MEMORIAL STADIUM - The Bears came into Saturday night’s nationally televised game in desperate need of a win after back-to-back losses and winless since their last game in Memorial Stadium a month ago.
A generously-estimated crowd of 34,601 saw the Bears sleepwalk through a first half where they only managed a handful of first downs and no points before seeing their second half rally fall short in a 28-21 loss to 6-2/3-2 Washington.
Following their worst offensive performance of the season in last week’s 20-13 overtime loss to Colorado, the Bears followed up with their worst offensive half of the season, generating just 83 yards of total offense at the break, with just 5 net yards on the ground and just 80 passing yards against a Husky defense averaging surrendering 258 yards per game through the air.
It could have easily been worse than the 6-0 margin that more closely resembled the score at a 7th inning stretch of a baseball game than halftime of a football game as the bend but not break Cal defense managed to hold the Huskies to just a pair of first half field goals while giving up 245 yards of total offense.
In a touch of irony, two of the Bears’ most prolific offensive players in recent history -former Cal and NFL running backs Marshawn Lynch and Justin Forsett- were inducted into Cal’s Hall of Fame at halftime, begging the question of if either retained any collegiate eligibility for the offensively-challenged Cal offense.
“I thought our players gave us everything they had,” said head coach Justin Wilcox. “In the first half, we didn’t get enough going on offense. And in the second half, we needed one more stop somewhere.
“We didn’t get it done. They’re a good team. So that’s the bottom line. I thought our guys competed really hard. We made some plays in the second half. Big catches, catch and runs. Jack stood in there under some pressure and delivered the ball.
“The story is going to be the missed opportunities on both sides of the ball.”
Perhaps inspired by the dynamic duo, the Bears’ somnambulant offense woke up to start the second half, methodically driving 75 yards in 13 plays to take a 7-6 lead on a J.Michael Sturdivant 8-yard TD reception from QB Jack Plummer. The Bears’ longest play on the drive was just 13 yards on a Mason Starling reception at the Husky 19 before Sturdivant found paydirt.
The lead didn’t last long, as the Huskies put together a quick response, driving 70 yards in 11 plays, with running back Cameron Davis strolling into the end zone untouched for the score for the 6-yard TD run. The UW successful 2-point conversion stretched the Huskies’ lead to 14-7 on a corner pass from QB Michael Penix to receiver Ja’Lynn Polk.
Penix had his usual efficient game, going 36-for-51 (71%) for 374 yards and 2 TDs with no interceptions.
The Bears came right back with a drive of their own. Six plays got the Bears to midfield when speedy receiver J.Michael Sturdivant struck again, this time taking a Plummer pass down the sideline and outrunning the Huskey D to the end zone for a 48-yard TD reception. The catch and run was of the variety the Cal offense hasn’t often displayed in recent years and a taste of what Cal fans had hoped to see much more of this season with a speedy and athletic receiving and running backs corps. The Dario Longhetto extra point knotted the score at 14 with 2:10 left in the third quarter.
Sturdivant’s pair of TDs with the Bears’ first multi-TD reception game for a Cal receiver since Kekoa Crawford’s pair vs. UC Davis in 2019. The redshirt frosh led the Bears with 8 receptions for 104 yards in the Bears’ loss. Junior JC transfer Mason Starling, who saw his first action of the season after coming back from a lower-body injury late in the Bears’ loss to Colorado last week, hauled in 4 catches for 49 yards before departing the game in the third quarter with another that had the look of another extended absence, joining starting receiver Jeremiah Hunter on the injured list again.
“We were just starting to put the pieces together in the second half,” said Sturdivant. “We got into our groove. That’s just something we have to figure out how to get into earlier in the game so we don’t have to depend on such a good second half to win a ballgame.
“You saw a glimpse of what we can do (as an offense) today. You saw what we did to Arizona a few weeks ago. We’ve just got to go back to practice and figure out how to start faster and put more points on the board.”
Plummer shook off a pair of rough outings to play a solid overall game after the slow start, completing 21-of-35 passes and 3 TDs with no interceptions despite the Bears missing starting OG Matt Cindric on a line that’s already struggled before the veteran starter went down after last week’s loss in Boulder, not to mention the 5 sacks and numerous hits he sustained.
Plummer was asked about talented young receivers J.Michael Sturdivant and Mavin Anderson after the game.
“Two very dynamic receivers,” said Plummer of the duo. “JMike, kind of his first year being in the staring role and he’s just been getting better every week and I think he’s going to be a problem for teams to match up against. He’s really quick. He’s got track speed and he can go up and get the ball.
“Mavin played really well today, too. Just a huge catch on fourth down. I still don’t know how he caught that. He’s a good player for us, too, and those guys will be key for our offense if we want to score points.”
Not to be outdone, the Huskies went on the move again, methodically driving the field in a 10-play, 75-yard drive to retake the lead, with the final blow coming on an inexplicably uncovered Jalen McMillan hauling in a 13-yard pass on a critical 3rd-and-10 play with 13:49 left in the game to go up 21-14.
