Was that our first fumble of the season?
CAL VS FUSKIES GAME THREAD
59,719 Views |
711 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Econ141
Wow. Oregon St. destroying U$C
Tough loss. Honestly neither team looked very good. WSU might be the worst in the P12 North but that game was likely the battle for second worst.
AFAIK targeting only applies to hits to a defenseless player...pretty sure at that point Moore's progress had not been stopped and so he would not have been considered defenseless.AXLBear said:
That was targeting...thats why he was knocked out! Dammit
After last week's win I was more down on this team. I thought the defense found themselves in the second half, and hopefully use it as a springboard for future performances.dimitrig said:
Clearly Bears have enough talent to be 4-0 right now.
They are 1-3.
Can't fire the players, so have to fire the coach.
I am worried about the injuries. Remigio, Tonges, McKenzie, those are all key players.
My dad went to Rutgers, so I watch a lot of Rutgers games……..chunkybear said:
Do other teams lose like this every other game or is it just Cal?
And Moore
Just 3 things:
- We clearly can be a decent team when we play well, tonight's 2nd half effort would have gotten us wins against Nevada and TCU, and in Seattle we came up a few yards short on a kick, and on Moore's fumble, despite our known issues.
- Garbers picks were the result of absolute play call idiocy, we ditched the sideline routes later in the 4th quarter and evened it up, as long as Musgrave does not do that again, we might be alright.
- If we had won tonight that would have been fine, but the injuries are a kick in the nuts with the loss, and next week against Washington State we are going to know if this team still has juice or if we keep sinking.
going4roses said:
And Moore
Next man up.
It also applies to ANY instance where the defensive player leads with the crown of his helmet.
Guess OSU is solid
Next week vs WSU is must win now
Next week vs WSU is must win now
Yes but that wasn't the point
HoopDreams said:
Guess OSU is solid
Next week vs WSU is must win now
All games are now must win. But will we?
Can you cite the rulebook? What I see is Rule 9-1-3 that says:AXLBear said:
It also applies to ANY instance where the defensive player leads with the crown of his helmet.
Quote:
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting
Strykur said:
Just 3 things:
- We clearly can be a decent team when we play well, tonight's 2nd half effort would have gotten us wins against Nevada and TCU, and in Seattle we came up a few yards short on a kick, and on Moore's fumble, despite our known issues.
- Garbers picks were the result of absolute play call idiocy, we ditched the sideline routes later in the 4th quarter and evened it up, as long as Musgrave does not do that again, we might be alright.
- If we had won tonight that would have been fine, but the injuries are a kick in the nuts with the loss, and next week against Washington State we are going to know if this team still has juice or if we keep sinking.
Garbers's picks had nothing to do with play calls. They were telegraphed passes into coverage and were terrible decisions. The rest of his game was pretty solid. The better focused team won tonight.
Musgrave has moments of magic and moments of madness.Strykur said:
Just 3 things:
- We clearly can be a decent team when we play well, tonight's 2nd half effort would have gotten us wins against Nevada and TCU, and in Seattle we came up a few yards short on a kick, and on Moore's fumble, despite our known issues.
- Garbers picks were the result of absolute play call idiocy, we ditched the sideline routes later in the 4th quarter and evened it up, as long as Musgrave does not do that again, we might be alright.
- If we had won tonight that would have been fine, but the injuries are a kick in the nuts with the loss, and next week against Washington State we are going to know if this team still has juice or if we keep sinking.
And I don't mean that looking back with hindsight as to whether it worked, the underlying logic for the playcalls aren't there sometimes.
Garbers wasn't the reason Cal lost, and he has enough other good plays to counter out his occassional lapses. Both interceptions were bad int's, though the second one required an amazing catch by the DB. I think the most frustrating lapse was the missed TD on the overthrow midway through the fourth.bearsandgiants said:Strykur said:
Just 3 things:
- We clearly can be a decent team when we play well, tonight's 2nd half effort would have gotten us wins against Nevada and TCU, and in Seattle we came up a few yards short on a kick, and on Moore's fumble, despite our known issues.
- Garbers picks were the result of absolute play call idiocy, we ditched the sideline routes later in the 4th quarter and evened it up, as long as Musgrave does not do that again, we might be alright.
- If we had won tonight that would have been fine, but the injuries are a kick in the nuts with the loss, and next week against Washington State we are going to know if this team still has juice or if we keep sinking.
Garbers's picks had nothing to do with play calls. They were telegraphed passes into coverage and were terrible decisions. The rest of his game was pretty solid. The better focused team won tonight.
All that said, I think he is a good enough quarterback to win some ball games, and is a net positive.
Sather Tower said:Clearly? I don't see it that way at all. They could be 4-0, but they wouldn't be a good team. This is a mediocre team at best losing to other mediocre teams.dimitrig said:
Clearly Bears have enough talent to be 4-0 right now.
They are 1-3.
Can't fire the players, so have to fire the coach.
You are what your record is since the college football season is so short. Unlike MLB where u have 162 games to prove yourself, the record is the proving ground.
Sather Tower said:Clearly? I don't see it that way at all. They could be 4-0, but they wouldn't be a good team. This is a mediocre team at best losing to other mediocre teams.dimitrig said:
Clearly Bears have enough talent to be 4-0 right now.
They are 1-3.
Can't fire the players, so have to fire the coach.
All very true, but the point is that but for a few plays they could be 4-0.
