Well, I held off posting after the Arizona State game. I said earlier that it was a must win game. That we needed to sweep the weekend to stay in the NCAA hunt. That the Pac 10 was tough, and we needed to win every home game in order to advance. But when we lost in double overtime, I thought, oh well, lets see what happens on Saturday.
But we gave two games away over the weekend. Yes, these were tough teams. But every team is tough in the Pac 10 (except for Oregon State, who just fired their Coach, John Jay, yesterday). And so, if you want to win, you have to win at home. Does anyone really expect that we can take these two teams on the road? Because the Arizona teams are the ones that we should have had a chance to beat.
We have only won two Pac 10 games. That is only two more than John Jays team. And one of our victories was over Oregon State.
I truly believe that this is the most talented Cal team that we have had since I have been watching for about 25 years, including the Jason Kidd years. If not better, than just as good. But the Pac 10 is much tougher. And we do not have the ability to put the games away. It is not like we are out of any game. But it is like we do not know what to do at the end of games, and other teams do know what to do. It is like we are out there, running around with our heads cut off.
Example. We are down two points. 50 second left, we get the ball. That is the time to move up the court quickly, and get a shot off, so that we have a chance of getting it back. Instead, we take our time, make sure that the clock is below 35 seconds, before we event take a shot. The opposition has no time-outs left (they gave their last time out at 6 minutes, which seemed stupid at the time, but seemed to work out for them OK). So we have to foul, pretty much guaranteeing them the two points.
The other aspect that is unusual about these teams is that the defense seems to be less effective. I won't say that it is because we have a poorer defense - in fact it may be that the opposition is simply better. But I say that our defensive pressure has not kept up. We could not make stops when we needed to. We frankly relied on missed shots and rebounding, as opposed to forcing poor shots and steals, and taking away the lanes. We did pick up two pr three charges against Arizona, but that was mainly because their guys were just running towards the basket totally out of control.
It was a familiar song for Cal fans this year. Like the football teams, our hoops team just can't seem to put anyone away.
I see us winning maybe four more games, unless something drastic happens. And if that is the case, then I see Ben Braun moving on. Clearly, this is the most competitive team that we have had, and we need to start to capitalize on it. We have three starters who have NBA potential - maybe even probability - in Hardin, Christopher, and Anderson. We have a decent point guard. We have strong players off the bench, and a strong, young team. If we can not get it done this year, then we definitely need to look in another direction.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Good-bye DeSean
DeSean Jackson has declared for the NFL Draft, much to the chagrin of many - probably including his parents. But let's face it - if I had the chance to make 10 million coming out of college a year early, there is no doubt I would have done it. As would almost anyone else. The threat of injury, poor performance, and other factors is too much of a risk for that kind of money. He will go in the first round, probably early, and will be a treat in the NFL for a long time.
DeSean is a tough guy, and he will have to be to make it. But I do not think there is any doubt he would.
i think the biggest factor in his decision is that his brother is tired of filming him, and wants to wrap. Who knows? It could be it. If my life was a movie, I would have to think about those things.
Anyway, thanks for the exciting returns, the cocky attitude, and the visibility you gave the program. It will be missed.
GO BEARS!!!
DeSean is a tough guy, and he will have to be to make it. But I do not think there is any doubt he would.
i think the biggest factor in his decision is that his brother is tired of filming him, and wants to wrap. Who knows? It could be it. If my life was a movie, I would have to think about those things.
Anyway, thanks for the exciting returns, the cocky attitude, and the visibility you gave the program. It will be missed.
GO BEARS!!!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Theo Robertson
It looks like Theo announced that he will Blueshirt this year. It seems like he has been here forever, but I guess he still will have two years to go after this year.
Hips are tough, but look at Josh Shipp. The UCLA guard is tearing it up. Hopefully Theo can come out of this as good or better than he was. But this whole hip thing scares me. No one wants to get a hip replacement when they are 45. Take your time and get it right.
Same goes for Jahvid Best. Make sure that you are fully healed before getting too excited and trying to get back out there.
Anyway, as far as it goes, Theo will be needed next year as Vernisel is gone. I think he will be a big addition to a team that will be lacking in upperclassmen the following two years.
GO BEARS!!
Hips are tough, but look at Josh Shipp. The UCLA guard is tearing it up. Hopefully Theo can come out of this as good or better than he was. But this whole hip thing scares me. No one wants to get a hip replacement when they are 45. Take your time and get it right.
Same goes for Jahvid Best. Make sure that you are fully healed before getting too excited and trying to get back out there.
Anyway, as far as it goes, Theo will be needed next year as Vernisel is gone. I think he will be a big addition to a team that will be lacking in upperclassmen the following two years.
GO BEARS!!
Cal and the Tournament
This has been a weird season. So far, it seems like we should be pretty happy with the Hoops team, but it seems like there is a lot of doubt, and a lot of worry about this team.
I think that comes down to something like this: Cal plays 12-2 Arizona State, Arizona and Stanford at home in the next three games. We have to win all of them, or we are essentially out of the tournament.
I know that sounds crazy. But let me explain.
Arizona State is a currently ranked 69 in the RPI (vs Cal, which is ranked 53). Arizona State has a pretty low ranking relative to their record due to their playing only four teams with winning records so far (and winning three of those). They also have played only one road game (and that game they lost to 6-9 Nebraska), and they did play in the Maui Invitational, going two of three.
So this will be the second real road test for the Sun Devils in an opposing teams court. Hopefully that matters. Because losing to a team that is ranked lower than you at home is RPI death. And this is a team at the beginning of the year that I was counting on for two wins against.
Then, we have Arizona coming in, which without Lute may be a team that we can beat twice. But we definitely need to win. Arizona, by the way, has an RP! right now of 7. They are a tough team. They did lose to Arizona State (on the road) and Oregon (at home). So they are beatable. But we need to come out on top.