The Bears weren’t able to generate anything beyond negative yardage on the next possession, giving Washington good field position after the Jamieson Sheahan punt to the Husky 33.
Washington went on the move again on the possession. Facing 3rd-and-2 on the Cal 36, Penix hit a poorly-covered running back Richard Newton, with linebacker Muelu Iosefa badly whiffing on the tackle attempt as Newton shook on the Cal LB for the 36-yard TD to push the Husky lead to a dangerous 14 points at 28-14 with 10:19 left in the game.
The Bears weren’t ready to roll over quite yet, going on a methodical 12-play, 80-yard drive, keyed by redshirt frosh receiver Mavin Anderson, who hauled in a 35-yard reception to the UW 35 and an acrobatic 8-yard TD grab with 6:11 left in the game to narrow the deficit to 7 after the PAT.
The Bears’ defense twice held the potent Husky offense off the scoreboard in their next two possessions but ran out of steam on the offensive end as time ran out on the Bears’ comeback attempt.
“The defense is really grinding and battling and holding a team who averaged 42 points a game to 28, 6 in the first half,” Plummer said. “Gotta give credit to them. We as an offense, starting with myself, we gotta pick it up for them because they’re keeping us in the games and we’ve gotta close it out on our side of the ball.”
MLB Jackson Sirmon again led the Bears with 11 tackles in the loss. Safety Daniel Scott had 8 tackles and a pass breakup to lead the secondary.
The loss drops the Bears to 3-4/1-3 on the season. The schedule doesn’t get any easier as the 1st place Oregon Ducks come to town for next Saturday’s 12;30 showdown.
Related:
Bear Insider Ultimate Insider Podcast E43: Washington Preview -Audio & Video
bbdb held them to 6 (9, really) in the first half. UW figured it out somewhat in the second with 22, but that was the game plan and made it close to winnable.79 Bear said:
Really getting concerned about our pass defense now. I realize that due to injuries we have a hard time generating a pass rush, but why is our secondary playing so soft and off the receivers so much? They had guys wide open numerous times tonight. I actually think it was a winnable game, but giving up chunk pass plays repeatedly probably made the difference.
79 Bear said:
Really getting concerned about our pass defense now. I realize that due to injuries we have a hard time generating a pass rush, but why is our secondary playing so soft and off the receivers so much? They had guys wide open numerous times tonight. I actually think it was a winnable game, but giving up chunk pass plays repeatedly probably made the difference.
I was at the game and the feeling in the stands was upbeat. I didn't hear a lot of complaining about how we played. I enjoyed the game from the stands. Sure we did nothing offensively for one half, but the defense kept it interesting.Big C said:
Just going on the basis of my morale, feelings and psyche tonight, I have to say that, starting around the middle of the 2nd quarter, I kind of enjoyed this game. I mean, we're screwed and all, sure, but that's how I felt, watching the game. Of course, this required repressing all recollections of our offensive line play.
Good thoughts and you are converting me to realism. I was too pumped up early season and then when 4 key DL were out for season, it became clear that we had little push and pressure on the QB. and thus its very difficult to win. Guys effort was generally good, but the lines are flat out being pushed around and the strength difference is noticeable.heartofthebear said:I was at the game and the feeling in the stands was upbeat. I didn't hear a lot of complaining about how we played. I enjoyed the game from the stands. Sure we did nothing offensively for one half, but the defense kept it interesting.Big C said:
Just going on the basis of my morale, feelings and psyche tonight, I have to say that, starting around the middle of the 2nd quarter, I kind of enjoyed this game. I mean, we're screwed and all, sure, but that's how I felt, watching the game. Of course, this required repressing all recollections of our offensive line play.
Cal played mistake free:
- Almost 0 penalties
- no turnovers
- the punter avoided a blocked punt attempt and got off a kick that was inside the 20 yards line.
In general the offense looked way better.
Plummer had more time and we were able to pass successfully.
Brooks came in and made some key run
Cal had 2 or 3 sacks, stuffed the run and played good pass D on the right side of the secondary.
The left side of the Cal D sucked, and CB Gamble had a bad day.
Cal would have won but Plummer got hurt again late in the 4th Q and he just couldn't complete the passes he had been completing.
Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie Brett Johnson pre-season and Plummer playing hurt).
Now it looks like Starling and Hawkins may be out a long time as well.
I thought that Washington was winnable, if they, had injury problems. But they came in pretty healthy. The one injury issue for them is that a star LB has been out all year and was supposed to back in time for the Cal game but wasn't. Early in the year, all-american OT Kirkland was out for a bit, but he's been back.
The same could be said of OSU, which seems to have injury issues, but OSU's QB issue is a mirage. OSU was one of the deepest teams in the conference at QB, with 3 capable starters. And the backup led them to a 49-7 win over Colorado last night.
I said Cal would be 5-7 but improved on offense. I was pretty much the only one. I would not be critical of the coaches Cal was actually an improved 5-7. But they aren't improved. And the aren't going to be 5-7. They are probably going to be 4-8, assuming Furd continues to under-perform and Cal can stop the bleeding with their injury issues. If Cal can't get Plummer healthy, we could lose to Furd too.
part of the problem is that folks had unreasonable expectations to start with. But there is no excuse for the poor play of the OL this year, although they played much better than expected last night, especially considering that Cindric was out.
