This game is very difficult for me to grade. The players put together one of the best emotional performances I've seen from a Cal team in years, taking a number of momentum shifting setbacks and still finding a way to win in overtime. At the same time, it shouldn't have been anywhere near as close as it ended up as Cal commited a number of stupid mistakes and penalties to help keep Colorado in the game.

So, here are my grades for the team.

Offense (F - game plan and coaching, B- - execution by the players.)

This is the first time I've divided this grade into 2 parts, but I felt I had to. Cal's game plan was horrible, and when I could see they had plays that were working it always seemed to go back to alternate plays that had little chance of succeeding. The failure to anticipate and pickup the obvious blitzes in the 2nd half helped Colorado come back.

However, the players did make the plays they needed to, putting together 370 yards of offense, and 5 touchdowns. The offense played very well, but they were hurt by coaching that was subpar and will not win against top Pac-12 teams. (which has been a pattern with Tedford coached teams since 2007 sadly.)

QB - B+
I can't give him an A due to the 1 int, and the low 6.9 yards per attempt. However, Zac Maynard made the throws when he needed to, helping the offense convert 7 of 13 third downs and he threw 4 TD passes. It's been quite a few seasons since we had a QB who could do that.

Another issue with Zac was his happy feet against the blitzes. He needs to see the blitz and check down to the hot receiver. He's a bit too quick to lock into a specific receiver and if the defense has that play covered Zac doesn't always adjust quickly.

RB - A-
Only 100 yards rushing total, but the total was reduced by the sacks taken by Zac Maynard. Isi Sofele has 20 carry for 84 yards (a 4.6 yards per carry average.) CJ Anderson had 33 yards on 4 carries and the TD that put Cal up 30-27 late in the game. FB Nico Dumont caught the first Cal TD and Tyndall had a catch on a QB roll out that went for a first down. Great contributions by the group and no penaltieis.

WR - C+
13 catches split between Keenan Allen, Marvin Jones and Michael Calvin. This trio did a great job overall, but both Allen and Jones dropped passes they should not have, and neither was creating additional offense after the catch. The passback to Maynard by Allen was inspired coaching. This group needs to perform at a higher level.

TE - C+
Miller had 2 catches for TDs, but at least 2 drops and a series where he was called for holding one play killing a first down. This was not one of his better games.

OL - C+
They had some success in blocking. Most of the trouble with the running game was a lack of faith in it from the coaches who just never seemed to call running plays consistently. The OL did have trouble with the blitzes, but Colorado had a blitz package that overloaded one side by putting 3 pass rushers just outside the tackle. It was painfully obvious they were coming if you were watching from the stands or on TV, but the Oline never appeared to adjust to the coming blitzes.


Defense - (F - game plan and coaching, C- - Execution.)

Putrid performance, but not due to lack of passion by the players. They tried, but the game plan and coaching betrayed them, leaving them unable to make the plays they needed to. The fact that Hansen is a senior QB with good experience meant that the Cal defense wasn't going to be able to play passive, but the design of the defense for this game was far more passive than it should have been, and failed to key in on the few starts on the Colorado team. Also someone in the Cal coaching staff needs to be taken behind a woodshed and beaten with a clue-by-four until he learns that zone defenses do not work against senior QBs. Hansen picked apart the zone all day. He knows enough about college football to see a zone defense and immediately recognzie where the seams have to be. Horrible coaching decision to use zone defense as much as we did.

DL - B-
This group actually played the best of the 3 defensive groups. They closed off the running game for the most part, and even got some pressure on Hansen despite the 3 or 4 man rushes most of the time. They needed to get better penetration at times, but overall these guys weren't the ones allowing the huge yards.

LB - F (only because there is no lower grade.)
Horrible performance by the LB corp. Not so much Kendricks or Holt who did the best they could in the middle and were only liabilities on some of the passing plays when the zone defense broke down. The OLBs were worse. They kept crashing in as if htey were stopping an option dive play rather than watching for Hansen. This was especially bad on the left side of the Cal defense. Hansen preferred to roll to his right and when the leftside OLB crashed in he allowed Hansen to get out and make plays. This group also kept losing track of Stewart as he caught several screen passes and turned them into big gains. An LB should have been on top of Stewart, but that only happened one time. Overall the whole group was a relative non-factor in this game.

DB - F
At some point Cal needed to doubleteam Richardson, but they never did. Anthony never seemed to get back into the game after the hit at the end of the first half (from the Colorado player who threw him to the ground, not a collision.). Williams was good, but his small size meant he could be and was victimized by plays he just wasn't able to defend against the larger Colorado WRs.

