That last series before half where we had Rogers in 5-wide sets that went nowhere, it was obvious that we were clowning around the whole game up until that point, especially with the scoop and score where we decided to start cycling backs in early (unless Ott already had an issue), we did not come out with a gameplan that first half and so we had to push guys into the 2nd half, including running Ott who then goes down...

Unless you're Georgia who can half-ass games and still beat almost anybody by multiple scores, if you do not take games and opponents seriously you end up putting guys in bad situations, if we had thrown the kitchen sink in the first half the game may have been over in 20 minutes instead of dragging into the 4th, what was the point of turtling yesterday so that Auburn had nothing to look at on film but meant injuring our best playmaker? I get that yesterday was vanilla all-around but if we come out next Saturday like we did yesterday then Wilcox has once again blown the OC hire and will have a hellstorm waiting for him back in Berkeley.

completely agree. The same logic was used in rotating Nando and Rogers. We took our opponent lightly, and it showed.

We needed to build up the confidence and reps for the team so they go into Auburn confident. I am not sure we did that? The first team needed all of the reps together. This is not some 5th year senior laden team. Lots of new talent.

This is emblematic of Wilcox's tenure. He is not a guy who will step on your throat and take no prisoner. Unfortunately he's in the wrong business.

It's starting to feel like the team last year where we take our lumps through the most difficult part of the schedule, gel, and get us to 6 to 7 wins as our schedule ease up. There is zero momentum from prior years.

I do miss the few tedford years where we started strong and kept it up throughout the year

Damn, I thought I was a negabear until I read y'all's take.

Is it possible, just hear me out, that the coaches knew they had a unique opportunity to test some things out and get a better feeling about our backups.

I don't think the teams confidence got rattled, if anything it improved. Knowing the play calling was show-me-nothing conservative and folks still found a way to make some nice plays doesn't destroy a teams confidence.

If anything a blow out against a creampuff sets a team up for a trap game. Auburn spanked a huge lumbering O-line, and a massively undersized D-Line in Alabama A&M. When you get a chance go check out the size of those guys. Their fans know they have speed, but Cal is way more athletic than Alabama A&M.

As to Redford? Kept it strong? You mean like when the team imploded in '07 after Tedford didn't take a field goal to go to OT and instead left it to Riley who thought he was superman by the end of that OSU game? That same team that imploded?

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

completely agree. The same logic was used in rotating Nando and Rogers. We took our opponent lightly, and it showed.

We needed to build up the confidence and reps for the team so they go into Auburn confident. I am not sure we did that? The first team needed all of the reps together. This is not some 5th year senior laden team. Lots of new talent.

This is emblematic of Wilcox's tenure. He is not a guy who will step on your throat and take no prisoner. Unfortunately he's in the wrong business.

It's starting to feel like the team last year where we take our lumps through the most difficult part of the schedule, gel, and get us to 6 to 7 wins as our schedule ease up. There is zero momentum from prior years.

I do miss the few tedford years where we started strong and kept it up throughout the year

---

I disagree on alternating Nandi and Roger's. This was the perfect game to test them against a live action opponent. That would be more difficult against a better opponent and could cost Cal a win.

To me Nando was the better passing QB and it showed in the second half when Rogers overthrew an open receiver who could have scored a TD that would have nailed the coffin shut on Davis.

Yes Rogers was a better runner but not so much better as to justify him replacing Nando. Several times on third and long he scrambled for a first down but always came up a yard or two short. getting 8 yards on a carry when we needed 9 or 10 is very frustrating. I would have preferred to have Nando giving it a shot to get the first down on this arm.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

completely agree. The same logic was used in rotating Nando and Rogers. We took our opponent lightly, and it showed.

We needed to build up the confidence and reps for the team so they go into Auburn confident. I am not sure we did that? The first team needed all of the reps together. This is not some 5th year senior laden team. Lots of new talent.

This is emblematic of Wilcox's tenure. He is not a guy who will step on your throat and take no prisoner. Unfortunately he's in the wrong business.

It's starting to feel like the team last year where we take our lumps through the most difficult part of the schedule, gel, and get us to 6 to 7 wins as our schedule ease up. There is zero momentum from prior years.

I do miss the few tedford years where we started strong and kept it up throughout the year

---

I disagree on alternating Nandi and Roger's. This was the perfect game to test them against a live action opponent. That would be more difficult against a better opponent and could cost Cal a win.

To me Nando was the better passing QB and it showed in the second half when Rogers overthrew an open receiver who could have scored a TD that would have nailed the coffin shut on Davis.

Yes Rogers was a better runner but not so much better as to justify him replacing Nando. Several times on third and long he scrambled for a first down but always came up a yard or two short. getting 8 yards on a carry when we needed 9 or 10 is very frustrating. I would have preferred to have Nando giving it a shot to get the first down on this arm.

---

we saw of rogers all we needed to see. might harris pass him up for 2?