I think what I saw last night gave me hope that, if key players return next season (ie Ott, Plummer, B. Johnson) and we land some nice portal transfers, we could compete pretty well next season with these players. But we have to get new blood within the coaching ranks on offense to do so.
Sirmon has elected to play a type of defense that doesn't create pressure and I would criticize it because it is in contrast to DeRuyter who's Cal D was actually better. But the Sirmon's plan is also working because it allows Cal to drop 7 or 8 into coverage. Time and again opposing QBs drop back with plenty of time and look, and look, and look again, only to have to throw an incomplete pass or take a sack anyway.4thGenCal said:Good thoughts and you are converting me to realism. I was too pumped up early season and then when 4 key DL were out for season, it became clear that we had little push and pressure on the QB. and thus its very difficult to win. Guys effort was generally good, but the lines are flat out being pushed around and the strength difference is noticeable.heartofthebear said:I was at the game and the feeling in the stands was upbeat. I didn't hear a lot of complaining about how we played. I enjoyed the game from the stands. Sure we did nothing offensively for one half, but the defense kept it interesting.Big C said:
Just going on the basis of my morale, feelings and psyche tonight, I have to say that, starting around the middle of the 2nd quarter, I kind of enjoyed this game. I mean, we're screwed and all, sure, but that's how I felt, watching the game. Of course, this required repressing all recollections of our offensive line play.
Cal played mistake free:
- Almost 0 penalties
- no turnovers
- the punter avoided a blocked punt attempt and got off a kick that was inside the 20 yards line.
In general the offense looked way better.
Plummer had more time and we were able to pass successfully.
Brooks came in and made some key run
Cal had 2 or 3 sacks, stuffed the run and played good pass D on the right side of the secondary.
The left side of the Cal D sucked, and CB Gamble had a bad day.
Cal would have won but Plummer got hurt again late in the 4th Q and he just couldn't complete the passes he had been completing.
Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie Brett Johnson pre-season and Plummer playing hurt).
Now it looks like Starling and Hawkins may be out a long time as well.
I thought that Washington was winnable, if they, had injury problems. But they came in pretty healthy. The one injury issue for them is that a star LB has been out all year and was supposed to back in time for the Cal game but wasn't. Early in the year, all-american OT Kirkland was out for a bit, but he's been back.
The same could be said of OSU, which seems to have injury issues, but OSU's QB issue is a mirage. OSU was one of the deepest teams in the conference at QB, with 3 capable starters. And the backup led them to a 49-7 win over Colorado last night.
I said Cal would be 5-7 but improved on offense. I was pretty much the only one. I would not be critical of the coaches Cal was actually an improved 5-7. But they aren't improved. And the aren't going to be 5-7. They are probably going to be 4-8, assuming Furd continues to under-perform and Cal can stop the bleeding with their injury issues. If Cal can't get Plummer healthy, we could lose to Furd too.
part of the problem is that folks had unreasonable expectations to start with. But there is no excuse for the poor play of the OL this year, although they played much better than expected last night, especially considering that Cindric was out.
I think what I saw last night gave me hope that, if key players return next season (ie Ott, Plummer, B. Johnson) and we land some nice portal transfers, we could compete pretty well next season with these players. But we have to get new blood within the coaching ranks on offense to do so.
I like your objective and direct comments - I do think though that the defense was overall not effective. Huskies left a minimum of 10 pts out there, due to lack of execution/penalites (easily should have been 38-41 pts scored). Yes excellent red zone defense, but with time of possession, our offense had less opportunities. Our pressure on the QB was limited and Penix/QB regularly had 5 seconds to find the necessary seam and deliver accurate passes. Clearly felt Huskies controlled our Dline whether run or pass blocking. And yes with 4 key DL players out (include Calhoun) there is a huge drop off in talent and physicality.heartofthebear said:Sirmon has elected to play a type of defense that doesn't create pressure and I would criticize it because it is in contrast to DeRuyter who's Cal D was actually better. But the Sirmon's plan is also working because it allows Cal to drop 7 or 8 into coverage. Time and again opposing QBs drop back with plenty of time and look, and look, and look again, only to have to throw an incomplete pass or take a sack anyway.4thGenCal said:Good thoughts and you are converting me to realism. I was too pumped up early season and then when 4 key DL were out for season, it became clear that we had little push and pressure on the QB. and thus its very difficult to win. Guys effort was generally good, but the lines are flat out being pushed around and the strength difference is noticeable.heartofthebear said:I was at the game and the feeling in the stands was upbeat. I didn't hear a lot of complaining about how we played. I enjoyed the game from the stands. Sure we did nothing offensively for one half, but the defense kept it interesting.Big C said:
Just going on the basis of my morale, feelings and psyche tonight, I have to say that, starting around the middle of the 2nd quarter, I kind of enjoyed this game. I mean, we're screwed and all, sure, but that's how I felt, watching the game. Of course, this required repressing all recollections of our offensive line play.