ST - C
After the first extra point got blocked due to Taveccio's low kick the special teams settled down and played quite well. There was nothing major to report frmo this group. No spectacular plays, but it was a solid performance.


-----

This was a close win and in many ways a good win, but it also needs to be a wakeup call to the coaching staff. This game was evidence of poor coaching by Tedford and his staff, and ended up far closer than it should be due to failure to adjust and properly plan for what we would see. I hope by Washington some changes will have been made.

Fortunately next week's game is one that can be used to test a number of changes and heal up before the Pac-12 season starts for real.

Wow ... tough grades and yet Cal still won. I will take the ugly win over the tough hard fought loss (ie Oregon in 2010) ANYDAY!!!!!!!!!!!

a bit generous to the DL. I didnt see them getting much of a push on the OL during passing plays. They were solid in run blocking for sure.

Agree with many of your grades, but I think you were too hard on the offensive game plan and too easy on the DL. I can't remember so may mis-direction and trick plays in one game on offense since Tedford's first year...I think all the drops contributed to the lack of overall success. As for the DL, their lack of push contributed to the DBs getting burned...it seemed like Hansen had all day to throw.

and where in god's name are King and Coleman? they didn't even register a participation note on the stat sheet. WTF is going on? i expected these two to tear it up more than the starters coming into the season...

The part that is horrible about our defensive pressure was when we rushed 4 which consisted of 2 DL and our 2 OLB while dropping 7. Colorado had success controlling the line of scrimmage against this formation while giving so much time to Hanson to find receivers all over the place. He had a great stat game, but he missed probably 5 or so wide open receivers as well that would have made him top the 500 yard mark. I can only say it so often, but if Campo and Davis continue to be our starting OLB's... we are in deep trouble. I'd rather have undisciplined playmakers in Wilkerson, McCain and Whiteside than those 2 disciplined non-playmakers. They might have been involved in 5 plays all game in which their contribution was noticed. We would have been in the same boat if we had placed a tackling dummy where Davis played. He constantly thought he had someone else outside of him so he didnt have to worry about outside containment. Campo was no better on his side with the same issue.

You are also being very generous with Holt. He played horribly. Missed tackles, broken coverages, missed coverages, and just seemed slow compared to the rest on the field.

Our RB's were not a "A-" ... once you get past the 30 yard run by Isi and the 20 yarder by CJ... they had 70 or so yards the rest of the game.

It wasn't until the final minutes of the game, that some of the guys pulled there heads out. Those last few minutes showed me something about this team that's different than the teams Tedford has fielded the last 4 years.

I saw an offense and even the defense that was not going to be denied in the final minutes. I saw a glimpse of the teams will to win. It's that killer instinct that every great team has. It's an unrelenting desire and pride not to be outdone.

On the defensive side of the ball, I want to give Steve Williams a virtual game ball, :band What I witnessed today was probably one of the best WRs I"ve seen in the Pac-12, up against Williams. Williams looked like the real deal Hollyfield out there today. He knocked a couple balls down toward the end of the game that I don't know if most DBs could have. He did get burned once because he lost sight of Richards giving up the position. This does happen. I'm sure we'll be hearing the name Richards on ESPN highlights all year long. He's an incredible WR.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but the Buffs were really picking on Anthony, Hill and Campbell on the left side. It was also this left side that missed several tackles in the open field. Hopefully we can shore up our secondary before conference play.

QB play was alright, Maynard needs to lead his receivers more.
RB play was very good, Isi was playing well and CJ really showed some good plays.
WR play was average, drops can't happen!
TE play was alright, Hagan made some nice blocks, but Miller needs to stop the drops now.
OL was not good, they weren't containing the D-line at all and they were making dumb penalties.
DL was alright, I would have loved to see Moala in there a lot more because his size could have really helped free up guys to get pressure on Hansen.
MLB was good, Kendricks and Holt played without any mistakes.
OLB play was horrendous until McCain came in. Camporeale and Davis are not going to cut it. Wilkerson played ok. I didn't see Whiteside much.
DB play was horrible. Cattouse and Williams had good games but Hill and Anthony sucked badly, DJ Campbell played alright but I expect more.
K was great on Kick offs and Giorgio made the FG. The PATs have to be gimmes!
P was great, but I hope he can take those 50 yarders to sea level.

