98 yards in the 4th quarter to win the game. Whatever else you may say, The Drive will go down as the latest in the line of iconic Cal events that won the Big Game. The Play, The Interception and now, The Drive. What have I left out?

Of course, it also saved JW's job, at least for now (I was going to say sadly, but when you win the Big Game with an effort like that, it's not the time for recriminations...or is it?).

If you think about it, The Drive and its antecedents typify the Cal identity as a whole: #1 public university, Atomic Bomb, discovery of physical elements, you name it.

It's determination coupled with brains, know-how, and effort. Where will you find that? Only in Bear Territory.

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

I'm with you, except the part about just playing for 1st downs. Sometimes you do, but the more plays you have to execute in a drive (except The Drive), the more chances you have to make a mistake that kills the drive. You've got to mix them up - some chunk tries and some grind it out tries - depending on what their D is giving you.

Another adjustment on offense is we began picking on their left corner. All game we were screaming that #9 couldn't cover anyone, and in the second half we finally started going after him. He gave up the second-to-last touchdown with some awful coverage, and almost all the yards on The Drive came against him and his backup. #9 was finally pulled after consecutive PIs just two plays into The Drive, and his backup (#6) promptly gave up the long catch to Hunter and the TD pass (which also had a declined holding penalty against him). We couldn't believe it took our OC that long to notice what was obvious to us fans, but it was even more unbelievable that Furd didn't adjust either (switching to zone, rolling a safety that way, etc.).

RSFoldguy said:

---

Another adjustment on offense is we began picking on their left corner. All game we were screaming that #9 couldn't cover anyone, and in the second half we finally started going after him. He gave up the second-to-last touchdown with some awful coverage, and almost all the yards on The Drive came against him and his backup. #9 was finally pulled after consecutive PIs just two plays into The Drive, and his backup (#6) promptly gave up the long catch to Hunter and the TD pass (which also had a declined holding penalty against him). We couldn't believe it took our OC that long to notice what was obvious to us fans, but it was even more unbelievable that Furd didn't adjust either (switching to zone, rolling a safety that way, etc.).

---

first half adjustments are not done in JW's scheme. He believes so strongly in his prep for each game that he gives the whole first half to the plan before finally acknowledging that he isn't omniscient.

Wilcox should take the offensive play calls for the week and cross off the RPO. The handoff has not worked 99% of the time and the fake doesn't slow down the rush. Our OL has horrible technique due to the run or pass scheme. The entire thing, this year, has been absolutely horrible and there is no reason to keep running it.

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

Please pony up the $20 million to replace Wilcox. You sound like you are the master of "situational football" as you describe it. Meanwhile those who stormed the field are simply just happy for an epic Big Game win!

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.
.

---

I was going to start a whole thread on "How did the D adjust?"…thanks for this.

72CalBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

Please pony up the $20 million to replace Wilcox. You sound like you are the master of "situational football" as you describe it. Meanwhile those who stormed the field are simply just happy for an epic Big Game win!

---

72CalBear, serious question, do you support Wilcox as the HC because of the $20million payout, which the athletic department lacks, or do you support Wilcox as the HC because you think he's a good HC?

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

The drive and win is legendary...but one thing that takes the shine off slightly is that two PIs were key.

blungld said:

---

The drive and win is legendary...but one thing that takes the shine off slightly is that two PIs were key.

---

Part of the game, especially since their db was beat on both. otherwise, might have gone for a td, either way. Besides, that just adds to the mystique.

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

The Chase Garbers drive in 2019 started with 2:23 left and went 75 yards in 6 plays that took 1:04. That left 1:19 of game time left for the Furd. Fortunately, the Cal D forced a turnover on downs after a failed 4th and 1 run that went nowhere by Brennan Scarlett's little brother.

That drive was pretty significant. The Garbers TD gave Cal its first (and only!) lead of the game. That TD was also the difference in the game, with Cal winning the game by a final score of 24-20. Something that must also be mentioned is that that TD also secured Cal's first Big Game win since 2009!

