Saturday, October 27, 2007

What Happened?

Four weeks ago, Cal was averaging 37 points per game. Three weeks ago, we score 28 against Oregon State. Last week, we score 21 at UCLA (who lost to Washington State today). Today, the offense scores 13 points.

Our offensive production went from averaging 437 per game to 287 last week and 358 today.

The Bears went from a team that was number two in the country to a team that will be lucky to beat the Cougars next week.

The Bears went into a bye week, and they came out a poorly performing football team. There are a bunch of injuries. But everyone has injuries - Arizona State lost their starting running back this week. I think they started to read the PR that the Cal football office puts out. They are no longer an elite, ranked team.

Today, the Wildcats had the ball 78 plays. Once again, the Bears wasted opportunity after opportunity. They missed ANOTHER field goal. The threw two interceptions in the fourth quarter. They had 10 penalties for over 80 yards, and plenty at inopportune times.

They look like a team that has no discipline, that is unsure of themselves, and that is looking for leadership.

And I think that starts at the top. Jeff Tedford needs to make the hard choices. And that is to bench Nate Longshore, and to start Kevin Riley. Nate is still injured, is still unsure of himself, and is not dynamic.

Arizona State is a good team, clearly. They have the inside track on the Rose Bowl and they have a strong coach. One who is not afraid to go for it three times in a row on 4th down. Not try to draw someone offside on 4th down, but actually go for it. The Bears need to get there, and we are not. Dare I say that Arizona State has surpassed us? I don't think so. This is, I guess, a rebuilding year (at least I hope it is).

Frankly, there were some good performances. I think the defense did a good job today. 95 yards in the first half is pretty good. But They were on the field almost twice as much as the Cal offense, and clearly worn out in the 4th quarter. You can't trot your defense out there the entire 4th quarter and expect to win. The offense has to do something. Cal had a lot of great offense. But they did not put drives together. Cal actually averaged almost 6 yards per play, vs Arizona States 5 yards per play. But Arizona State had 78 plays to Cal's 61. That means that Cal failed often when it mattered. We were three of 11 on third down, vs. Arizona State's 9 of 19. If you add their two fourth down conversions, they were 11 of 19. So we failed when it mattered, and they did not.

Missed field goals, penalties, and turnovers. Once again, for the third week in a row, we gave the game away. This week, I felt like we needed to really play mistake free to win. We did not and we lost big. They played relatively mistake free, and they won. In the second half, we gave the game to the Wildcats, reversing the first half statistical domination by the Bears, by giving the Wildcats the ball for 23 minutes of the second half. The Bears only got 89 yards because we passed the ball to the other team.

The question is, why do we fail when we do? I think it is something to do with the changing way that teams are defending us. People are playing us for the run, and giving up the pass. So our run production is dropping, and while the passing is OK statistically, it is not there when we need it. Nate is a great manager of the game from a statistical point of view - he connects for a relatively high percentage (although only 50% today). He puts yards on the board. But he does not connect when he needs to, and that is a function of how he is taught. For example, if there is double coverage, he will definitely not throw. He throws away. But he does not make something happen. And I think the defensive coordinators are looking at Nate, and thinking, I am willing to let that guy try to beat me, and I bet he can not. And he can not do it.

Nate is good in general, but not good in the pinch. This is becoming more and more clear. And I think that if he continues, the Bears will have a tough time winning as we continue through the season in close games.

Nate is 15 and 5 in the games that he starts. All 5 loses are away. Almost all of the victories were large leads going into the 4th quarter. We can not come back with Nate. We need to lead by more than a score going late in the game to be secure in this game. He does not have the killer instinct. I do not know if that is the line not giving protection, or what. But in the last two weeks, Nate had thrown 4 picks in the 4th quarter. That is no way to win.

Anyway, the Bears once again gave away a winnable game by not converting opportunities, by trowing the ball away, and by hurting themselves with penalties. We need to change that, or this will be another Marriucci season.

GO BEARS!!!

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was surprised the Tedford decided to start Nate after the loss to UCLA.

I totally agree with you Oski. Nate Longshore needs to be benched.

Anonymous said...

Oski,

Do you think Tedford will bench Longshore for next game?

Oski88 said...

I thnk Tedford leaves Nate in to start. He is the kind of guy who does not panic, and will not make what he thinks are rash decisions. He also has the benefit of seeing them practice. It is a home game, as is the USC game coming up.

I do think the hook is getting shorter. And if there is any excuse, he is taking him out. if he looks like he is hobling, etc.

The thing about it is Riley got the two weeks of first string snaps in practice with Nate hindered by the ankle before the OSU game. Also, he made a big time boneheaded play. So Tedford is probably looking at those two things and thinking that there is no guarantee that KR does a better job. If he yanks Nate, and puts KR in, and he bombs, JT looks like an idiot. Also, you are not sure what it does to a QB who is supposedly leading your program. Will Nate be like Reggie Roberson, who stayed and helped Aaron Rodgers, or will be a cancer. My guess is he is a good guy and probably would help, but it is a risk you take.

So I am sure all of those things are going though the mind of JT. He is a pretty good judge of these things, but in general sticks with teh old guys out of loyalty too long (which, by the way, is why he will never go to the NFL - he would be eviscerated 'cause he is not evil like most NFL coaches).

Hodad254 said...

I think it is the worst of both scenarios: Nate is not getting the job done and there is no way that Tedford would bench him.

I am a big believer in letting a QB sit out for a series or two to watch the defenense from the sidelines. This doesn't happen often in college FB, but I think it would really help Nate.

If WSU was on the road we would lose...we are a 14.5 favorite at home, but i think that is based more on reputation than performance.

what a depressing year.