Our RB's were not a "A-" ... once you get past the 30 yard run by Isi and the 20 yarder by CJ... they had 70 or so yards the rest of the game.

This makes no sense. If you take away Richardson too big touchdown receptions, he only had 100 yards receiving. If you take away two of AR's touchdown passes in the Super Bowl, the Packers lose the game. If you take away all of Maynard's misses, he has a 100% completion percentage.

Places where I differ:

O Coaching -- can't agree with an F. Playcalling was generally good, and frequently inspired. We never went into the second half offensive shell. We scored 30 pts in regulation (ahead of where most thought we would be). Really liked the trips sweeps, which we ran three times for 9, 27 and 6 yards.

RB -- Isi is a pure "C" grade. If there's a three yard hole, he gets three yards. We saw when CJA was in the game that a RB who makes YAC makes the O look much, much better. W/ IS getting so many of the carries, can't see this higher than a C+.

OL, I think is better, but simply doesn't look it b/c Isi gets so few yards unless there's an absolutely gaping hole. In the second half, depsite running on nearly every 1st down, we got 3 ypc. In previous years we would have gotten 1. I think they're more of a B, but yes, based on output a C+ may be fine.

DL -- C-. No pressure, not a single block beaten on a pass play. They stuffed the run in the second half, but certainly not in the first.

LBs -- while I'm not arguing w/your F grade, you're being to kind on MK. The middle linebackers did a horrible job of diagnosing the RBs coming out of the back field for swing and screen passes. At best, they were making plays 6 to 8 yards down field. On the one play where MK agressive went to stuff the screen, he whiffed.

STs -- Most analysis is forgetting that we blocked a punt which led directly to a TD. I'd give STs more of a B here. Blocked PAT was bad, but we won the field position game specifically b/c GT 'out-kick-offed' the Buffs kicker.

our defensive speed on the edges look slow...there have been a lot of plays the last two games where we just got beat to the corner, or at least couldn't chase down someone....that's on the OLBs and DEs.

I don't understand how Hawaii got so much pressure (and sacks) on the QB and we couldn't put a finger on him. I'd have to watch the game again and focus on that one aspect, but can anyone say their analysis of what Hawaii was doing that we weren't?


One comment about Maynard. I like what he can do overall, but he isn't Joe Montana yet (who is?). The thing I think he needs to improve on the most, is making his progressions. He looks like he goes to his primary receiver 95% of the time, even if he is covered, or even when another receiver is wide open (he especially needs to look for TEs.

When was the last time, that Cal has not had a pass completion to our starting tail back in back to back games. I'd venture to say NEVER (or at least never during the JT era).

Gunga la Gunga;565938 said:

---

Places where I differ:

O Coaching -- can't agree with an F. Playcalling was generally good, and frequently inspired. We never went into the second half offensive shell. We scored 30 pts in regulation (ahead of where most thought we would be). Really liked the trips sweeps, which we ran three times for 9, 27 and 6 yards.

RB -- Isi is a pure "C" grade. If there's a three yard hole, he gets three yards. We saw when CJA was in the game that a RB who makes YAC makes the O look much, much better. W/ IS getting so many of the carries, can't see this higher than a C+.

OL, I think is better, but simply doesn't look it b/c Isi gets so few yards unless there's an absolutely gaping hole. In the second half, depsite running on nearly every 1st down, we got 3 ypc. In previous years we would have gotten 1. I think they're more of a B, but yes, based on output a C+ may be fine.

DL -- C-. No pressure, not a single block beaten on a pass play. They stuffed the run in the second half, but certainly not in the first.

LBs -- while I'm not arguing w/your F grade, you're being to kind on MK. The middle linebackers did a horrible job of diagnosing the RBs coming out of the back field for swing and screen passes. At best, they were making plays 6 to 8 yards down field. On the one play where MK agressive went to stuff the screen, he whiffed.

STs -- Most analysis is forgetting that we blocked a punt which led directly to a TD. I'd give STs more of a B here. Blocked PAT was bad, but we won the field position game specifically b/c GT 'out-kick-offed' the Buffs kicker.

---

This is closer to what I was thinking.
I'll watch the replay later today but I was under the inpression that the Buffs were stacking the LOS with their DL and LBs.

O -- B-
OL -- B-
QB -- A-
RB -- A-
WR/TE -- C+

D -- C-
DL -- inc
LB -- D
CB/S -- D

ST -- C
K -- C
P -- C+

Special category: Team response to a tough crowd factor -- A.

