[majorursa]

Got home from Seattle this evening, and I don't have time to go through ALL the threads meticulously (even though some covered this) and could care less if anything is remotely Boothable, but Tedford is THE reason this game was lost.
First, the unbelievable accepting of the holding penalty...UW was in their own territory in the 2nd quarter, and Polk had just been stuffed on 3rd and short. Tedord was HIGH if he thought the Huskies would go for it on 4th down and a yard to go. His quote: "They would have gone for it. I'd take 3rd and 11 over 4th and 6 inches any day." Well Jeff, maybe if it was later in the game, UW would have gone for it, but NOT in their own territory in the 2nd quarter after Polk had just been crushed (and it wasn't "6 inches" either). Epic fail, as the Huskies went on to drive down the field and score a TD - that TD is on Tedford.

Second, the play calling at the end of the game. I'll help you Jeff:
Anderson...if stopped, then Anderson...if stopped, then Anderson...if stopped, then fuc*ing Anderson again. Cal's O-line was getting pretty consistent run block push, and 1st and goal at the 2 should have been a no brainer - you bring in your BEST short yardage runner. Anyone who defends Isi getting the ball in that situation has no clue...hey, Cal used Anderson to score a short yardage TD earlier in the game, didn't they???

Tedford conveniently forgot about that, but what enraged me were his postgame quotes: "We thought we could punch it in" referring to Isi getting the ball. Then, when questioned why Anderson wasn't in the game, he had the nerve to say: "That could have been something, I guess. Would C.J. have scored? I don't know. It's a thought."
Really? It's a thought? Holy sheet, this is the most lame/stupid/clueless thing I have ever heard Tedford say - and no, I'm serious.

Lastly, about the final play - predictable much?????? Before the final play, Washington defensive coaches knew exactly what play Cal would run. Quinton Richardson told a reporter (Jerry Brewer for the Seattle Times) that his coaches said: "A fade to Keenan Allen is coming. Man up on him and stay outside." Oops...
By the way,on the post-game Husky radio show, an ex-QB had a great point about our formation for that play. He said that Allen was the only receiver split out to the left, but the problem was that he wasn't split out nearly WIDE enough. From where he lined up, the DB didn't have to worry about a slant because there would be way too much traffic in the middle, so he only had to worry about covering to the outside.
I had a great time in Seattle, and was proud of how the team competed and came back, but Tedford's decisions and his inexcusable quotes trying to defend those same decisions were too much - I know this a very long rant, and might be unpopular, but anyone with half of a half a brain had better hold Tedford COMPLETELY and TOTALLY responsible for this loss.

[KoreAmBear]

I'm not enamored of the tone, but in substance I agree with most of your post. Now where was the 4th and inches though (I forget)? At around mid-field is different from at your 30 or 20. But yes, early in the game, you would think the opposing coach wouldn't be stupid enough to start gambling before establishing a game plan. It is inexplicable how JT thought running CJA was a notion for consideration in retrospect. I think 90% of Cal fans at the game or watching on TV are yelling, give it to CJA and/or or give it to Will Kapp!!! I certainly was, and this was on first down. The last guy I would have given it to is the smallest guy on the field in that situation - and we did it twice. *sigh*

[MisterNoodle]

I think the 4th down was on their own 40-ish. I was surprised by the call to take the penalty. I thought it was a full yard to go but I could be wrong. I have not gone back to re-watch this game, for obvious reasons.

I think JT should sit in the box. If he sees the ref's spot would he have made a different decision? Up there, he can see who is getting beat in man to man battles. He is removed from the sideline and can make better game management decisions. He can see that he has his Lil Back in the game on the goal line. Heck, put Clancy up there, too.

[majorursa]

Sorry for the tone (really), KAB, but the Cal players fought too hard and played their a**es off for the entire game to have their coach make decisions a Pop Warner coach knows enough not to make. While Tedford has made some positive adjustments (going for it multiple times on 4th down was great), he remains myopic about Isi/CJA. There is no explanation/excuse that can remove the utter insanity of having Isi in the game in a First and goal on the 2 situation.

[Sonofafurd]

Based on how poor the run blocking was on 3rd and goal from the 1, wondering if Anderson would have scored really is just a thought ... a meaningless one.