Stanford is similar to Arizona. They have lose to UCLA and Oregon (who thought Oregon was that good?) but have a solid RPI at 39. Losing to those teams at home is not devastating, but beating them would propel us up the charts.
And, let's face it - we are going to have the toughest part of our schedule the second half of the Pac 10 season, with 5 road games. And Oregon State is not going to be one of them. So you are looking at 5 tough road games, and Washington and Oregon at home. I could easily see us losing all 5 of those games on the road. So we need to be perfect at home from here on out to have a shot at getting into the tourney. Losing at home is 1.2 loses according to the RPI calculation (just like winning on the road is worth the same 1.2). So home loses really hurt.
If the season ended today, Cal would probably be one of the two or three teams that would be debatable as to whether or not they deserve to be in the tournament. Generally, a 51 ranking would do it. But this is a tough season, and they are not going to take 9 from the Pac 10. So we need to protect the home, and win two on the road this season. We just got our first victory on the road at Oregon State. Not too impressive, but it counts. We need to hold at home and get one or two more on the road.
With students starting to trickle back to campus, I sure hope that there is more enthusiasm for these games than there has been so far at Haas this year. The place needs to be LOUD, especially for the Arizona State game.
GO BEARS!!
I think that comes down to something like this: Cal plays 12-2 Arizona State, Arizona and Stanford at home in the next three games. We have to win all of them, or we are essentially out of the tournament.
I know that sounds crazy. But let me explain.
Arizona State is a currently ranked 69 in the RPI (vs Cal, which is ranked 53). Arizona State has a pretty low ranking relative to their record due to their playing only four teams with winning records so far (and winning three of those). They also have played only one road game (and that game they lost to 6-9 Nebraska), and they did play in the Maui Invitational, going two of three.
So this will be the second real road test for the Sun Devils in an opposing teams court. Hopefully that matters. Because losing to a team that is ranked lower than you at home is RPI death. And this is a team at the beginning of the year that I was counting on for two wins against.
Then, we have Arizona coming in, which without Lute may be a team that we can beat twice. But we definitely need to win. Arizona, by the way, has an RP! right now of 7. They are a tough team. They did lose to Arizona State (on the road) and Oregon (at home). So they are beatable. But we need to come out on top.
Stanford is similar to Arizona. They have lose to UCLA and Oregon (who thought Oregon was that good?) but have a solid RPI at 39. Losing to those teams at home is not devastating, but beating them would propel us up the charts.
And, let's face it - we are going to have the toughest part of our schedule the second half of the Pac 10 season, with 5 road games. And Oregon State is not going to be one of them. So you are looking at 5 tough road games, and Washington and Oregon at home. I could easily see us losing all 5 of those games on the road. So we need to be perfect at home from here on out to have a shot at getting into the tourney. Losing at home is 1.2 loses according to the RPI calculation (just like winning on the road is worth the same 1.2). So home loses really hurt.
If the season ended today, Cal would probably be one of the two or three teams that would be debatable as to whether or not they deserve to be in the tournament. Generally, a 51 ranking would do it. But this is a tough season, and they are not going to take 9 from the Pac 10. So we need to protect the home, and win two on the road this season. We just got our first victory on the road at Oregon State. Not too impressive, but it counts. We need to hold at home and get one or two more on the road.
With students starting to trickle back to campus, I sure hope that there is more enthusiasm for these games than there has been so far at Haas this year. The place needs to be LOUD, especially for the Arizona State game.
GO BEARS!!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Cal at Oregon
I was going to post something before the game saying that the Oregon game was the biggest game of the season - that the Bears could not afford to go into Eugene and lose. But I didn't want to jinx it.
Oh well.
I am not sure if this is a situation where because they only have played two road games all season that they are no good on the road, or just not used to it. I think that is probably the case. They need to get used to it. Our last half of the season is more on the road than at home. Including this weekend, it is 10 vs 7. The good news is that the RP! discounts road loses, and gives extra credit for road wins. The bad news is, even with the Bears pretty good record, they are ranked 74 in the RPI - about 20 points higher than they need to be.
The Bears played poorly. Oregon is a team ranked currently 26 in the RPI, but is probably the one team ranked that high that Cal can beat. And we needed this road win for the tournament committee. I know that there is a long season left, but the Pac 10 is so tough this year that there can be no let down. Devon Hardin decided once again not to show up. He shot only twice, scoring two points in 24 minutes. Yikes!!!
In years past, Ben Braun teams would let some get away that they should not, and win some that they should not. In fact, we have beaten UCLA at least once in 9 straight seasons (thanks, Lavin). This year, the Bears can not afford to play that game. Every little thing matters, more than ever. This is the most talented team that I think Braun has had. But it is also the most talented that the Pac 10 has been. By a lot.
It is good news that we play Oregon State on Saturday. Lets be clear - that is a must win. With an RPI at 242, a win at Oregon State will still probably drop us in the RPI standings a bit. This is our third worst matchup from an RPI scenario, with only Jackson State and Long Beach State having worse RPIs than Oregon State. They are currently undefeated in Pac 10 play. We need this win.
*******************
Speaking of RPI - there have been some changes this year. Remember last year, when Cal played Kansas in Kansas City? That was not a Kansas home game, since that was more than 100 miles from Manhattan, Kansas. That was a Neutral site game. So Cal did not get the RPI credit for going to Kansas to play them there. So the loss hurt more than it should have.
This year, that has been changed. Now, the definition of a home game is who controls the ticketing process. Since that was not on our season ticket package, then it would not have been a home game.
Likewise, in seasons past, the Pete Newell Classic would have been a home game, because it was close to home. Now, because the Bears do not control the distribution of tickets, I believe that it would be a neutral site game.
GO BEARS!!
Oh well.
I am not sure if this is a situation where because they only have played two road games all season that they are no good on the road, or just not used to it. I think that is probably the case. They need to get used to it. Our last half of the season is more on the road than at home. Including this weekend, it is 10 vs 7. The good news is that the RP! discounts road loses, and gives extra credit for road wins. The bad news is, even with the Bears pretty good record, they are ranked 74 in the RPI - about 20 points higher than they need to be.