The Garbers drive isn't something that should be ignored and forgotten. Not only did it make Cal bowl eligible, more importantly, it ended a decade of Big Game futility.

Rushinbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

The drive and win is legendary...but one thing that takes the shine off slightly is that two PIs were key.

---

Part of the game, especially since their db was beat on both. otherwise, might have gone for a td, either way. Besides, that just adds to the mystique.

---

Exactly! The DB, Nicholson, had to interfere because Hunter had beaten him. IIRC, the DB was also on an island and was Furd's last line of defense. Had he played cleanly, he likely would've given up a TD to Hunter on at least one of the two plays where he got called for PI.

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

The Chase Garbers drive in 2019 went 75 yards in 6 plays that took 1:04. That left 1:19 of game time left for the Furd. Fortunately, the Cal D forced a turnover on downs after a failed 4th and 1 run that went nowhere by Brennan Scarlett's little brother.

That drive was pretty significant. The Garbers TD gave Cal its first (and only!) lead of the game. That TD was also the difference in the game, with Cal winning the game by a final score of 24-20. Something that must also be mentioned is that that TD also secured Cal's first Big Game win since 2009!

The Garbers drive isn't something that should be ignored and forgotten. Not only did it make Cal bowl eligible, more importantly, it ended a decade of Big Game futility.

---

And, the football nation yawned. Granted, it was a great moment, but did not carry the impact that the 98 yards and a crying qb will have on national attention.

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

Wilcox was incredibly animated on the sidelines. Why are you making things up?

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

The Chase Garbers drive in 2019 went 75 yards in 6 plays that took 1:04. That left 1:19 of game time left for the Furd. Fortunately, the Cal D forced a turnover on downs after a failed 4th and 1 run that went nowhere by Brennan Scarlett's little brother.

That drive was pretty significant. The Garbers TD gave Cal its first (and only!) lead of the game. That TD was also the difference in the game, with Cal winning the game by a final score of 24-20. Something that must also be mentioned is that that TD also secured Cal's first Big Game win since 2009!

The Garbers drive isn't something that should be ignored and forgotten. Not only did it make Cal bowl eligible, more importantly, it ended a decade of Big Game futility.

---

And, the football nation yawned. Granted, it was a great moment, but did not carry the impact that the 98 yards and a crying qb will have on national attention.

---

Sure. I don't disagree. But, in 2019, Cal didn't have the benefit of the Calgorithm helping to capture the nation's football attention (including Cal's first time hosting College Gameday). Also, because the game was on the Pac-12 Network, ESPN didn't even cover the story, let alone interview Chase Garbers after the game. As a result, we never got to see his emotions play out on a national broadcast.

"98 yard with my boys" is pretty darn special and should absolutely be on Big Game t-shirts. But Chase's drive was also pretty special, especially to us Old Blues. Again, that ended a decade-long Big Game losing streak!

The program once again has a chance to redeem itself. Next week. Beat SMU. Win the bowl game. Get the QB pick. Shore up the line. Win the damn ACC next year. Let's go!

One thing these last two games showed is just how good Cade Uluave is--in retrospect, it seems most of the successes of Sirmon's defense have really depended on him, or at least the partnership with Buchanan. So you could either blast the coaching scheme for being so dependent on a star, or else credit them for finally making the adjustments 1.5 games into his absence.

This

01Bear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

Please pony up the $20 million to replace Wilcox. You sound like you are the master of "situational football" as you describe it. Meanwhile those who stormed the field are simply just happy for an epic Big Game win!

---

72CalBear, serious question, do you support Wilcox as the HC because of the $20million payout, which the athletic department lacks, or do you support Wilcox as the HC because you think he's a good HC?