Cal played mistake free:
- Almost 0 penalties
- no turnovers
- the punter avoided a blocked punt attempt and got off a kick that was inside the 20 yards line.
In general the offense looked way better.
Plummer had more time and we were able to pass successfully.
Brooks came in and made some key run
Cal had 2 or 3 sacks, stuffed the run and played good pass D on the right side of the secondary.
The left side of the Cal D sucked, and CB Gamble had a bad day.
Cal would have won but Plummer got hurt again late in the 4th Q and he just couldn't complete the passes he had been completing.
Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie Brett Johnson pre-season and Plummer playing hurt).
Now it looks like Starling and Hawkins may be out a long time as well.
I thought that Washington was winnable, if they, had injury problems. But they came in pretty healthy. The one injury issue for them is that a star LB has been out all year and was supposed to back in time for the Cal game but wasn't. Early in the year, all-american OT Kirkland was out for a bit, but he's been back.
The same could be said of OSU, which seems to have injury issues, but OSU's QB issue is a mirage. OSU was one of the deepest teams in the conference at QB, with 3 capable starters. And the backup led them to a 49-7 win over Colorado last night.
I said Cal would be 5-7 but improved on offense. I was pretty much the only one. I would not be critical of the coaches Cal was actually an improved 5-7. But they aren't improved. And the aren't going to be 5-7. They are probably going to be 4-8, assuming Furd continues to under-perform and Cal can stop the bleeding with their injury issues. If Cal can't get Plummer healthy, we could lose to Furd too.
part of the problem is that folks had unreasonable expectations to start with. But there is no excuse for the poor play of the OL this year, although they played much better than expected last night, especially considering that Cindric was out.
I think what I saw last night gave me hope that, if key players return next season (ie Ott, Plummer, B. Johnson) and we land some nice portal transfers, we could compete pretty well next season with these players. But we have to get new blood within the coaching ranks on offense to do so.
The opposing QB may have too much time, but I don't think they are taking advantage of it very much. Cal does allow a lot of pass completions but they keep the play in front of them, stopping the big play. Big plays, turnovers and penalties are some of the biggest metrics involved in losing games. Passing yards allowed is not one of them. So Cal is using the right strategy defensively. The problem on defense is that Hearns was injured and Gamble had a horrid day replacing him, including missing a key tackle allowing a TD.
The other problems are all on offense.
I would add that, considering the scheme and the injuries, Cal generated a surprising amount of pressure. #44 is pretty good.
Understood. It points to Wilcox's bias against the offense, that allows the Sirmon defense to play a scheme that limits Cal TOP. Ironically Cal is statistically pretty good in TOP on the season (5th @ 31:14/gm), based on conference stats. That was before last night. The way that Wilcox manages a game often disproportionately disadvantages the offense including poor field position, time outs called mostly on defense and TOP. If coaches notice this, it may be harder than it would otherwise be getting a good OC to replace Musgrave and even harder to retain the new one.4thGenCal said:I like your objective and direct comments - I do think though that the defense was overall not effective. Huskies left a minimum of 10 pts out there, due to lack of execution/penalites (easily should have been 38-41 pts scored). Yes excellent red zone defense, but with time of possession, our offense had less opportunities. Our pressure on the QB was limited and Penix/QB regularly had 5 seconds to find the necessary seam and deliver accurate passes. Clearly felt Huskies controlled our Dline whether run or pass blocking. And yes with 4 key DL players out (include Calhoun) there is a huge drop off in talent and physicality.heartofthebear said:Sirmon has elected to play a type of defense that doesn't create pressure and I would criticize it because it is in contrast to DeRuyter who's Cal D was actually better. But the Sirmon's plan is also working because it allows Cal to drop 7 or 8 into coverage. Time and again opposing QBs drop back with plenty of time and look, and look, and look again, only to have to throw an incomplete pass or take a sack anyway.4thGenCal said:Good thoughts and you are converting me to realism. I was too pumped up early season and then when 4 key DL were out for season, it became clear that we had little push and pressure on the QB. and thus its very difficult to win. Guys effort was generally good, but the lines are flat out being pushed around and the strength difference is noticeable.heartofthebear said:I was at the game and the feeling in the stands was upbeat. I didn't hear a lot of complaining about how we played. I enjoyed the game from the stands. Sure we did nothing offensively for one half, but the defense kept it interesting.Big C said:
Just going on the basis of my morale, feelings and psyche tonight, I have to say that, starting around the middle of the 2nd quarter, I kind of enjoyed this game. I mean, we're screwed and all, sure, but that's how I felt, watching the game. Of course, this required repressing all recollections of our offensive line play.
Cal played mistake free:
- Almost 0 penalties
- no turnovers
- the punter avoided a blocked punt attempt and got off a kick that was inside the 20 yards line.
In general the offense looked way better.
Plummer had more time and we were able to pass successfully.
Brooks came in and made some key run
Cal had 2 or 3 sacks, stuffed the run and played good pass D on the right side of the secondary.
The left side of the Cal D sucked, and CB Gamble had a bad day.