The Bears played poorly. Oregon is a team ranked currently 26 in the RPI, but is probably the one team ranked that high that Cal can beat. And we needed this road win for the tournament committee. I know that there is a long season left, but the Pac 10 is so tough this year that there can be no let down. Devon Hardin decided once again not to show up. He shot only twice, scoring two points in 24 minutes. Yikes!!!
In years past, Ben Braun teams would let some get away that they should not, and win some that they should not. In fact, we have beaten UCLA at least once in 9 straight seasons (thanks, Lavin). This year, the Bears can not afford to play that game. Every little thing matters, more than ever. This is the most talented team that I think Braun has had. But it is also the most talented that the Pac 10 has been. By a lot.
It is good news that we play Oregon State on Saturday. Lets be clear - that is a must win. With an RPI at 242, a win at Oregon State will still probably drop us in the RPI standings a bit. This is our third worst matchup from an RPI scenario, with only Jackson State and Long Beach State having worse RPIs than Oregon State. They are currently undefeated in Pac 10 play. We need this win.
*******************
Speaking of RPI - there have been some changes this year. Remember last year, when Cal played Kansas in Kansas City? That was not a Kansas home game, since that was more than 100 miles from Manhattan, Kansas. That was a Neutral site game. So Cal did not get the RPI credit for going to Kansas to play them there. So the loss hurt more than it should have.
This year, that has been changed. Now, the definition of a home game is who controls the ticketing process. Since that was not on our season ticket package, then it would not have been a home game.
Likewise, in seasons past, the Pete Newell Classic would have been a home game, because it was close to home. Now, because the Bears do not control the distribution of tickets, I believe that it would be a neutral site game.
GO BEARS!!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Good News!
Alex Mack will be back!
That gives us some line stability - with three returners, and some experience on the back-ups, we should be fine with the offensive line next year. The discussion about moving Mack to left tackle to make room for Guarnero at center. Bringing in other guys like Schwartz can only be helpful. We will have a good line (as well as a coach who is focused on coaching it...).
I always assume that we have skill players both offensively and defensively that can make plays. I am not always right, but Cal often has had quality skill players, even in the down years of the Holmoecaust and Gilby. But the offensive and defensive line play is critical for the Bears to do what they want to do. Which is why the I am most concerned about our defensive line, once again. And in particular, our new defensive line coach.
I do not know anything about the coach, from a coaching perspective. I think it is great that Tedford gives his GAs an opportunity to move up in the organization, like Justin WIlcox did, if he thinks they are quality performers. From what I have heard about Tosh Lupoi from the boards and the chat rooms, he seems to be a decent guy, motivated, over-achiever. That is what you want from a football coach. He certainly was a great Golden Bear player.
The one thing that I have a concern about is that the defensive line is our weakest spot on the field. And to put our young, over-achiever in that slot next year is my concern. I hope I am wrong. But it is our weakest link, I believe, and we need our strongest effort there.
Thinking about it, Tedford had a problem. First of all, he clearly likes the guy. If he did not, then he would have had no problem looking outside the team for a replacement of Coach Delgado (why did he leave, anyway? Anyone? Anyone?). I assume that he would have liked to have given Lupoi more experience, but since Delgado left, and you can only be a GA for two years, Tedford had to do something. So he gave him a shot.
Based on JT's comments, he is going to be spending more time with the defense next year, as well as special teams (don't you love it when your boss says he is going to be spending more time with you...time to get the resume out). So he is probably thinking that he has a young employee who needs assistance his first year in the trenches. He will be helping him out quite a bit. From a certain perspective, I think it is great that JT finally understands that football is a three phase game and he is going to be spending extra time developing the other phases. He is moving into the executive role football coach, and letting his assistants do what he needs them to. Cignetti is a great pick-up for JT in that he runs the same offense that JT does, which gives JT some confidence in the game planning. It probably is a huge relief for him to get this guy. That being said, I wonder how much I want JT mucking around in the defense. As far as I know, the entire time, Gregory has pretty much had full reign on the defense. And it has been a moderately successful defense, when we have had the players on the defensive line to run it well.
I do not, frankly, think it is the d-line coach that has caused the lack of d-line production this last year or two. I think it has been the players. But I could be wrong. Watching the Air Force game, the announcer said "90 percent of playing defense is wanting to." I couldn't agree more. Maybe a younger coach, who played under Tedford, can inspire the players to give more. I hope so. But I worry that next year we will have the same players, with a rookie coach, who may not get it done. And that would be a disaster. We have recruited some defensive tackles this cycle, which may be better than the ones we have. I doubt that we would be playing freshmen on the d-line, but it has happened. Let's see what this guy can do.
As far as other players going for the draft, I am not sure what DeSean is going to do, but it is assumed he will go.
I also think, frankly, that Nate Longshore should go. This is going to be his best year to make it. I know I sound crazy when I say that, but look at the facts:
1) He probably will not play next year. Not good for your draft stock.
2) He started all season long, and brought the team to a number 2 ranking. Then, he got injured and the season slipped away. But he can blame it all on the injury.
3) He does have NFL size and arm strength. He needs to get there before they start using the spread as well.
4) He is probably done with his degree anyway. What's he gonna do - take ballroom dancing?
Now, don't get me wrong. I think Nate should stay. I even think that Nate, playing healthy, is a very good QB. Maybe better than Riley (I will explain in a bit). But there is no way that Nate starts next year, and therefore it makes sense that he comes out early.
I took a look at four games over the past couple of days. Tennessee, Oregon, Air Force, and Oregon State. In the Tennessee game and the Oregon Game, Nate looked great. He was smooth, passed well, didn't fold under pressure, brought the team back to win at Oregon, and overall looked like a QB who was playing for the number 2 team in the country.
