RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

concordtom said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Another pro was not giving up a sack and making a FG attempt longer.

---

Gobears49 said:

---

Nice, but you should have shown Cal's actual record without the extra seven points a game. Will you consider doing it over to show that? It's just our actual record.

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

concordtom said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Another pro was not giving up a sack and making a FG attempt longer.

---

There are pros but on the current Cal team FG kicking is bad. Just like there are pros to ride early offensive momentum to a two point conversion. But this year's Cal team is brutal at short yardage. Fernando is bad at short throws. Our backs don't pick up any yardage after contact (except that third string guy who came in at the end. These are bad percentage decisions by Wilcox.

---

movielover said:

---

i.e., if Cal has struggled supremely inside the 5 yard line, successfully executing even one of two two-point conversions was a stretch. Therefore, kicking PATs is the no Brainer.

Besides the points, failing two two-point conversions is a letdown for the Bears.

---

alarsuel said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

---

LunchTime said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

If ever there was a time to pile on, its now.

With a mediocre kicker, we would be 5-1. With a medicore coach we would be 6-0.

I said it earlier a couple of times... if Wilcox was too sick to be at the stadium to blunder his way through games, we would be 6-0.

A buddy sent me this tweet

Cal with an extra 7 points per game

2017 8-4
2018 8-4
2019 9-3
2021 10-2
2022 9-3
2023 8-4
2024 6-0

— West Coast Ball Club (@RyanJosephData) October 12, 2024

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

If ever there was a time to pile on, its now.

With a mediocre kicker, we would be 5-1. With a medicore coach we would be 6-0.

I said it earlier a couple of times... if Wilcox was too sick to be at the stadium to blunder his way through games, we would be 6-0.

A buddy sent me this tweet

Cal with an extra 7 points per game

2017 8-4
2018 8-4
2019 9-3
2021 10-2
2022 9-3
2023 8-4
2024 6-0

— West Coast Ball Club (@RyanJosephData) October 12, 2024

---

lol, this is so dumb, and 30 seconds of fact checking shows it's also wrong almost across the board.

CAL would have been 8-5 last year, not 8-4. In 2022 an extra 7 points per game would have resulted in 4 more TIES, not wins. Same thing in '21(three ties) and 19 and 18. They don't even have the right number of games played some of those years. How can cal go 8-4 in '18 and '23 and 9-3 in '19 when they played 13 games? This so ****ing stupid. 2017 is the only one that's accurate.

In '22 he has CAL winning 5 more games but only 4 games were within 7 points and they were all 7 points. lolol. CAL wins a SINGLE additional game, not FIVE. ffs

---

MrGPAC said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

If ever there was a time to pile on, its now.

With a mediocre kicker, we would be 5-1. With a medicore coach we would be 6-0.

I said it earlier a couple of times... if Wilcox was too sick to be at the stadium to blunder his way through games, we would be 6-0.

A buddy sent me this tweet

Cal with an extra 7 points per game

2017 8-4
2018 8-4
2019 9-3
2021 10-2
2022 9-3
2023 8-4
2024 6-0

— West Coast Ball Club (@RyanJosephData) October 12, 2024

---

lol, this is so dumb, and 30 seconds of fact checking shows it's also wrong almost across the board.

CAL would have been 8-5 last year, not 8-4. In 2022 an extra 7 points per game would have resulted in 4 more TIES, not wins. Same thing in '21(three ties) and 19 and 18. They don't even have the right number of games played some of those years. How can cal go 8-4 in '18 and '23 and 9-3 in '19 when they played 13 games? This so ****ing stupid. 2017 is the only one that's accurate.