---

In this case, the coaching staff did a remarkable job preparing the team for this game, along with providing the team the opportunities through planning to succeed. Having coached and played, that alone stands tall for me today. Mendoza didn't orchestrate the "drive" on his own nor did the defense make the plays without coaching guidance. Enough for me today. It's incredible the Bears pulled this one out and the grit they showed was not magic and was backed up by the motivating coaching staff whom in spite of all the NIL and transfers, have transformed this group into a TEAM! Now go beat SMU!

72CalBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

Please pony up the $20 million to replace Wilcox. You sound like you are the master of "situational football" as you describe it. Meanwhile those who stormed the field are simply just happy for an epic Big Game win!

---

72CalBear, serious question, do you support Wilcox as the HC because of the $20million payout, which the athletic department lacks, or do you support Wilcox as the HC because you think he's a good HC?

---

In this case, the coaching staff did a remarkable job preparing the team for this game, along with providing the team the opportunities through planning to succeed. Having coached and played, that alone stands tall for me today. Mendoza didn't orchestrate the "drive" on his own nor did the defense make the plays without coaching guidance. Enough for me today. It's incredible the Bears pulled this one out and the grit they showed was not magic and was backed up by the motivating coaching staff whom in spite of all the NIL and transfers, have transformed this group into a TEAM! Now go beat SMU!

---

Oh my lord

72CalBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

Please pony up the $20 million to replace Wilcox. You sound like you are the master of "situational football" as you describe it. Meanwhile those who stormed the field are simply just happy for an epic Big Game win!

---

72CalBear, serious question, do you support Wilcox as the HC because of the $20million payout, which the athletic department lacks, or do you support Wilcox as the HC because you think he's a good HC?

---

In this case, the coaching staff did a remarkable job preparing the team for this game, along with providing the team the opportunities through planning to succeed. Having coached and played, that alone stands tall for me today. Mendoza didn't orchestrate the "drive" on his own nor did the defense make the plays without coaching guidance. Enough for me today. It's incredible the Bears pulled this one out and the grit they showed was not magic and was backed up by the motivating coaching staff whom in spite of all the NIL and transfers, have transformed this group into a TEAM! Now go beat SMU!

---

So, it was the players who lost to Cuse and the coaches who won the BG for them?

72CalBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

Please pony up the $20 million to replace Wilcox. You sound like you are the master of "situational football" as you describe it. Meanwhile those who stormed the field are simply just happy for an epic Big Game win!

---

72CalBear, serious question, do you support Wilcox as the HC because of the $20million payout, which the athletic department lacks, or do you support Wilcox as the HC because you think he's a good HC?

---

In this case, the coaching staff did a remarkable job preparing the team for this game, along with providing the team the opportunities through planning to succeed. Having coached and played, that alone stands tall for me today. Mendoza didn't orchestrate the "drive" on his own nor did the defense make the plays without coaching guidance. Enough for me today. It's incredible the Bears pulled this one out and the grit they showed was not magic and was backed up by the motivating coaching staff whom in spite of all the NIL and transfers, have transformed this group into a TEAM! Now go beat SMU!

---

72CalBear, I must've missed where you answered my question.

Allow me to reiterate, do you support Wilcox as the HC because of the $20million payout, which the athletic department lacks, or do you support Wilcox as the HC because you think he's a good HC?

72CalBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think one thing to note (and this doesn't excuse all the coaching crap we have seen on the field over the past 3-4 years) was that the staff made adjustments that worked.

After the first 2 drives I THINK what Cal did was move from a 3--4-4 base to a 3-3-5 and have the nickel fully spy the QB. That took away the play they repeatedly ran on the first 2 drives where their QB would get the snap and then dart for either the A or B gap. They essentially leaned on their DBs (which they should) to be able to cover and that Furd's QB would have challenges figuring out the coverage. It was a good adjustment.

On Offense sadly they really got away from the RPO which I think they have to. When guys are getting beat so badly in the interior there isn't time for the mesh.