Kevin Riley also looked pretty good in both the Oregon State game and the Air Force game. Now, maybe I am nit-picking here, but Kevin is much more of a risk taker than Nate is when he plays. I think frankly that that is the difference. It resolves itself in a couple of different ways. First, if you take risks, sometimes you get more rewards. Sometimes you get burned (like KR did at the end of the Oregon State game). But it seems like the players that you lead like the risk-taker attitude a bit more, and that person becomes a more charismatic leader. So the players like KR better.
There are numerous instances where Kevin Riley took risks that Nate never would have taken, and was rewarded for it. The throwing out of the end-zone to the tight end in triple coverage, when he was almost sacked at the Oregon State game. Nate would have immediately thrown that ball away and tried again. It was an exciting play, one that built the mystique of KR. Of course, if it had gone astray, we would not be taking about any of this stuff. He would still be sitting on the bench.
Jeff Tedford, on the other hand, is not so much a risk taker. I think he likes to win by ramming the ball down the other guys throat, and throwing it over their heads just to confuse them and make them look up so he can hit them again. I think that is good football, frankly. But there comes a time when you need to know when to go for it, and sometimes JT is too conservative. With Riley, he will not have that problem. He will have to reign him in. Nate, I think, was too much on the same page as JT. And when Nate had the confidence and the strength to play well, we won convincingly in a very conservative manner. But it was enough. That being said, the ship has sailed, and Nate needs to move on. Even if he plays and starts next season, he will be replaced by the middle at the first sign of collapse. And that is not what JT would want in a QB. He wants the QB to have confidence for the full season. Which is why he is going to most likely tell Nate that it is over, and let him decide what he wants to do. At least, he should, for Nate's sake.
Now, I am not saying that Nate will make a team. But I do think someone would draft him in some late round and give him a shot. He is a smart, big, impressive guy with a calm demeanor, which goes well for NFL type QBs. I could see him knocking around in the league for a few years before coming out and being a commercial real estate agent or a sportscaster.
GO Bears!!
That gives us some line stability - with three returners, and some experience on the back-ups, we should be fine with the offensive line next year. The discussion about moving Mack to left tackle to make room for Guarnero at center. Bringing in other guys like Schwartz can only be helpful. We will have a good line (as well as a coach who is focused on coaching it...).
I always assume that we have skill players both offensively and defensively that can make plays. I am not always right, but Cal often has had quality skill players, even in the down years of the Holmoecaust and Gilby. But the offensive and defensive line play is critical for the Bears to do what they want to do. Which is why the I am most concerned about our defensive line, once again. And in particular, our new defensive line coach.
I do not know anything about the coach, from a coaching perspective. I think it is great that Tedford gives his GAs an opportunity to move up in the organization, like Justin WIlcox did, if he thinks they are quality performers. From what I have heard about Tosh Lupoi from the boards and the chat rooms, he seems to be a decent guy, motivated, over-achiever. That is what you want from a football coach. He certainly was a great Golden Bear player.
The one thing that I have a concern about is that the defensive line is our weakest spot on the field. And to put our young, over-achiever in that slot next year is my concern. I hope I am wrong. But it is our weakest link, I believe, and we need our strongest effort there.
Thinking about it, Tedford had a problem. First of all, he clearly likes the guy. If he did not, then he would have had no problem looking outside the team for a replacement of Coach Delgado (why did he leave, anyway? Anyone? Anyone?). I assume that he would have liked to have given Lupoi more experience, but since Delgado left, and you can only be a GA for two years, Tedford had to do something. So he gave him a shot.
Based on JT's comments, he is going to be spending more time with the defense next year, as well as special teams (don't you love it when your boss says he is going to be spending more time with you...time to get the resume out). So he is probably thinking that he has a young employee who needs assistance his first year in the trenches. He will be helping him out quite a bit. From a certain perspective, I think it is great that JT finally understands that football is a three phase game and he is going to be spending extra time developing the other phases. He is moving into the executive role football coach, and letting his assistants do what he needs them to. Cignetti is a great pick-up for JT in that he runs the same offense that JT does, which gives JT some confidence in the game planning. It probably is a huge relief for him to get this guy. That being said, I wonder how much I want JT mucking around in the defense. As far as I know, the entire time, Gregory has pretty much had full reign on the defense. And it has been a moderately successful defense, when we have had the players on the defensive line to run it well.
I do not, frankly, think it is the d-line coach that has caused the lack of d-line production this last year or two. I think it has been the players. But I could be wrong. Watching the Air Force game, the announcer said "90 percent of playing defense is wanting to." I couldn't agree more. Maybe a younger coach, who played under Tedford, can inspire the players to give more. I hope so. But I worry that next year we will have the same players, with a rookie coach, who may not get it done. And that would be a disaster. We have recruited some defensive tackles this cycle, which may be better than the ones we have. I doubt that we would be playing freshmen on the d-line, but it has happened. Let's see what this guy can do.
As far as other players going for the draft, I am not sure what DeSean is going to do, but it is assumed he will go.
I also think, frankly, that Nate Longshore should go. This is going to be his best year to make it. I know I sound crazy when I say that, but look at the facts:
1) He probably will not play next year. Not good for your draft stock.
2) He started all season long, and brought the team to a number 2 ranking. Then, he got injured and the season slipped away. But he can blame it all on the injury.
3) He does have NFL size and arm strength. He needs to get there before they start using the spread as well.
4) He is probably done with his degree anyway. What's he gonna do - take ballroom dancing?
Now, don't get me wrong. I think Nate should stay. I even think that Nate, playing healthy, is a very good QB. Maybe better than Riley (I will explain in a bit). But there is no way that Nate starts next year, and therefore it makes sense that he comes out early.
I took a look at four games over the past couple of days. Tennessee, Oregon, Air Force, and Oregon State. In the Tennessee game and the Oregon Game, Nate looked great. He was smooth, passed well, didn't fold under pressure, brought the team back to win at Oregon, and overall looked like a QB who was playing for the number 2 team in the country.
