Guy was open, should have run that play with your 4th string QB, not your australian punter!blungld said:
So glad we went for 2 on first touchdown for no reason.
Cal visits the stadium formerly known as Heinz Game Thread
47,189 Views |
1014 Replies |
Last: 20 days ago by AXLBear
By golly if Wilcox wants a running quarterback he will keep trying to force one! Whether its McIlwain, Jackson or Rogers. Of course, he had Garbers, and tried to change him into a pocket passer.Grrrrah76 said:
Chandler is not a running threat
GoOskie said:
Might've worked if it was designed for Rogers to throw it.
I think it was designed for him to throw it. Just didn't work
We have outgained Pitt, are crushing them in time of possession, and are +2 in turnovers, and are trailing, flipside: penalties
This is the reason why we lose close games. Going for two on the first drive for no reason
He would be a good decoy, but otherwise all eyes on him
LunchTime said:
Literally zero reason to ever have any rotation of QBs like this.
Mendoza in keeps every option on the table.
Having Rogers in allows the defense to ignore everyone but Rogers. And do we exploit that? No.
I initially thought - smart, let how the defense lines up decide if we use Mendoza or Rogers. But then we went cute with expected results.
TIE GAME!!!!!!
I mean, it would be a tie game if we hadn't run that stupid 2-pt conversion trick play after the first TD. Oh well . . .
I mean, it would be a tie game if we hadn't run that stupid 2-pt conversion trick play after the first TD. Oh well . . .
Down 2 because of the players.
Not the coaches.
All the players faults they didn't execute on 2 point conversions.
And also why on earth would we ever want to get Coe going by knocking down easy extra points when we can just jog him out only to attempt 60 yarders and then complain he's only 3 of 7
Not the coaches.
All the players faults they didn't execute on 2 point conversions.
And also why on earth would we ever want to get Coe going by knocking down easy extra points when we can just jog him out only to attempt 60 yarders and then complain he's only 3 of 7
Does he even know how to throw a pass?Cal88 said:Guy was open, should have run that play with your 4th string QB, not your australian punter!blungld said:
So glad we went for 2 on first touchdown for no reason.
Econ141 said:
Cal football - where we blow games for no reason. What was the purpose of going for 2 in the beginning? Fire Longwell.
Long well didn't make that decision. Wilcox did.
Wilcox playing 4d chess.BadNewsBear1 said:
JW should be fired for that bs PAT earlier
HoopDreams said:
Rodger's makes wrong decision
No way he is going to get to goal line in the middle of field
Cal needs to just call a quick pass
I thought for sure he'd throw it...of course not.
Strykur said:
We have outgained Pitt, are crushing them in time of possession, and are +2 in turnovers, and are trailing, flipside: penalties
Sort of the opposite of last week. Wilcox is an equal opportunity loser.
We could have scored on every possession and be up multiple TDs if we just kept throwing to the TEs on first down, mixed in with running the Jet outside with tge TE sealing then a few shots to the WRs deep over the middle. We can still win if we do that now.
Should be 17-all right now. Jeez.
You never know what you're gonna get, but it's always gonna end badlyPtownBear1 said:Strykur said:
We have outgained Pitt, are crushing them in time of possession, and are +2 in turnovers, and are trailing, flipside: penalties
Sort of the opposite of last week. Wilcox is an equal opportunity loser.
I feel Cal needs one more turnover from Pitt.
At least 2 more to win I think.. and only if one of them is in field goal range or for a TDgolden sloth said:
I feel Cal needs one more turnover from Pitt.
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
Mendoza is probably a better runner than Rogers (that comes in to run) no?
3rd and long, please hold up
Uh...I believe 15+2=17, no?upsetof86 said:
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
82gradDLSdad said:HoopDreams said:
Rodger's makes wrong decision
No way he is going to get to goal line in the middle of field
Cal needs to just call a quick pass
I thought for sure he'd throw it...of course not.
If he isn't going to throw it, why is he in there? Rogers is not a running QB just because he is black.
upsetof86 said:
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
Wut?????
No matter the result, at least we know the defense is a tight unit
Found Wilcox's burner accountBadNewsBear1 said:upsetof86 said:
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
Wut?????
upsetof86 said:
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
No, it would be tied 17-17
pingpong2 said:Uh...I believe 15+2=17, no?upsetof86 said:
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
Lol my bad I had 18 on my mind for the win.
sycasey said:GoOskie said:
Might've worked if it was designed for Rogers to throw it.
I wonder if it kind of was but no one was open. Would have to watch again.
8 people tackled him. The problem is you have 8 people in your face while running some kind of reverse while finding the open man...
Maybe if he took the snap...
It would be great if he could throw the ball, but it's like the playcall is "QB run, bring in the other guy."
He had some success in Miami playing like a QB.
I will say this with confidence. Pitt is not a good team.
Engage RPO package starting in 3,2,1...oh commercial.
pingpong2 said:Found Wilcox's burner accountBadNewsBear1 said:upsetof86 said:
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
Wut?????
Yes yes I'm on my 5th bourbon 17 it would be
I think of those 2 ints we got last qtr. I remember Tedford would usually air it out right after a TO, sometimes it worked. Whatever happened to that idea?
calumnus said:upsetof86 said:
I'm an Endries believer now is all I can say. If we'd made both XP we'd still be down 1. FG wins this game if we hold them.
No, it would be tied 17-17
Indeed
Featured Stories
See All
Nohl Williams Named Consensus All-American
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Fall to #24 UNLV in LA Bowl, 24-13
by Jim McGill
Cal Squares Off With No. 24 UNLV At LA Bowl
by Cal Athletics
Bear Insider Podcast #E102: Cal vs UNLV - LA Bowl Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
The Rodcast: Cal-Stanford Breakdown
by Rod Benson