Cal would have won but Plummer got hurt again late in the 4th Q and he just couldn't complete the passes he had been completing.
Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie Brett Johnson pre-season and Plummer playing hurt).
Now it looks like Starling and Hawkins may be out a long time as well.
I thought that Washington was winnable, if they, had injury problems. But they came in pretty healthy. The one injury issue for them is that a star LB has been out all year and was supposed to back in time for the Cal game but wasn't. Early in the year, all-american OT Kirkland was out for a bit, but he's been back.
The same could be said of OSU, which seems to have injury issues, but OSU's QB issue is a mirage. OSU was one of the deepest teams in the conference at QB, with 3 capable starters. And the backup led them to a 49-7 win over Colorado last night.
I said Cal would be 5-7 but improved on offense. I was pretty much the only one. I would not be critical of the coaches Cal was actually an improved 5-7. But they aren't improved. And the aren't going to be 5-7. They are probably going to be 4-8, assuming Furd continues to under-perform and Cal can stop the bleeding with their injury issues. If Cal can't get Plummer healthy, we could lose to Furd too.
part of the problem is that folks had unreasonable expectations to start with. But there is no excuse for the poor play of the OL this year, although they played much better than expected last night, especially considering that Cindric was out.
I think what I saw last night gave me hope that, if key players return next season (ie Ott, Plummer, B. Johnson) and we land some nice portal transfers, we could compete pretty well next season with these players. But we have to get new blood within the coaching ranks on offense to do so.
The opposing QB may have too much time, but I don't think they are taking advantage of it very much. Cal does allow a lot of pass completions but they keep the play in front of them, stopping the big play. Big plays, turnovers and penalties are some of the biggest metrics involved in losing games. Passing yards allowed is not one of them. So Cal is using the right strategy defensively. The problem on defense is that Hearns was injured and Gamble had a horrid day replacing him, including missing a key tackle allowing a TD.
The other problems are all on offense.
I would add that, considering the scheme and the injuries, Cal generated a surprising amount of pressure. #44 is pretty good.
Isn't this the story every year?4thGenCal said:heartofthebear said:
"Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie **Plug in player name here** pre-season and **Plug in player name here**playing hurt).
Now it looks like **Plug in player name here** and **Plug in player name here** may be out a long time as well."
You need:RighteousGoldenBear said:Isn't this the story every year?4thGenCal said:heartofthebear said:
"Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie **Plug in player name here** pre-season and **Plug in player name here**playing hurt).
Now it looks like **Plug in player name here** and **Plug in player name here** may be out a long time as well."
It's always injuries....every team has them.
To your point, injuries to starters are more consequential to CAL as we don't have the 2/3 deep to compete. Either lack of talent and/or development keeping us from being competitive if we lose a key player.
I don't know man...after following CAL football for almost 30 years, this is becoming tiresome. Every year.....same ol' spew..."Compete for a conference championship"...and almost every year...by game 4 or 5......we know it's not going to happen. Based on other comments.....I'm not alone in feeling this way.
I didn't finish the sentence. Meant to say "late last week in Cal's loss to Colorado."KoreAmBear said:
Jim,
"Junior JC transfer Mason Starling, who saw his first action of the season after coming back from a lower-body injury …"
As you know, Starling played last week at CU making a few nice catches but then brain farting on the missed catch in the end zone in OT.
From the Oxford dictionary: "inviting an obvious question." Facetiously asking if Forsett and Lynch had any eligibility remaining was obviously appropriate when two great offensive players are inducted to the Cal Hall of Fame after a half where their old team had little to no offense at all.LudwigsFountain said:
I guess nobody understands what 'begging the question' means anymore. (After digesting the first half too morose to comment on the game.)
Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you. I make these comments because every year, pre-season, the BI media, specially moragabear and most posters, including guys like you that should know better, act like this year is going to be different. I post to counter those delusional thoughts. But hope is the most addictive substance the brain has to offer, and most folks here are up to their eyeballs in it.RighteousGoldenBear said:Isn't this the story every year?4thGenCal said:heartofthebear said:
"Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie **Plug in player name here** pre-season and **Plug in player name here**playing hurt).
Now it looks like **Plug in player name here** and **Plug in player name here** may be out a long time as well."
It's always injuries....every team has them.
To your point, injuries to starters are more consequential to CAL as we don't have the 2/3 deep to compete. Either lack of talent and/or development keeping us from being competitive if we lose a key player.
I don't know man...after following CAL football for almost 30 years, this is becoming tiresome. Every year.....same ol' spew..."Compete for a conference championship"...and almost every year...by game 4 or 5......we know it's not going to happen. Based on other comments.....I'm not alone in feeling this way.