Kevin Riley also looked pretty good in both the Oregon State game and the Air Force game. Now, maybe I am nit-picking here, but Kevin is much more of a risk taker than Nate is when he plays. I think frankly that that is the difference. It resolves itself in a couple of different ways. First, if you take risks, sometimes you get more rewards. Sometimes you get burned (like KR did at the end of the Oregon State game). But it seems like the players that you lead like the risk-taker attitude a bit more, and that person becomes a more charismatic leader. So the players like KR better.
There are numerous instances where Kevin Riley took risks that Nate never would have taken, and was rewarded for it. The throwing out of the end-zone to the tight end in triple coverage, when he was almost sacked at the Oregon State game. Nate would have immediately thrown that ball away and tried again. It was an exciting play, one that built the mystique of KR. Of course, if it had gone astray, we would not be taking about any of this stuff. He would still be sitting on the bench.
Jeff Tedford, on the other hand, is not so much a risk taker. I think he likes to win by ramming the ball down the other guys throat, and throwing it over their heads just to confuse them and make them look up so he can hit them again. I think that is good football, frankly. But there comes a time when you need to know when to go for it, and sometimes JT is too conservative. With Riley, he will not have that problem. He will have to reign him in. Nate, I think, was too much on the same page as JT. And when Nate had the confidence and the strength to play well, we won convincingly in a very conservative manner. But it was enough. That being said, the ship has sailed, and Nate needs to move on. Even if he plays and starts next season, he will be replaced by the middle at the first sign of collapse. And that is not what JT would want in a QB. He wants the QB to have confidence for the full season. Which is why he is going to most likely tell Nate that it is over, and let him decide what he wants to do. At least, he should, for Nate's sake.
Now, I am not saying that Nate will make a team. But I do think someone would draft him in some late round and give him a shot. He is a smart, big, impressive guy with a calm demeanor, which goes well for NFL type QBs. I could see him knocking around in the league for a few years before coming out and being a commercial real estate agent or a sportscaster.
GO Bears!!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Rewind - National Championship Game, and other forward looking thoughts
Well, I have to say that The Ohio State Buckeyes blew this game. They had ability to win, but they gave it away. It was like looking at Cal over the pre-Riley era: Stupid penalties, blown special teams plays, and turnovers.
Not that it was theirs to give away. I mean, LSU looked to be the better team, as we all knew. Ohio State played in the patsy Big 10 and was not as good as advertised. I do think that next year they will be the team to beat. In fact, I think next year, the big four will be the last big four: Florida, Ohio State, USC and LSU. I am giving the SEC two teams because they always seem to whine about it.
Georgia could make a stink about not getting in the top 4 but lets see if they beat the Gators next year before we move them up.
And, yes, same for Cal and Michigan. I think that we are about the same spot, with Cal a step ahead. I mean, we already know the players. Rodriguez has to meet them first. But they will be tough sooner or later. I have a lot of respect for him, for some strange reason.
I also have respect for Tressel. He is a good coach. Which is why I laid $50 for tOSU to cover. Not a lot, mind you. But enough to get my Ohio State friends off my back. In fact it was the only game this bowl season where I went against my tried and true method = the team ranked higher at the beginning of the season is the one to take in the Bowl games. Especially if they are the underdogs. TOSU was ranked I think 12 or so at the beginning of the year, the LSU at #2. So that was a bad pick clearly (especially since I spent the entire season ridiculing them about how bad the Bid 10 was this year).
I think it will be interesting to see where people have Cal next year. We are losing most of our offense: our QB (I assume that Riley will start), our running back, our top three receivers, and three of our offensive linemen. As well as our top 2 defensive players. That does not feel good to me. Note - I am assuming Mack and DeSean go pro, based on the most recent comments of Tedford - he sounds just like last year when he was counseling Marshawn.
That being said, our fullback is a stud (I can see a huge year for him next year) as well as our receiving tight end. Our incoming QB will be a dynamo in his third year in the system, with Nate to back up when he inevitably screws up (if I were Nate I would declare right now, but that is a different story - easy to lay the ineptness on a fouled ankle than lack of talent when it counts). If we can get Calvin, Boateng, and maybe Ross or Cunningham or possibly Langeman (oh how I wish DeSean would sprain his ankle right now...just kidding...maybe.).
We need some running backs to step up, meaning be able to run 25 times per game and put up 125 yards. I know that Best can run 15 times for 100 yards. But we need another 20 or so running plays, Montgomery and Slocum and Vareen need to make it work. Maybe all of them. To be honest, I think a 4 or 5 back rotation would not be such a bad thing. Go with the hot hand, as USC did this year. I wonder if Cal will have a pre-season ranking. I would imagine that the west coast Media would once again vote for the Bears at 2 or three in the Pac 10, depending on who starts at QB. That being said, if we are 2 or three in the Pac 10, then we should be ranked.
Speaking of USC, I think they look like they are going to have some problems. Specifically, they are going to have an interception happy QB throwing behind the 5 offensive linemen, with NO BACKUPS!! I think I am right, but someone correct me if I am not. In looking at their roster, I only see 5 offensive linemen total returning. I see that they have 5 more recruited, but that is cutting it really close. I mean, they are going to have to start some of those freshmen. Which they will, but that will be great. Frankly, this was the year for SC. And they blew it by leaving Booty in for the Stanfurd game when he clearly was not doing well (I know, I know - so did we). But now, Booty is leaving, 4 of the 9 running backs are leaving, and many of the offensive linemen are leaving. But they have a good defense next year returning. So it will be ugly games for them. Not that they wont win a bunch defensively, but if we can score we have a great shot next year. I also think that Oregon will be down next year with the departure of Dixon and the starting of a redshirt sophomore. It has to suck starting a redshirt sophomore....oh, wait...oops.
Anyway, I will post some more on the Coaching changes as I figure out more about what I want to say, My initial thoughts are that it is good to make some changes. We are bringing in two new coaches, both with experience, and both pretty good assistants. I am a bit concerned about Tosh Lupoi, but I think that can work, as it did in the early days of the Tedford era. So it may be OK.