[KoreAmBear]

Originally Posted by Sonofafurd

Based on how poor the run blocking was on 3rd and goal from the 1, wondering if Anderson would have scored really is just a thought ... a meaningless one.

When I saw the initial replay of 3rd down, I saw that if Will Kapp had been given the ball, there was enough push for him to sneak in rather easily for a yard. But instead the ball was given to further back to Isi and the pursuit was there behind the line.

[JSML]

I've read many poster saying we should have run Anderson 4 times. What I remember is we only had 2 time outs left, that meant we can only run it at the most twice before the fourth down play, otherwise we would have had 3 downs instead of 4.

[KoreAmBear]

Originally Posted by JSML

I've read many poster saying we should have run Anderson 4 times. What I remember is we only had 2 time outs left, that meant we can only run it at the most twice before the fourth down play, otherwise we would have had 3 downs instead of 4.

That's interesting. That TO we burned didn't really factor into the game, but considering this, maybe it did. That was such a poor use of a TO.

[GB54]

I don't think he should have his balls cut off. It's just a football game.

[waltwa]

I agree completely with the 1st post.

my conclusion is NEVER,NEVER,EVER,EVER GIVE A COACH A LONG TERM CONTRACT!!!! If he leaves u simply go out and hire another coach!

I also saw the game live and concluded that if Sark was the cal coach and JT was the Husky coach Cal would have won the game.

[prospeCt]

Originally Posted by waltwa

concluded that if Sark was the cal coach and JT was the Husky coach Cal would have won the game.

but lost the party. pas berkeley.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Lex...eature=related

[Californication]

The only thing that we know is true about your suppositions is that the last play of the game was a bad play. Everything else is just guesswork. If we turn down the holding penalty, they have an easy 4th down opportunity if they take the risk, and people would blast the coach again for making the wrong call, "I mean what kind of idiot would think Sark wouldn't pound one of the best running backs in the nation at us and get an easy 6 inches? Tedford is such a moron!!!"

I too would have preferred CJ Anderson in the goal line situation (I'm one of those people that thinks Sofele should be a 3rd string/3rd down-only running back). But your supposition assumes that CJ would have been successful. Sofele ran harder and better than Anderson all game, so again, if the call is for Anderson and he loses two yards everyone would have been b*tching Tedford out for not going with the hot hand. The argument is that Sofele clearly has better vision (or something), because he's not nearly as strong but seems to get good yards even in tight spaces.

And back to the final play, Colorado had to know that play was coming and yet it worked. I hate that play call. I'd rather have our QB moving and give him multiple options. If we know anything about our QB, it's that he's talented but inconsistent with his throws, so why make him throw the perfect pass without a check-down option?

Finally, I'm always opposed to putting too much on the coach (if you haven't noticed). Players execute. Every team should be able to stop a 3rd and 11, score from the 1 on a dive play, etc. if the defenders keep players in front of them or make the proper blocks. I'm sure if you review the blocking on the Sofele play, you'll see our OL get blown up so that CJ wouldn't have had a chance either.

[sycasey]

Originally Posted by GB54

I don't think he should have his balls cut off. It's just a football game.

HAH! That's exactly what I thought when I saw the thread title.

[freshfunk]

The 4th and 1 is debatable. Asking our defense to hold them on 3rd and 11 doesn't seem like a definitively worse call. They were able to get some yardage without fail due to their mobile QB and/or Polk grinding a couple out.

JT's response about Sofele is fine too. He obviously recognizes that CJ might have been able to punch it in there. I'm not sure what you expect. Do you expect him to throw Sofele under the bus? My guess is that he gave Sofele a chance during a game where he was running well between tackles but that, in future cases, he'll be going to CJ.

On the fade pass: I would've run the QB run / lateral option since we were successful with that. But, despite its predictability, Allen is our best receiver. You throw it anywhere in his vicinity and he catches that (great hands, big target + wins that mismatch with the DB).

Frankly, I'm surprised that so many people call it a dumb play considering that was essentially the same play that won the game v. Colorado.

[sycasey]

Originally Posted by freshfunk

Frankly, I'm surprised that so many people call it a dumb play considering that was essentially the same play that won the game v. Colorado.

I would have preferred trying the play earlier in the sequence, but on a do-or-die 4th down not so much.