MoragaBear said:From the Oxford dictionary: "inviting an obvious question." Facetiously asking if Forsett and Lynch had any eligibility remaining was obviously appropriate when two great offensive players are inducted to the Cal Hall of Fame after a half where their old team had little to no offense at all.LudwigsFountain said:
I guess nobody understands what 'begging the question' means anymore. (After digesting the first half too morose to comment on the game.)
heartofthebear said:Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you. I make these comments because every year, pre-season, the BI media, specially moragabear and most posters, including guys like you that should know better, act like this year is going to be different. I post to counter those delusional thoughts. But hope is the most addictive substance the brain has to offer, and most folks here are up to their eyeballs in it.RighteousGoldenBear said:Isn't this the story every year?4thGenCal said:heartofthebear said:
"Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie **Plug in player name here** pre-season and **Plug in player name here**playing hurt).
Now it looks like **Plug in player name here** and **Plug in player name here** may be out a long time as well."
It's always injuries....every team has them.
To your point, injuries to starters are more consequential to CAL as we don't have the 2/3 deep to compete. Either lack of talent and/or development keeping us from being competitive if we lose a key player.
I don't know man...after following CAL football for almost 30 years, this is becoming tiresome. Every year.....same ol' spew..."Compete for a conference championship"...and almost every year...by game 4 or 5......we know it's not going to happen. Based on other comments.....I'm not alone in feeling this way.
And hey, I get it. Hope is all we have and is necessary to survive as a fan. And what is left if we walk away from college football on Saturdays, mowing the lawn? I am not criticizing the hope. But, at the same time, hope should be distinguished from expectation and, while it was reasonable to hope for a bowl season, it was never a reasonable expectation. Things had to fall our way, which rarely happens anyway, which is to your point.
Of your 30 years, how often have things fallen Cal's way. And yet folks make expectations like it happens every years. Even Paws, on the Cal broadcast often premises his comments based on what could happen if things fall Cal's way. And he has been around for as long.
FWIW, I have followed Cal for 50 years. I had the extreme disadvantage of assuming Cal football would always be what it was in the early and mid 70s. By the time I knew better, I was addicted.
It sounds like you missed the 70s and also the Snyder years. But at least we had JT for a while.
I have a theory about injuries. I think injuries are due to poor coordination on the part of the coordinators and/or poor depth causing players to get overworked. Of course there is also poor conditioning and technique. All of this is on the AD/HC and I think Cal has chronic injury issues because they have chronic issues at AD/HC. So I am not bailing out the administration and using what might be their excuse for poor performance as a reason to keep them around.
I am done with folks in this order:
- Knowlton--plays victim. Is that a proactive "get it done" guy
- McClure--his players are way better than their performance would indicate. OL, if fixed, could transform the entire team.
- Musgrave--His meter ran out with me. He shows flashes about 40% of the time. But his offenses are just good enough to lose.
- Wilcox--I don't buy the rhetoric and the image. He comes off as responsible, caring, hard working and committed. But he doesn't take responsibility for poor coaching and he is more committed to poor coaching than he is to his players. It makes me angry that I ever bought into his hypocrisy.
- Christ--She needs to answer to why she extended Knowlton. But the questions need to be ones that really pin her down.
We don't have a dominant pass rusher, so it seems that Sirmon is designing his D to fit his players.That's what we've been demanding of our OC.heartofthebear said:Sirmon has elected to play a type of defense that doesn't create pressure and I would criticize it because it is in contrast to DeRuyter who's Cal D was actually better. But the Sirmon's plan is also working because it allows Cal to drop 7 or 8 into coverage. Time and again opposing QBs drop back with plenty of time and look, and look, and look again, only to have to throw an incomplete pass or take a sack anyway.4thGenCal said:Good thoughts and you are converting me to realism. I was too pumped up early season and then when 4 key DL were out for season, it became clear that we had little push and pressure on the QB. and thus its very difficult to win. Guys effort was generally good, but the lines are flat out being pushed around and the strength difference is noticeable.heartofthebear said:I was at the game and the feeling in the stands was upbeat. I didn't hear a lot of complaining about how we played. I enjoyed the game from the stands. Sure we did nothing offensively for one half, but the defense kept it interesting.Big C said:
Just going on the basis of my morale, feelings and psyche tonight, I have to say that, starting around the middle of the 2nd quarter, I kind of enjoyed this game. I mean, we're screwed and all, sure, but that's how I felt, watching the game. Of course, this required repressing all recollections of our offensive line play.
Cal played mistake free:
- Almost 0 penalties
- no turnovers
- the punter avoided a blocked punt attempt and got off a kick that was inside the 20 yards line.
In general the offense looked way better.
Plummer had more time and we were able to pass successfully.
Brooks came in and made some key run
Cal had 2 or 3 sacks, stuffed the run and played good pass D on the right side of the secondary.
The left side of the Cal D sucked, and CB Gamble had a bad day.
Cal would have won but Plummer got hurt again late in the 4th Q and he just couldn't complete the passes he had been completing.
Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie Brett Johnson pre-season and Plummer playing hurt).
Now it looks like Starling and Hawkins may be out a long time as well.
I thought that Washington was winnable, if they, had injury problems. But they came in pretty healthy. The one injury issue for them is that a star LB has been out all year and was supposed to back in time for the Cal game but wasn't. Early in the year, all-american OT Kirkland was out for a bit, but he's been back.
