous considering where we’d been for so many years.
Two losses and you’re complaining?! Get over yourselves, Tedford-era arrivistes! What we have is special, and there is no reason to believe that any of that has diminished.
Comment by TrumanHugh — October 22, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
People who do not know what it means to suffer (everyone who arrived during the Tedford era) will never understand this. I do, but I’ve suffered through other teams.
Comment by Avinash — October 22, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
first, lemme just say that hydrotech makes good points on the majority of the post, however, i have to disagree that the majority of cal fans are ready to turn on tedford. losing his job for not winning two games this year? or even the losses of the past couple of years? that is ridiculous. let’s not kid ourselves here. as good as our academics are and as great as a location as berkeley is, the real reason we’re able to bring in top-notch recruits is because of tedford himself.
i think the majority of cal fans still remember the years of losing seasons, the embarrassment of a 1-11 season as well as 7 straight consecutive losses to stanfurd. even current students who didn’t experience those years themselves can still appreciate that kind of turn-around he’s had on our football program.
hydrotech is right, tedford’s not infallible, and does protect tedford, but that single belief that the majority is ready to turn on tedford is bit of a disservice to cal fans.
Comment by Jason — October 22, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
I’m glad people think that my fears are a stretch because that leads me to believe that there is very much a strong Tedford following despite the bumps in the road. I suppose my statement that more and more Cal fans might call for Tedford’s firing if we lose 2-3 more games this season was a bit of an exaggeration but I still stand by my statement that I’ve noticed a small minority of Cal fans who seem to think Tedford needs to go.
Comment by HydroTech — October 22, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Your fears are no stretch HydroTech. In fact they are solidly founded in reality. If Tedford fails to deliver the Rose Bowl (now almost impossible to attain) he could be on the firm hot seat going into next season. He has had a long time now to get this team where it needs to be and he seems incapable of delivering. His refusal to be flexible and unpredictable on offense of late have cost this team dearly. His refusal to relieve his Defensive Coordinator for incompetence has been telling of his ‘I am the decider’ demeanor. If Tedford heeds the concerns of fans and does as we say I think he has a bright future here. However, if he continues in his dictatorial style he could be in store for yet another popular revolution in Berkeley!
Hear The People - Fire Gregory!
Comment by Robert E. Jackson — October 22, 2007 @ 9:30 pm