They still struggled offensively and I really hate how the entire program, it seems, fails to understand situational football - for example if it is 3 and 3 on their 40 you know you have 2 plays to get three yards. You are not punting and not trying a 57 yard FG. Sneak it 2 times if you have to. Roll Nando out twice and let him scamper. I get VERY frustrated how this team approaches situations like that and I wish sometimes they would simply play for a fresh set of downs rather than trying to grab bigger chunks.

---

Please pony up the $20 million to replace Wilcox. You sound like you are the master of "situational football" as you describe it. Meanwhile those who stormed the field are simply just happy for an epic Big Game win!

---

72CalBear, serious question, do you support Wilcox as the HC because of the $20million payout, which the athletic department lacks, or do you support Wilcox as the HC because you think he's a good HC?

---

In this case, the coaching staff did a remarkable job preparing the team for this game, along with providing the team the opportunities through planning to succeed. Having coached and played, that alone stands tall for me today. Mendoza didn't orchestrate the "drive" on his own nor did the defense make the plays without coaching guidance. Enough for me today. It's incredible the Bears pulled this one out and the grit they showed was not magic and was backed up by the motivating coaching staff whom in spite of all the NIL and transfers, have transformed this group into a TEAM! Now go beat SMU!

---

Remarkable?

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

The Chase Garbers drive in 2019 went 75 yards in 6 plays that took 1:04. That left 1:19 of game time left for the Furd. Fortunately, the Cal D forced a turnover on downs after a failed 4th and 1 run that went nowhere by Brennan Scarlett's little brother.

That drive was pretty significant. The Garbers TD gave Cal its first (and only!) lead of the game. That TD was also the difference in the game, with Cal winning the game by a final score of 24-20. Something that must also be mentioned is that that TD also secured Cal's first Big Game win since 2009!

The Garbers drive isn't something that should be ignored and forgotten. Not only did it make Cal bowl eligible, more importantly, it ended a decade of Big Game futility.

---

And, the football nation yawned. Granted, it was a great moment, but did not carry the impact that the 98 yards and a crying qb will have on national attention.

---

Sure. I don't disagree. But, in 2019, Cal didn't have the benefit of the Calgorithm helping to capture the nation's football attention (including Cal's first time hosting College Gameday). Also, because the game was on the Pac-12 Network, ESPN didn't even cover the story, let alone interview Chase Garbers after the game. As a result, we never got to see his emotions play out on a national broadcast.

"98 yard with my boys" is pretty darn special and should absolutely be on Big Game t-shirts. But Chase's drive was also pretty special, especially to us Old Blues. Again, that ended a decade-long Big Game losing streak!

---

Yes, the attention paid to this by the national media is mostly a function of our move to the ACC (so our games are not stuck on a channel no one on the east coast could watch) and subsequent efforts by fans to basically meme Cal into the national consciousness. It actually worked! (And also, let's be honest: Mendoza is a more charismatic guy than Chase Garbers.)

Despite the disappointing results on the field, the effort to build Cal football's national "brand" has to be considered a big success. Who would have expected someone like Pat McAfee becoming a fan of ours?

I thought it was Garber's Miracle anyways, so just give it a slightly different name. Garber's big game was only eclipsed for me by this year because I am just more emotionally invested in this team for reasons like twitter and Gameday@Cal, at the time to break the streak and get bowl eligible was completely epic - I think it also got deflated from memory because of the COVID debacle and the underperformance that followed the 2019 season.

rkt88edmo said:

---

I thought it was Garber's Miracle anyways, so just give it a slightly different name. Garber's big game was only eclipsed for me by this year because I am just more emotionally invested in this team for reasons like twitter and Gameday@Cal, at the time to break the streak and get bowl eligible was completely epic - I think it also got deflated from memory because of the COVID debacle and the underperformance that followed the 2019 season.

---

The other piece of the Garbers drive is that Cal was only down by 3, so a field goal was possible. Mendoza needed a touchdown.

sycasey said:

---

rkt88edmo said:

---

I thought it was Garber's Miracle anyways, so just give it a slightly different name. Garber's big game was only eclipsed for me by this year because I am just more emotionally invested in this team for reasons like twitter and Gameday@Cal, at the time to break the streak and get bowl eligible was completely epic - I think it also got deflated from memory because of the COVID debacle and the underperformance that followed the 2019 season.