In '22 he has CAL winning 5 more games but only 4 games were within 7 points and they were all 7 points. lolol. CAL wins a SINGLE additional game, not FIVE. ffs

---

2017: 8-4-0
2018: 8-3-1 (W in cheezit bowl)
2019: 8-3-1 (W in redbox Bowl)
2021: 8-2-2
2022: 6-3-3
2023: 8-4-0 (L in Independence Bowl)
2024: 6-0

Make it 8 points and the records are:

2017: 8-4
2018: 9-3
2019: 9-3
2021: 10-2
2022: 9-3
2023: 8-4
2024: 6-0

So they assumed we won all ties.

2022 we had the following losses:

Notre Dame - 24-17 L (would be tie)
Washington State - 28-9 L (would be L)
Colorado 20-13 L (Overtime Loss, 7 points in regulation would have made it a W)
Washington 28-21 L (would be tie)
Oregon 42-24 L (would be L)
USC 41-35 L (would be W)
Oregon State 38-10 (would be L)
UCLA 35-28 (would be tie)

so 2 more wins assuming we lose all ties, Another 3 that were ties.

---

calumnus said:

---

Last year Rogers threw for 3,382 yards and 29 TDs. He ran for 180 yards and 4 TDs. He is NOT a "running QB" and anyone who thinks so is looking at something else.

---

MrGPAC said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Wilcox has certainly given us plenty to choose from (using a TO last year to go for 2 against SC), but putting in Rogers and JUST CONCEDING the down to set up the field goal attempt, with a kicker who clearly doesn't have it this year, is just coaching malpractice.

Absolutely terrible.

That's how you lose a team.

We'll see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize this was discussed in another thread

---

If ever there was a time to pile on, its now.

With a mediocre kicker, we would be 5-1. With a medicore coach we would be 6-0.

I said it earlier a couple of times... if Wilcox was too sick to be at the stadium to blunder his way through games, we would be 6-0.

A buddy sent me this tweet

Cal with an extra 7 points per game

2017 8-4
2018 8-4
2019 9-3
2021 10-2
2022 9-3
2023 8-4
2024 6-0

— West Coast Ball Club (@RyanJosephData) October 12, 2024

---

lol, this is so dumb, and 30 seconds of fact checking shows it's also wrong almost across the board.

CAL would have been 8-5 last year, not 8-4. In 2022 an extra 7 points per game would have resulted in 4 more TIES, not wins. Same thing in '21(three ties) and 19 and 18. They don't even have the right number of games played some of those years. How can cal go 8-4 in '18 and '23 and 9-3 in '19 when they played 13 games? This so ****ing stupid. 2017 is the only one that's accurate.

In '22 he has CAL winning 5 more games but only 4 games were within 7 points and they were all 7 points. lolol. CAL wins a SINGLE additional game, not FIVE. ffs

---

2017: 8-4-0
2018: 8-3-1 (W in cheezit bowl)
2019: 8-3-1 (W in redbox Bowl)
2021: 8-2-2
2022: 6-3-3
2023: 8-4-0 (L in Independence Bowl)
2024: 6-0

Make it 8 points and the records are:

2017: 8-4
2018: 9-3
2019: 9-3
2021: 10-2
2022: 9-3
2023: 8-4
2024: 6-0

So they assumed we won all ties.

2022 we had the following losses:

Notre Dame - 24-17 L (would be tie)
Washington State - 28-9 L (would be L)
Colorado 20-13 L (Overtime Loss, 7 points in regulation would have made it a W)
Washington 28-21 L (would be tie)
Oregon 42-24 L (would be L)
USC 41-35 L (would be W)
Oregon State 38-10 (would be L)
UCLA 35-28 (would be tie)

so 2 more wins assuming we lose all ties, Another 3 that were ties.

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

alarsuel said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

---

This plus being short is the only explanations for his usage. Sometimes the dumbest rationales are actually the ones used. Rogers is a passing QB with decent mobility. Nobody is scared of his run ability.

---

Last year Rogers threw for 3,382 yards and 29 TDs. He ran for 180 yards and 4 TDs. He is NOT a "running QB" and anyone who thinks so is looking at something else.