Their talent level has been on par with their rivals.
Yet, somehow, they are just 1-3.
So if it's not talent then it must be coaching,
Beating Washington doesn't make them a good team, but what does losing to them make them?
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Face masking penalty may have turned game.
pingpong2 said:
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Have to beat the bad teams - or, if you are an optimist, the teams on par with you.
Losing close games again and again means the problem is larger than just talent.
Sather Tower said:Clearly? I don't see it that way at all. They could be 4-0, but they wouldn't be a good team. This is a mediocre team at best losing to other mediocre teams.dimitrig said:
Clearly Bears have enough talent to be 4-0 right now.
They are 1-3.
Can't fire the players, so have to fire the coach.
Yes, we could be mediocre+
Sather Tower said:Means they are about as good a team as Washington, not all that good.dimitrig said:
Beating Washington doesn't make them a good team, but what does losing to them make them?
No, it means that they lost to a team that is "not all that good."
That makes them worse than "not all that good."
Sather Tower said:Means they are about as good a team as Washington, not all that good.dimitrig said:
Beating Washington doesn't make them a good team, but what does losing to them make them?
Yes, we are about as good as Washington. Home field and refs gave them the edge. However we are both bottom half of the PAC-12 North. Oregon, Stanford and OSU all appear to be better. Jonathan Smith is doing what we pretended Wilcox was doing.
I would take 4-0 by any measure…I wouldn't care if people still thought we were mediocre. We are now 1-3, probably going to have some more recruit defections and in real trouble (with these injuries). We need to somehow win some close games going forward to avert total disaster
Its never just one play. The two penalties on Hearns that kept UW drives alive, the two ints, the missed TD pass to Crawford, the botched snap on the FG, they are all individual plays that could have turned the game. Every play has the potential to turn the game, or turn the game back.SmellinRoses said:
Face masking penalty may have turned game.
11-23 Johnathan Smith? Yeah I know it's Oregon State, but let's wait for him to win anything before we sing his praises.calumnus said:Sather Tower said:Means they are about as good a team as Washington, not all that good.dimitrig said:
Beating Washington doesn't make them a good team, but what does losing to them make them?
Yes, we are about as good as Washington. Home field and refs gave them the edge. However we are both bottom half of the PAC-12 North. Oregon, Stanford and OSU all appear to be better. Jonathan Smith is doing what we pretended Wilcox was doing.
pingpong2 said:
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Based on our play maybe we "should" be 2-2. Which would still not be impressive given our schedule.
Its a hallmark of the Wilcox era that seemingly every game becomes a 50/50 toss-up.sycasey said:pingpong2 said:
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Based on our play maybe we "should" be 2-2. Which would still not be impressive given our schedule.
Another fine job by homer refs
golden sloth said:Its a hallmark of the Wilcox era that seemingly every game becomes a 50/50 toss-up.sycasey said:pingpong2 said:
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Based on our play maybe we "should" be 2-2. Which would still not be impressive given our schedule.
Yeah, late in 2019 it looked like that might be turning around, but we're back to the old ways now.
After 2019, we had college football mags in the 2020 preseason giving us mad props about breaking out and making a run for the PAC-12 and winning 11 games, that talk is dead but then the question is what does Wilcox have to do in 2022 to show we are making progress, 8-5 is not good enough anymore.sycasey said:Yeah, late in 2019 it looked like that might be turning around, but we're back to the old ways now.golden sloth said:Its a hallmark of the Wilcox era that seemingly every game becomes a 50/50 toss-up.sycasey said:pingpong2 said:
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Based on our play maybe we "should" be 2-2. Which would still not be impressive given our schedule.
Strykur said:After 2019, we had college football mags in the 2020 preseason giving us mad props about breaking out and making a run for the PAC-12 and winning 11 games, that talk is dead but then the question is what does Wilcox have to do in 2022 to show we are making progress, 8-5 is not good enough anymore.sycasey said:Yeah, late in 2019 it looked like that might be turning around, but we're back to the old ways now.golden sloth said:Its a hallmark of the Wilcox era that seemingly every game becomes a 50/50 toss-up.sycasey said:pingpong2 said:
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Based on our play maybe we "should" be 2-2. Which would still not be impressive given our schedule.
He has to do better than that, basically. Doesn't look like that's happening this year.
sycasey said:Strykur said:After 2019, we had college football mags in the 2020 preseason giving us mad props about breaking out and making a run for the PAC-12 and winning 11 games, that talk is dead but then the question is what does Wilcox have to do in 2022 to show we are making progress, 8-5 is not good enough anymore.sycasey said:Yeah, late in 2019 it looked like that might be turning around, but we're back to the old ways now.golden sloth said:Its a hallmark of the Wilcox era that seemingly every game becomes a 50/50 toss-up.sycasey said:pingpong2 said:
Even if we were 4-0, can anyone say that based on our play we deserved to win those games? If we had won it would have been because the other team deserved to lose slightly more than we deserved to lose.
Based on our play maybe we "should" be 2-2. Which would still not be impressive given our schedule.
He has to do better than that, basically. Doesn't look like that's happening this year.
Doesn't look like it's happening next year either, with the way recruiting has been going the past couple of years. We're not going to beat other teams on talent, so we'll have to beat them with coaching, but I haven't seen anything from the staff that would lead me to believe we can outcoach other teams.
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics
Friday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz