I was looking at the stats from the Colorado game. How did we win this one?

http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=3850&SPID=255&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=205268990

Rushing
Cal 100
Col 108

Even.

Passing
Cal 270
Col 474

Dizamn. We got SMOKED.

Punts-Yards
Cal 4-204
Col 3-94

Don't make BAnger angry.

Possession Time
Cal 26:28
Col 33:32

They commanded way more time than we did.

Third Down Conversions
Cal 7 of 13 (54%
Col 6 of 17 (35%)

Ding ding ding. It seems like this is the biggest factor in keeping us in the game.


Red-Zone Scores-Chances
Cal 6-6
Col 3-4

Touchdowns (from red zone)
Cal 5-6
Col 0-4

Field goals (from red zone)
Cal 1-6
Col 3-4

Could this possibly be why JT took the knee to go into OT? He had more confidence in us in the red zone as all the passing TDs by Colorado happen to come off of big plays / Cal defense mistakes?

Sacks By: Number-Yards
Cal 0-0
Col 3-28

Ouch. This number has to get better.

freshfunk;576592 said:

---

I was looking at the stats from the Colorado game. How did we win this one?

---

Look no farther than our QB performance when it mattered.

Sounds like BBDB defense.

Interesting stat breakdown, thanks.

I would say TDs from RZ differential is what let us win it and sacks (as a predictor of overall QB pressure) are what made it so close.

As it relates to UW, I really think Priority #1 is limiting Kearse and not letting Williams or the other receivers break out. Kearse has killed us the past 2 games, and if he doesn't have any big plays I think we can survive Polk going over 100yds (as long as its not 200 or 250 and 3 , 4 , 5 tds or something like that). But we've been stout against the run, as these stats show it's pass d where we've had issues...

I think we've got a shot. I'm not super confident in our chances because this feels like one of those classic "their defense sucked and then cal came to town and the defense woke up" types of moments.

However, if we can somehow contain Polk and limit them to short and medium passes without giving up the big play, I could see us hold down their total points and us winning in a close battle in the 20s. I actually think the higher the score the worse for cal - if we see this go into the 30s, our D got burned and we need to rely on the offense to just run up and down field with them, and I'm not yet convinced that we're capable of competing in games like that.

Yes, just about the only positive on defense was in the red zone. At least they stiffened at that point. Also, Steve Williams came up with a few clutch plays late in the game.

burritos;576597 said:

---

Sounds like BBDB defense.

---

Except their three TD's were long plays with huge YAC or busted coverage.

The defense has to do better, both scheme wise and on the field, but it's one game where I think Clancy and staff underestimated Richardson. With 11 minutes to go in the 4th quarter, we had them at 13 points (1 TD was when their TE was left uncovered down the middle) and then stuffed a run.... only to be called for that BS personal foul when it would have been 4th and long.


If KA and ZM don't have the team pumped up to play this game, I'll be very surprised.

freshfunk;576592 said:

---

Red-Zone Scores-Chances
Cal 6-6
Col 3-4

Touchdowns (from red zone)
Cal 5-6
Col 0-4

Field goals (from red zone)
Cal 1-6
Col 3-4

Could this possibly be why JT took the knee to go into OT? He had more confidence in us in the red zone as all the passing TDs by Colorado happen to come off of big plays / Cal defense mistakes?

---

Bingo. Our D denied them at least 9 points just by defending the red zone.

When their options were limited near the goal line, we read their tendencies on O and defended well. Meanwhile, our offense demonstrated the ability to outsmart a defense despite the same limitations.

Definitely a silver lining to what otherwise looked like a dark day for the defense.

freshfunk;576592 said:

---

Could this possibly be why JT took the knee to go into OT? He had more confidence in us in the red zone as all the passing TDs by Colorado happen to come off of big plays / Cal defense mistakes?

---

That's what I said at the time, and said afterwords. I think it's pretty clear.

3rd down conversion differential and red zone conversion differential won us the game, no doubt about it.