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Wilcox should take over DC, get rid of one of the LB coaches, get rid of one DB coach, get a ST coach and get an OC and move Bloesch back to OL. Wilcox adds ZERO as a head coach during game day. If he needs help during the week on defense have Sirmon and him be co-DCs. Get the coaches where we need them. I don't know if Soto or the DB coaches are super recruiters but if they are move one to ST coach. Just something to plug some coaching holes and get Wilcox out of just pacing all game long worrying about how to minimize risk.

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

alarsuel said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

---

This plus being short is the only explanations for his usage. Sometimes the dumbest rationales are actually the ones used. Rogers is a passing QB with decent mobility. Nobody is scared of his run ability.

---

Last year Rogers threw for 3,382 yards and 29 TDs. He ran for 180 yards and 4 TDs. He is NOT a "running QB" and anyone who thinks so is looking at something else.

---

. Wow, I had no idea those were his stats from last year. Utterly amazing that this is the guy we bring in for the 'fool em' run/pass option.

---

Big C said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

alarsuel said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

---

This plus being short is the only explanations for his usage. Sometimes the dumbest rationales are actually the ones used. Rogers is a passing QB with decent mobility. Nobody is scared of his run ability.

---

Last year Rogers threw for 3,382 yards and 29 TDs. He ran for 180 yards and 4 TDs. He is NOT a "running QB" and anyone who thinks so is looking at something else.

---

. Wow, I had no idea those were his stats from last year. Utterly amazing that this is the guy we bring in for the 'fool em' run/pass option.

---

I am guessing that his yards lost, attempting to pass (sacks) are factored into his rushing totals, but that only waters the numbers down a bit. The funny thing is, when he first committed here and all the way through spring and fall practices, nobody ever said anything otherwise: Rogers is a proven passing QB at a certain level. He is fairly mobile and presents a modest threat to run.

---

BarcaBear said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Wilcox should take over DC, get rid of one of the LB coaches, get rid of one DB coach, get a ST coach and get an OC and move Bloesch back to OL. Wilcox adds ZERO as a head coach during game day. If he needs help during the week on defense have Sirmon and him be co-DCs. Get the coaches where we need them. I don't know if Soto or the DB coaches are super recruiters but if they are move one to ST coach. Just something to plug some coaching holes and get Wilcox out of just pacing all game long worrying about how to minimize risk.

---

Why get rid of coaches when what we need are more position coaches. We need a dedicated coach for OLine, DLine, LBs, DBs, Special Teams coach, QBs, WR, Tight Ends, etc.

Are you operating from the stance that we have limited coaching money, or that there is a limit on number of coaches? I get the money argument, but there is no longer an NCAA rule limiting on-field coaches.

Are there seriously no talented young coaches trying to break into college football that would accept $100k to coach positions?

---

Big C said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

alarsuel said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

---

This plus being short is the only explanations for his usage. Sometimes the dumbest rationales are actually the ones used. Rogers is a passing QB with decent mobility. Nobody is scared of his run ability.

---

Last year Rogers threw for 3,382 yards and 29 TDs. He ran for 180 yards and 4 TDs. He is NOT a "running QB" and anyone who thinks so is looking at something else.

---

. Wow, I had no idea those were his stats from last year. Utterly amazing that this is the guy we bring in for the 'fool em' run/pass option.

---

I am guessing that his yards lost, attempting to pass (sacks) are factored into his rushing totals, but that only waters the numbers down a bit. The funny thing is, when he first committed here and all the way through spring and fall practices, nobody ever said anything otherwise: Rogers is a proven passing QB at a certain level. He is fairly mobile and presents a modest threat to run.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

alarsuel said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

---

This plus being short is the only explanations for his usage. Sometimes the dumbest rationales are actually the ones used. Rogers is a passing QB with decent mobility. Nobody is scared of his run ability.

---

Last year Rogers threw for 3,382 yards and 29 TDs. He ran for 180 yards and 4 TDs. He is NOT a "running QB" and anyone who thinks so is looking at something else.