The same could be said of OSU, which seems to have injury issues, but OSU's QB issue is a mirage. OSU was one of the deepest teams in the conference at QB, with 3 capable starters. And the backup led them to a 49-7 win over Colorado last night.
I said Cal would be 5-7 but improved on offense. I was pretty much the only one. I would not be critical of the coaches Cal was actually an improved 5-7. But they aren't improved. And the aren't going to be 5-7. They are probably going to be 4-8, assuming Furd continues to under-perform and Cal can stop the bleeding with their injury issues. If Cal can't get Plummer healthy, we could lose to Furd too.
part of the problem is that folks had unreasonable expectations to start with. But there is no excuse for the poor play of the OL this year, although they played much better than expected last night, especially considering that Cindric was out.
I think what I saw last night gave me hope that, if key players return next season (ie Ott, Plummer, B. Johnson) and we land some nice portal transfers, we could compete pretty well next season with these players. But we have to get new blood within the coaching ranks on offense to do so.
The opposing QB may have too much time, but I don't think they are taking advantage of it very much. Cal does allow a lot of pass completions but they keep the play in front of them, stopping the big play. Big plays, turnovers and penalties are some of the biggest metrics involved in losing games. Passing yards allowed is not one of them. So Cal is using the right strategy defensively. The problem on defense is that Hearns was injured and Gamble had a horrid day replacing him, including missing a key tackle allowing a TD.
The other problems are all on offense.
I would add that, considering the scheme and the injuries, Cal generated a surprising amount of pressure. #44 is pretty good.
Rushinbear said:We don't have a dominant pass rusher, so it seems that Sirmon is designing his D to fit his players.That's what we've been demanding of our OC.heartofthebear said:Sirmon has elected to play a type of defense that doesn't create pressure and I would criticize it because it is in contrast to DeRuyter who's Cal D was actually better. But the Sirmon's plan is also working because it allows Cal to drop 7 or 8 into coverage. Time and again opposing QBs drop back with plenty of time and look, and look, and look again, only to have to throw an incomplete pass or take a sack anyway.4thGenCal said:Good thoughts and you are converting me to realism. I was too pumped up early season and then when 4 key DL were out for season, it became clear that we had little push and pressure on the QB. and thus its very difficult to win. Guys effort was generally good, but the lines are flat out being pushed around and the strength difference is noticeable.heartofthebear said:I was at the game and the feeling in the stands was upbeat. I didn't hear a lot of complaining about how we played. I enjoyed the game from the stands. Sure we did nothing offensively for one half, but the defense kept it interesting.Big C said:
Just going on the basis of my morale, feelings and psyche tonight, I have to say that, starting around the middle of the 2nd quarter, I kind of enjoyed this game. I mean, we're screwed and all, sure, but that's how I felt, watching the game. Of course, this required repressing all recollections of our offensive line play.
Cal played mistake free:
- Almost 0 penalties
- no turnovers
- the punter avoided a blocked punt attempt and got off a kick that was inside the 20 yards line.
In general the offense looked way better.
Plummer had more time and we were able to pass successfully.
Brooks came in and made some key run
Cal had 2 or 3 sacks, stuffed the run and played good pass D on the right side of the secondary.
The left side of the Cal D sucked, and CB Gamble had a bad day.
Cal would have won but Plummer got hurt again late in the 4th Q and he just couldn't complete the passes he had been completing.
Cal was a team, going into the year, that needed things to go their way to get to a bowl.
That meant things had to go their way in terms of injuries.
While other teams have had injury issues, no team has suffered the consequential injuries that Cal has had(ie Brett Johnson pre-season and Plummer playing hurt).
Now it looks like Starling and Hawkins may be out a long time as well.
I thought that Washington was winnable, if they, had injury problems. But they came in pretty healthy. The one injury issue for them is that a star LB has been out all year and was supposed to back in time for the Cal game but wasn't. Early in the year, all-american OT Kirkland was out for a bit, but he's been back.
The same could be said of OSU, which seems to have injury issues, but OSU's QB issue is a mirage. OSU was one of the deepest teams in the conference at QB, with 3 capable starters. And the backup led them to a 49-7 win over Colorado last night.
I said Cal would be 5-7 but improved on offense. I was pretty much the only one. I would not be critical of the coaches Cal was actually an improved 5-7. But they aren't improved. And the aren't going to be 5-7. They are probably going to be 4-8, assuming Furd continues to under-perform and Cal can stop the bleeding with their injury issues. If Cal can't get Plummer healthy, we could lose to Furd too.
part of the problem is that folks had unreasonable expectations to start with. But there is no excuse for the poor play of the OL this year, although they played much better than expected last night, especially considering that Cindric was out.
I think what I saw last night gave me hope that, if key players return next season (ie Ott, Plummer, B. Johnson) and we land some nice portal transfers, we could compete pretty well next season with these players. But we have to get new blood within the coaching ranks on offense to do so.
The opposing QB may have too much time, but I don't think they are taking advantage of it very much. Cal does allow a lot of pass completions but they keep the play in front of them, stopping the big play. Big plays, turnovers and penalties are some of the biggest metrics involved in losing games. Passing yards allowed is not one of them. So Cal is using the right strategy defensively. The problem on defense is that Hearns was injured and Gamble had a horrid day replacing him, including missing a key tackle allowing a TD.