---

The other piece of the Garbers drive is that Cal was only down by 3, so a field goal was possible. Mendoza needed a touchdown.

---

Fair but Garbers had one drive. Mendoza had a chance for 2 given the time and timeouts.

oski003 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

Wilcox was incredibly animated on the sidelines. Why are you making things up?

---

Because it fits the narrative that has been conjured up.

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

The Chase Garbers drive in 2019 started with 2:23 left and went 75 yards in 6 plays that took 1:04. That left 1:19 of game time left for the Furd. Fortunately, the Cal D forced a turnover on downs after a failed 4th and 1 run that went nowhere by Brennan Scarlett's little brother.

That drive was pretty significant. The Garbers TD gave Cal its first (and only!) lead of the game. That TD was also the difference in the game, with Cal winning the game by a final score of 24-20. Something that must also be mentioned is that that TD also secured Cal's first Big Game win since 2009!

The Garbers drive isn't something that should be ignored and forgotten. Not only did it make Cal bowl eligible, more importantly, it ended a decade of Big Game futility.

---

I loved Garbers leading Cal to a victory over Stanfurd
But doing the math: a 98 yard drive appears to be longer than a 75 yard drive. Maybe my math is wrong (after all I am not a math and science major). But 98 seems larger than 75. ;-)

GivemTheAxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

The Chase Garbers drive in 2019 started with 2:23 left and went 75 yards in 6 plays that took 1:04. That left 1:19 of game time left for the Furd. Fortunately, the Cal D forced a turnover on downs after a failed 4th and 1 run that went nowhere by Brennan Scarlett's little brother.

That drive was pretty significant. The Garbers TD gave Cal its first (and only!) lead of the game. That TD was also the difference in the game, with Cal winning the game by a final score of 24-20. Something that must also be mentioned is that that TD also secured Cal's first Big Game win since 2009!

The Garbers drive isn't something that should be ignored and forgotten. Not only did it make Cal bowl eligible, more importantly, it ended a decade of Big Game futility.

---

I loved Garbers leading Cal to a victory over Stanfurd
But doing the math: a 98 yard drive appears to be longer than a 75 yard drive. Maybe my math is wrong (after all I am not a math and science major). But 98 seems larger than 75. ;-)

---

When you take the first snap in your own end zone it adds a massive additional layer of difficulty to the calculus.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

This might be the Drive #2. I believe Garbers had the first Drive in Palo Alto a few years ago with his great run to the end zone

---

No comparison. This was a 98 yard drive in how many plays? to go ahead for the win with 2:40 left? with a fingertip catch for the td?

The fact that Garbers' run captured no attention speaks volumes about how important it was. We're talking BG lore here. Emotions ran extremely high, except for JW who can't seem to work up any at all, under any circumstances. I'm not sure he cared all that much when the team won.

---

The Chase Garbers drive in 2019 started with 2:23 left and went 75 yards in 6 plays that took 1:04. That left 1:19 of game time left for the Furd. Fortunately, the Cal D forced a turnover on downs after a failed 4th and 1 run that went nowhere by Brennan Scarlett's little brother.

That drive was pretty significant. The Garbers TD gave Cal its first (and only!) lead of the game. That TD was also the difference in the game, with Cal winning the game by a final score of 24-20. Something that must also be mentioned is that that TD also secured Cal's first Big Game win since 2009!

The Garbers drive isn't something that should be ignored and forgotten. Not only did it make Cal bowl eligible, more importantly, it ended a decade of Big Game futility.

---

I loved Garbers leading Cal to a victory over Stanfurd
But doing the math: a 98 yard drive appears to be longer than a 75 yard drive. Maybe my math is wrong (after all I am not a math and science major). But 98 seems larger than 75. ;-)

---

Lol! To me, they were both excellent drives!