GO BEARS!!
Not that it was theirs to give away. I mean, LSU looked to be the better team, as we all knew. Ohio State played in the patsy Big 10 and was not as good as advertised. I do think that next year they will be the team to beat. In fact, I think next year, the big four will be the last big four: Florida, Ohio State, USC and LSU. I am giving the SEC two teams because they always seem to whine about it.
Georgia could make a stink about not getting in the top 4 but lets see if they beat the Gators next year before we move them up.
And, yes, same for Cal and Michigan. I think that we are about the same spot, with Cal a step ahead. I mean, we already know the players. Rodriguez has to meet them first. But they will be tough sooner or later. I have a lot of respect for him, for some strange reason.
I also have respect for Tressel. He is a good coach. Which is why I laid $50 for tOSU to cover. Not a lot, mind you. But enough to get my Ohio State friends off my back. In fact it was the only game this bowl season where I went against my tried and true method = the team ranked higher at the beginning of the season is the one to take in the Bowl games. Especially if they are the underdogs. TOSU was ranked I think 12 or so at the beginning of the year, the LSU at #2. So that was a bad pick clearly (especially since I spent the entire season ridiculing them about how bad the Bid 10 was this year).
I think it will be interesting to see where people have Cal next year. We are losing most of our offense: our QB (I assume that Riley will start), our running back, our top three receivers, and three of our offensive linemen. As well as our top 2 defensive players. That does not feel good to me. Note - I am assuming Mack and DeSean go pro, based on the most recent comments of Tedford - he sounds just like last year when he was counseling Marshawn.
That being said, our fullback is a stud (I can see a huge year for him next year) as well as our receiving tight end. Our incoming QB will be a dynamo in his third year in the system, with Nate to back up when he inevitably screws up (if I were Nate I would declare right now, but that is a different story - easy to lay the ineptness on a fouled ankle than lack of talent when it counts). If we can get Calvin, Boateng, and maybe Ross or Cunningham or possibly Langeman (oh how I wish DeSean would sprain his ankle right now...just kidding...maybe.).
We need some running backs to step up, meaning be able to run 25 times per game and put up 125 yards. I know that Best can run 15 times for 100 yards. But we need another 20 or so running plays, Montgomery and Slocum and Vareen need to make it work. Maybe all of them. To be honest, I think a 4 or 5 back rotation would not be such a bad thing. Go with the hot hand, as USC did this year. I wonder if Cal will have a pre-season ranking. I would imagine that the west coast Media would once again vote for the Bears at 2 or three in the Pac 10, depending on who starts at QB. That being said, if we are 2 or three in the Pac 10, then we should be ranked.
Speaking of USC, I think they look like they are going to have some problems. Specifically, they are going to have an interception happy QB throwing behind the 5 offensive linemen, with NO BACKUPS!! I think I am right, but someone correct me if I am not. In looking at their roster, I only see 5 offensive linemen total returning. I see that they have 5 more recruited, but that is cutting it really close. I mean, they are going to have to start some of those freshmen. Which they will, but that will be great. Frankly, this was the year for SC. And they blew it by leaving Booty in for the Stanfurd game when he clearly was not doing well (I know, I know - so did we). But now, Booty is leaving, 4 of the 9 running backs are leaving, and many of the offensive linemen are leaving. But they have a good defense next year returning. So it will be ugly games for them. Not that they wont win a bunch defensively, but if we can score we have a great shot next year. I also think that Oregon will be down next year with the departure of Dixon and the starting of a redshirt sophomore. It has to suck starting a redshirt sophomore....oh, wait...oops.
Anyway, I will post some more on the Coaching changes as I figure out more about what I want to say, My initial thoughts are that it is good to make some changes. We are bringing in two new coaches, both with experience, and both pretty good assistants. I am a bit concerned about Tosh Lupoi, but I think that can work, as it did in the early days of the Tedford era. So it may be OK.
GO BEARS!!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
National Championship Game
Hey, guys - guess what? The National Championship game is tomorrow.
Not that anyone cares. And I think that is the big issue with a playoff. Who cares who wins the title, unless you go to that school?
There are 120 division 1 teams. The largest of them have an alumni population of maybe half a million. Do you really think that the average american is really thinking about the Ohio State vs LSU right now? They are trying to return the sweater that Aunt Mary gave them which is the wrong size, color and style, without a receipt.
The people who care are those who live in Columbus, Ohio and Baton Rouge, LA.
But those guys really care. Passionately. As would we, if our Bears were there.
Let's think about what happened with the Bears this year and think about the playoff vs the BCS / Bowl situation. We would have loved to be in a BCS game, but we sucked at the end of the season and were lucky to squeak out a bowl game. That being said, regardless of the idiots who were saying we should not go to the bowl game, it was an embarrassment, is there any doubt that having that extra game and the whole scenario where we had the month off gave us a much better situation going into our next year? Or that some passion came back to the program which was somewhat cooled by the lackluster ending of the regular season?
What about the year we lost to Texas Tech at the Holiday Bowl? We could still bitch that we wuz robbed, that we would have played better at the Rose, that we had shoulda, coulda, woulda. Even though I remember that crappy game, and was there afterward at the Hotel when the players came in, it was fun for them, fun for everyone. It was a definite good time, and the right thing to do. And last year, at the Holiday Bowl against Texas A&M it was even better. But the point is, all of that would be swept away. Even with a 32 team playoff, the Bears would be nowhere to be found. And we needed that last game, believe me. As most teams do in our situation. The delay gives time for the injuries to heal. It gives the winners the ability to brag, and the losers the ability to say, 'Oh, it was just a bowl game."
Once again, the only thing that matters is the conference championship. If you win the Pac 10, then it means something. We did, sort of, last year (with, by the way, Nate as our QB). That is something that we have not done in 33 years, and it means something. It means more than coming in second in the National Championship game, for example. That is just a bowl game. Winning your conference means that you were the best for the entire season against others that you play year in and year out - people who know you and yet you still beat them. For us, that means beating USC. I kinda feel like the win in 2003 was the best game I have been to as a Bear. Particularly since there was this particularly obnoxious USC fan sitting directly in front of me, in a Cal section, no less.
The other thing people talk about is the lousy bowl games. As if a playoff would eliminate that. Guess what - Hawaii sucked - but they still would have been in the playoff picture.
If you want a playoff, go to the NFL. They do it in their own, passionless way.
Not that anyone cares. And I think that is the big issue with a playoff. Who cares who wins the title, unless you go to that school?
There are 120 division 1 teams. The largest of them have an alumni population of maybe half a million. Do you really think that the average american is really thinking about the Ohio State vs LSU right now? They are trying to return the sweater that Aunt Mary gave them which is the wrong size, color and style, without a receipt.
The people who care are those who live in Columbus, Ohio and Baton Rouge, LA.
But those guys really care. Passionately. As would we, if our Bears were there.
Let's think about what happened with the Bears this year and think about the playoff vs the BCS / Bowl situation. We would have loved to be in a BCS game, but we sucked at the end of the season and were lucky to squeak out a bowl game. That being said, regardless of the idiots who were saying we should not go to the bowl game, it was an embarrassment, is there any doubt that having that extra game and the whole scenario where we had the month off gave us a much better situation going into our next year? Or that some passion came back to the program which was somewhat cooled by the lackluster ending of the regular season?
What about the year we lost to Texas Tech at the Holiday Bowl? We could still bitch that we wuz robbed, that we would have played better at the Rose, that we had shoulda, coulda, woulda. Even though I remember that crappy game, and was there afterward at the Hotel when the players came in, it was fun for them, fun for everyone. It was a definite good time, and the right thing to do. And last year, at the Holiday Bowl against Texas A&M it was even better. But the point is, all of that would be swept away. Even with a 32 team playoff, the Bears would be nowhere to be found. And we needed that last game, believe me. As most teams do in our situation. The delay gives time for the injuries to heal. It gives the winners the ability to brag, and the losers the ability to say, 'Oh, it was just a bowl game."
Once again, the only thing that matters is the conference championship. If you win the Pac 10, then it means something. We did, sort of, last year (with, by the way, Nate as our QB). That is something that we have not done in 33 years, and it means something. It means more than coming in second in the National Championship game, for example. That is just a bowl game. Winning your conference means that you were the best for the entire season against others that you play year in and year out - people who know you and yet you still beat them. For us, that means beating USC. I kinda feel like the win in 2003 was the best game I have been to as a Bear. Particularly since there was this particularly obnoxious USC fan sitting directly in front of me, in a Cal section, no less.
The other thing people talk about is the lousy bowl games. As if a playoff would eliminate that. Guess what - Hawaii sucked - but they still would have been in the playoff picture.
If you want a playoff, go to the NFL. They do it in their own, passionless way.
Cal / UCLA
Well, the Bears had a chance. I guess that is as good as it gets with UCLA. They are a bunch of hacks, but they get away with it, and if the Bears want to win in the Pac 10 they are going to have to deal with it. Anderson even said after the game that he needs to focus when getting double and triple teamed about getting the ball out faster, not trying to do it all. I think that also indicates that the pressure was too much for him. Imagine how Devon felt.
The Bears scored poorly. They missed all sorts of shots, and they still had a chance to bring it back late in the game. They should feel good about that. They are a team that needs to flow to win, and they need to find a way to grind out the wins, like UCLA does. It is ugly but it works.
After this weekend, I am cautiously optimistic about this season. I think that we can get to our needed 20 victories. I think we can beat USC again, probably Oregon, Arizona, Washington and Arizona State. We could beat all of them, and if we can do it once, why not twice? I think that Stanford and UCLA will give us trouble. We need to get one from the Lopez twins, and see if we can get lucky and get one down at Pauley. Washington State is trouble for us.
It is like we are in the upswing of the Braun cycle. We have the team that can win, and take us to the sweet 16. We are not going to be making the move beyond that level. Devon just is not the player to get us there. I hope I am wrong.
The Bears scored poorly. They missed all sorts of shots, and they still had a chance to bring it back late in the game. They should feel good about that. They are a team that needs to flow to win, and they need to find a way to grind out the wins, like UCLA does. It is ugly but it works.
After this weekend, I am cautiously optimistic about this season. I think that we can get to our needed 20 victories. I think we can beat USC again, probably Oregon, Arizona, Washington and Arizona State. We could beat all of them, and if we can do it once, why not twice? I think that Stanford and UCLA will give us trouble. We need to get one from the Lopez twins, and see if we can get lucky and get one down at Pauley. Washington State is trouble for us.
It is like we are in the upswing of the Braun cycle. We have the team that can win, and take us to the sweet 16. We are not going to be making the move beyond that level. Devon just is not the player to get us there. I hope I am wrong.
Friday, January 4, 2008
USC Game
Attending the game last night at Haas was pretty interesting. Although the Trojans were ranked 22, and the Bears played strong for the most part throughout the game, it did not seem like the crowd was that electric.
I think there were two reasons for that: First, a lot of the students were gone, and the game was not sold out (which is embarassing). The Bench looked like about half of it was non-students.
Second, the Bears were never really behind, and seemed like they had the game in had the entire time. It has been a long time since I have felt like that for a game that really counts.
In my book, the recipe for success this season on the hoops court is this:
Win all preseason games. All were winnable, but we lost two.
Win half of the Pac 10 games.
That combination would get us into the dance at a respectable level, probably in a 6 -8 seed. In other words, we need a total of 20 wins. We could probably get in with an 18 win season, but that would give us a very low seed (10-11), and make our advancement more difficult.
So losing the two pre-season games that we did puts us in a bit of a bind. Then, when looking at the Pac 10 schedule, it shakes out like this:
Almost impossible to win - UCLA and Washington State - 4 total loses.
May be able to win at home, but very difficult on the road - USC, Arizona, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State - 6 total loses, 6 wins.
Have to win both at home and on the road - Oregon State - 2 wins.
If I was one of the other teams in the middle category, I would put Cal in the same category. Meaning, Cal should be a tough road trip.
Based on this initial swipe at Pac 10 strength, the Bears need to actually win 8 of the 12 games in the middle category to advance to a decent seed level.
So lets assume that I am correct. How could that break down?
Washington, USC and Oregon are currently all 9-4. They are the weakest of this group. The Bears need to win 5 of the 6 of these games. I see us splitting with Oregon, and beating Washington and USC at home and away.
Arizona State, Stanford, and Arizona - the Bears need to win 3 of the 6 of these. We need to win all out home games against these guys.
According to the RP!, Cal is 5th in the Pac 10, with a RPI at 48. That indicates that we should probably lose 8 games (all the RPI teams higher than us) and win 10 ( all the RPI lower than us). That is what we need to get to. But that assumes no screw ups. This is the toughest Pac 10 that I ever remember.
Back to the game last night. A buddy of mine sent this note which I think pretty much summed it up:
"Patrick Christopher and Jerome Randle have improved greatly from their freshmen years. Last year Christopher had no shot, only athleticism. Last night he was a complete player. On Saturday it will be about Hardin and Anderson keeping up with UCLA's big men. There were a number of times last night Eric Verneisel had to literally shove Hardin to the right spot on defense. SC has no good big men so it was okay. UCLA will eat this type of thing up."
In other words, Devon Hardin is, after 4 years, still the raw talent that he was, and has not advanced mentally enough to play at the top level of the NCAA. I am not going to say that this is Braun's fault. A big part of coaching is having players that are coachable. Devon clearly knows what he needs to do - he says it after each game - "yes, I need to avoid the cheap fouls, etc". So this is a situation where the player knows what to do, it is clearly drilled into him, yet he continually plays our of position and gets taken out of the game.
Devon playing well this season is the key to the Bears. We need him. We have all the other pieces, but we need Devon to play tough in the middle without getting nailed with cheap fouls. He can be a rebounding machine, but we need better defensive and offensive play without getting into foul trouble.
Anyway, it looked good last night overall. The teams seems to like to run, plays tough defense for the most part and really has a capability to score. I think Devon still needs to play better. Hopefully Saturday will be the day when he does. Frankly, beating UCLA in Hoops would be the biggest thing since, well, beating them last year in the Pac 10 tournament. That was a fun game (I think I was one of the 200 Cal fans there last year).
GO BEARS!!
I think there were two reasons for that: First, a lot of the students were gone, and the game was not sold out (which is embarassing). The Bench looked like about half of it was non-students.
Second, the Bears were never really behind, and seemed like they had the game in had the entire time. It has been a long time since I have felt like that for a game that really counts.
In my book, the recipe for success this season on the hoops court is this:
Win all preseason games. All were winnable, but we lost two.
Win half of the Pac 10 games.
That combination would get us into the dance at a respectable level, probably in a 6 -8 seed. In other words, we need a total of 20 wins. We could probably get in with an 18 win season, but that would give us a very low seed (10-11), and make our advancement more difficult.
So losing the two pre-season games that we did puts us in a bit of a bind. Then, when looking at the Pac 10 schedule, it shakes out like this:
Almost impossible to win - UCLA and Washington State - 4 total loses.
May be able to win at home, but very difficult on the road - USC, Arizona, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State - 6 total loses, 6 wins.
Have to win both at home and on the road - Oregon State - 2 wins.
If I was one of the other teams in the middle category, I would put Cal in the same category. Meaning, Cal should be a tough road trip.
Based on this initial swipe at Pac 10 strength, the Bears need to actually win 8 of the 12 games in the middle category to advance to a decent seed level.
So lets assume that I am correct. How could that break down?
Washington, USC and Oregon are currently all 9-4. They are the weakest of this group. The Bears need to win 5 of the 6 of these games. I see us splitting with Oregon, and beating Washington and USC at home and away.
Arizona State, Stanford, and Arizona - the Bears need to win 3 of the 6 of these. We need to win all out home games against these guys.
According to the RP!, Cal is 5th in the Pac 10, with a RPI at 48. That indicates that we should probably lose 8 games (all the RPI teams higher than us) and win 10 ( all the RPI lower than us). That is what we need to get to. But that assumes no screw ups. This is the toughest Pac 10 that I ever remember.
Back to the game last night. A buddy of mine sent this note which I think pretty much summed it up:
"Patrick Christopher and Jerome Randle have improved greatly from their freshmen years. Last year Christopher had no shot, only athleticism. Last night he was a complete player. On Saturday it will be about Hardin and Anderson keeping up with UCLA's big men. There were a number of times last night Eric Verneisel had to literally shove Hardin to the right spot on defense. SC has no good big men so it was okay. UCLA will eat this type of thing up."
In other words, Devon Hardin is, after 4 years, still the raw talent that he was, and has not advanced mentally enough to play at the top level of the NCAA. I am not going to say that this is Braun's fault. A big part of coaching is having players that are coachable. Devon clearly knows what he needs to do - he says it after each game - "yes, I need to avoid the cheap fouls, etc". So this is a situation where the player knows what to do, it is clearly drilled into him, yet he continually plays our of position and gets taken out of the game.
Devon playing well this season is the key to the Bears. We need him. We have all the other pieces, but we need Devon to play tough in the middle without getting nailed with cheap fouls. He can be a rebounding machine, but we need better defensive and offensive play without getting into foul trouble.
Anyway, it looked good last night overall. The teams seems to like to run, plays tough defense for the most part and really has a capability to score. I think Devon still needs to play better. Hopefully Saturday will be the day when he does. Frankly, beating UCLA in Hoops would be the biggest thing since, well, beating them last year in the Pac 10 tournament. That was a fun game (I think I was one of the 200 Cal fans there last year).
GO BEARS!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