The other problems are all on offense.
I would add that, considering the scheme and the injuries, Cal generated a surprising amount of pressure. #44 is pretty good.
One thing that BM finally got, maybe from insistence by Greatwood, is putting your OL'ers at their best positions. Coleman to OG, where he belongs, and Rohme, for what it's worth, to LOT. The fact is that we don't have a competent ROT at the moment - the agility of a LOT with the power of a ROG. We got a lotta guys, I assume they're trying them all out again.
DiabloWags said:
It used to be during the Tedford years that we would fall "short" when we would face our "toughest" opponents of the season in NOVEMBER like USC and our starting roster was pretty banged up.
Now, our season is literally over before we even get to NOVEMBER.
Refusing his check?ducktilldeath said:
I don't get this Wilcox doesn't take responsibility narrative. The first thing out of his mouth yesterday was exactly that. Someone here even quoted him taking responsibility and then called him out for not taking responsibility. Like what, his quote is literally in your post?
Perhaps we should define what "taking responsibility" means?
Saying you are taking responsibility becomes the boy who cried wolf when its said after every loss and nothing changes. It's boring and it becomes meaningless and everyone gets irritated.ducktilldeath said:
I don't get this Wilcox doesn't take responsibility narrative. The first thing out of his mouth yesterday was exactly that. Someone here even quoted him taking responsibility and then called him out for not taking responsibility. Like what, his quote is literally in your post?
Perhaps we should define what "taking responsibility" means?
Grigsby said:Saying you are taking responsibility becomes the boy who cried wolf when its said after every loss and nothing changes. It's boring and it becomes meaningless and everyone gets irritated.ducktilldeath said:
I don't get this Wilcox doesn't take responsibility narrative. The first thing out of his mouth yesterday was exactly that. Someone here even quoted him taking responsibility and then called him out for not taking responsibility. Like what, his quote is literally in your post?
Perhaps we should define what "taking responsibility" means?
The problem is that the status quo isn't working and we're not seeing anything new to suggest that there's an attempt to try different things.
Besides Vatikani and Session moved to starter for Arizona and after and Coleman moved back to OG vs. UW and Greatwood brought in to help with the OL and offense last week and another offensive consultant whose ideas helped change the formations vs UW and finally started to be paying dividends on the 2nd half?Grigsby said:Saying you are taking responsibility becomes the boy who cried wolf when its said after every loss and nothing changes. It's boring and it becomes meaningless and everyone gets irritated.ducktilldeath said:
I don't get this Wilcox doesn't take responsibility narrative. The first thing out of his mouth yesterday was exactly that. Someone here even quoted him taking responsibility and then called him out for not taking responsibility. Like what, his quote is literally in your post?
Perhaps we should define what "taking responsibility" means?
The problem is that the status quo isn't working and we're not seeing anything new to suggest that there's an attempt to try different things.
MoragaBear said:Besides Vatikani and Session moved to starter for Arizona and after and Coleman moved back to OG vs. UW and Greatwood brought in to help with the OL and offense last week and another offensive consultant whose ideas helped change the formations vs UW and finally started to be paying dividends on the 2nd half?Grigsby said:Saying you are taking responsibility becomes the boy who cried wolf when its said after every loss and nothing changes. It's boring and it becomes meaningless and everyone gets irritated.ducktilldeath said:
I don't get this Wilcox doesn't take responsibility narrative. The first thing out of his mouth yesterday was exactly that. Someone here even quoted him taking responsibility and then called him out for not taking responsibility. Like what, his quote is literally in your post?
Perhaps we should define what "taking responsibility" means?
The problem is that the status quo isn't working and we're not seeing anything new to suggest that there's an attempt to try different things.
Bottom line, this season has been a major failure so far but it's hard to say he's not trying anything new and just going with the status quo.
The consultant was likely temporary, with more voices to be brought in presumably. The advice supposedly involved personnel groupings and spacing among other things.calumnus said:What more can you tell us about the offensive consultant and the formation changes in the second half?MoragaBear said:Besides Vatikani and Session moved to starter for Arizona and after and Coleman moved back to OG vs. UW and Greatwood brought in to help with the OL and offense last week and another offensive consultant whose ideas helped change the formations vs UW and finally started to be paying dividends on the 2nd half?Grigsby said:Saying you are taking responsibility becomes the boy who cried wolf when its said after every loss and nothing changes. It's boring and it becomes meaningless and everyone gets irritated.ducktilldeath said:
I don't get this Wilcox doesn't take responsibility narrative. The first thing out of his mouth yesterday was exactly that. Someone here even quoted him taking responsibility and then called him out for not taking responsibility. Like what, his quote is literally in your post?
Perhaps we should define what "taking responsibility" means?
The problem is that the status quo isn't working and we're not seeing anything new to suggest that there's an attempt to try different things.
Bottom line, this season has been a major failure so far but it's hard to say he's not trying anything new and just going with the status quo.