---

. Wow, I had no idea those were his stats from last year. Utterly amazing that this is the guy we bring in for the 'fool em' run/pass option.

---

I am guessing that his yards lost, attempting to pass (sacks) are factored into his rushing totals, but that only waters the numbers down a bit. The funny thing is, when he first committed here and all the way through spring and fall practices, nobody ever said anything otherwise: Rogers is a proven passing QB at a certain level. He is fairly mobile and presents a modest threat to run.

---

Rogers' past stats are a curiosity when compared to his current performance. I don't understand it. I've watched his play for us (granted, in a limited capacity) and the question returns - is this the same guy who put up all those numbers? Must be a different player. Is our coaching THAT BAD or did he run up the numbers against weaklings, or is he not made for high level opponents? If the coaching is THAT BAD, how come Mendo performs at a decent level - he came in totally overlooked and untutored?

And, what about Harris? An Ohio State transfer. Is he that raw? Scratching my head. Hope we don't have to get more evidence this week against NCS.

---

sycasey said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

alarsuel said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Pros and Cons of that play call decision:

Pros: Minimized the chance of a turnover and kept us in field goal range.

Cons:
Lost the reasonable opportunity to make a first down, which would enable us to:
1) Maintain possession for the rest of the game
2) Possibly end up scoring a touchdown which would have given us a bigger lead
3) Possibly make a field goal attempt from a short distance
4)Ignored possibility that our kicker misses the subsequent FG attempt ( which he did)
5) Gives Pitt a chance to respond with the own FG as opposed to a TD. (And gee, didn't we see their guy boom a 58 yarder right through the uprights?)
6) Not realizing that if a pass was attempted that resulted in an incompletion, that it wouldn't have a siginificant effect on Pitt's time EVEN if we made the field goal attempt.
7) Thinking that the effect of putting "running qb" Rogers into the game would result in a more difficult situation for the Pitt defense when the reality is our OL is to say the least - inconsistent. Think about it, even if you plan to run the ball, what is more effective - the ball in Mendoza's hands who is a realistic threat to throw a pass and resorts to a run, or Rogers who everybody in the stadium KNOWS is going to run?

CS and stupid football strategy.

---

Here's the dumbest part: Mendoza is probably better running the ball than Rogers. But, Rogers is black, therefore he's a "running QB".

Every time Rogers comes in, it is to run a wildcat package which, invariably, ends up with fake jet motion, Rogers crashing into the line around the line of scrimmage. They can't even get the specialist packages right,

---

This plus being short is the only explanations for his usage. Sometimes the dumbest rationales are actually the ones used. Rogers is a passing QB with decent mobility. Nobody is scared of his run ability.

---

Last year Rogers threw for 3,382 yards and 29 TDs. He ran for 180 yards and 4 TDs. He is NOT a "running QB" and anyone who thinks so is looking at something else.

---

. Wow, I had no idea those were his stats from last year. Utterly amazing that this is the guy we bring in for the 'fool em' run/pass option.

---

I am guessing that his yards lost, attempting to pass (sacks) are factored into his rushing totals, but that only waters the numbers down a bit. The funny thing is, when he first committed here and all the way through spring and fall practices, nobody ever said anything otherwise: Rogers is a proven passing QB at a certain level. He is fairly mobile and presents a modest threat to run.

---

Rogers' past stats are a curiosity when compared to his current performance. I don't understand it. I've watched his play for us (granted, in a limited capacity) and the question returns - is this the same guy who put up all those numbers? Must be a different player. Is our coaching THAT BAD or did he run up the numbers against weaklings, or is he not made for high level opponents? If the coaching is THAT BAD, how come Mendo performs at a decent level - he came in totally overlooked and untutored?

And, what about Harris? An Ohio State transfer. Is he that raw? Scratching my head. Hope we don't have to get more evidence this week against NCS.

---

He put up those numbers against a G5 schedule, not in a power conference. That's probably most of it.

---