:axe

If anything I see a lot more productivity from our offense and more inspired playcalling than I've seen in years. Execution, OTOH, was less than inspired at times. Penalties, dropped passes, happy feet by Maynard, those are individual mistakes, not coaching errors.

Overall, I saw a lot to like about our offense both in terms of coaching and player execution.

Defense... I don't get Coach P. Last year we had eight games of brilliant defense and four games where the team looked horrid - all blowlout losses. We seem to be in the same pattern this year, the only difference is we won a shootout instead of suffering a blowout (a credit to the team's resiliancy and offensive effectiveness)

Overall, I enjoyed the game and it's really nice to see the team get a big win on the road. My sense is Colorado had a coming out party on us and we survived, but CU is going to be a decent team this year and surprise some people. Combine that with the way FSU gave Nebraska all they could handle yesterday and my sense is the Bears, while they need a lot of improvement, can hang with anyone.

:tedford :gobears:

Thanks for the responses and the discussion. I guess I should expand a bit on some of my points.

On the Offensive game plan. The big thing I noticed was the failure to really push the running game. We had 64 yards in the first half, but only 18 yards in the 3rd quarter, a quarter where we were leading throughout the quarter. The play calling seemed to go away from any attempt to run the ball. Yes, Isi is rarely good for more than 3 yards, but that again is part of the offensive game plan. We should be using CJ or Deboskie more as those two appear to be bigger and stronger and more able to hit the hole quickly. Tedford's inexcusable love of Sofele is hurting the team. I understand that CJ is still learning all the pass blocking, but sometimes you have to accept the weaker pass blocking to improve the running game.

And Isi did the best he could with what he was given. He's good for 3 yards and a cloud of dust most plays, but a 3.4 yards per carry average is a first down every 3 runs, and he achieved 4.6 YPC. The others were stronger and should probably be more involved, but that goes to coaching not play. As a group they did everything we needed them to do for this game.

The DL did a better job than most of you appear to think. They aren't supposed to be the ones getting all the pressure on the QB, especially as there are only 3 of them. They need to hold the middle, crash holes and tie up blockers for the LBs. It was the incredibly poor OLB play that made the DL look bad. They made their plays and held their assignments, even helping out on a couple of the broken defenses. It wasn't a perfect job, but the DL corp did nothing bad. Sadly, if the LBs are as putrid as they were yesterday, the DL ends up looking bad due to the association between the two.

Holt and Kendricks weren't perfect, but they didn't miss assignments as much as some of you might think. Neither is the designated one to cover an RB out of the backfield. Holt isn't that fast and Kendrick is more likely to be tasked to blitz than cover. Holt is a run stopper more than anything and was doing that job well. Stewart was often having to cut back 2-3 holes to find an open one as Holt and Kendrick were properly filling the middle holes on running plays. The OLB were not where they needed to be and allowed the few runs to break big.

And we did appear slow at the OLB position. For some reason Cal has been slowly going with slower and slower OLB players. This goes back to 2007 and was clear when Eddie Young managed to maintain his position. He wasn't very quick and in one game was victimizied by running plays through his assigned gaps multiple times. Browner was another who just wasn't fast enough to play OLB in a 3-4, but who got that assignment for Cal.

THis was definitely a learning game for this young team. Hopefully Tedford and company will identify things to fix in the next 2 weeks. I'm sure we'll hear about some next week, but I'd be happy if they hide most of the changes until the Washingtom game.

One thing about Isi that I didn't see mentioned is how good he has been protecting Maynard. He has been picking up rushers very well!! Bears need players who do their jobs, no matter what they are.

As for Clancy, this game plan reminded me of the Nevada game last year, where the offense just kept doing the same thing, the defense kept doing the same thing, and the end result was mostly the same: huge yardage by the offense. It was disturbing to see so many 12-14 play drives that looked way too easy. Sell out on Richardson for a drive to simply experiment. Try something.

Having said that I was very proud that the team pulled out a win in a game like this. Big character shown!!! Maynard is showing serious moxy.

ST should get a D just for extra point blocking, or lack of it. Three blocks in two games? Epic fail! Defensive coaching made little visible adjuesment to account for the fact two guys were killing us on just about any meaningful play: Richardson and Stewart. It took Pendergast till the 4th quarter to put our best corner (Williams) on Richardson. Epic fail.

The knock against Tedford is he and his staff are weak in making adjustments and the Colorado game is more of the same. In the end, our players showed enough heart to gut out a win, so it ended well. But the lack of coaching adjustments will cost us games.