I was sick last week, so I rewatched the CO game and broke down all of their offensive plays. Here's Richardson's game against us in a nutshell:

[Qtr. Time Rem. Down/Dist. Ball On Descr.]
01 13:12 02-10 CO25 Pass to 06PR on slant from left side (covered by 07DC) for 10yds to CO35
01 09:37 02-06 CA24 Pass to 06PR on short out to left side (covered by 23JH) for 6yds to CA18
01 05:06 01-10 CO40 Pass to 06PR on flag/go route up left side (defended by 01SW) for 36yds to CA24
02 14:14 01-10 CO20 Pass to 06PR on curl/hitch from right slot (defended by 02MA &/or zone) for 16yds to CO36
02 12:07 03-08 CO38 Incomplete pass intended for 06PR up right sideline (defended by 02MA and 11SC)
02 09:21 01-10 CO20 Incomplete (drop) intended for 06PR on go route up right sideline (defended by 02MA)
02 06:30 01-10 CO46 Incomplete (overthrow) intended for 06PR on deep post on right side (defended by 11SC)
02 00:09 01-15 CO27 Pass to 06PR on deep curl? up right sideline (defended by 02MA) for 29yds to CA44
03 14:16 03-08 CO22 Pass to 06PR on slant from right slot (defended by zone &/or 23JH, 11SC and 03DH) for 7yds to CO29
03 12:11 01-10 CO42 Pass to 06PR behind LOS (WR screen) on left hash (defended by 01SW and 07DC) for 19yds to CA39
03 06:43 01-10 CO20 Incomplete (overthrow) intended for 06PR on go route up right hash (defended by 02MA and 07DC)
03 01:52 03-06 CO34 Pass to 06PR on right hash on short out from right slot (defended by 23JH) for 66yd TD
04 15:00 02-10 CO22 Pass to 06PR on deep post from right slot (defended by 02MA) for 78yd TD
04 06:06 03-05 CO20 Pass to 06PR on curl at right hash (defended by 02MA) for 8yds to CO28
04 01:35 03-05 CA24 Pass to 06PR on slant from right slot (defended by 23JH) for 10yds to CA14
04 00:57 01-25 CA29 Incomplete intended for 06PR on deep post up left hash near goal line (defended/batted by 01SW)
05 ??:?? 03-GG CA05 Incomplete intended for 06PR on dart/out route in left flat (defended/batted by 01SW)

The one thing I forgot to do was break out YAC, but we all remember that his 2 big TD plays were short/medium passes followed by long runs. Interestingly (or more apropos, thankfully) his day could've been even bigger if he and Hanson had connected on a few more passes (that were open). Also, he sure took turns against everyone in our secondary.

Your stats did not factor in turnovers. #15 has to be smart with the ball and we need to score on defense.

Nice work! Painful to read, but nice. Really the two blown back-to-back coverages made a very good day into a spectacular day.

OldBlue1999;576639 said:

---

Interestingly (or more apropos, thankfully) his day could've been even bigger if he and Hanson had connected on a few more passes (that were open). Also, he sure took turns against everyone in our secondary.

---

He caught 11 passes on 17 targets. Only three of those based on the play-by-play above and my recollection were bad passes or drops. (I think the drop was actually out of bounds anyway, but that could have been a different play). The last two in particular were just well defended.

We can always imagine that the opposing team could have executed perfectly. However, the fact of the matter is, they executed really really well, and it's not realistic to think that everything they did could have been perfect. Honestly, I think the Hansen/Richardson combo was operating about as well as they could have and on most of those plays they earned their yardage. The two TD's were obviously blown coverage & poor pursuit angles and should have been limited to large gains at worst.

elpbear;576646 said:

---

Really the two blown back-to-back coverages made a very good day into a spectacular day.

---

Exactly.

elpbear;576646 said:

---

(I think the drop was actually out of bounds anyway, but that could have been a different play).

---

You're thinking of the right play, and he was out of bounds too. Ironically, a better route and this is 6. The ball was placed well.

elpbear;576646 said:

---

We can always imagine that the opposing team could have executed perfectly. However, the fact of the matter is, they executed really really well, and it's not realistic to think that everything they did could have been perfect. Honestly, I think the Hansen/Richardson combo was operating about as well as they could have and on most of those plays they earned their yardage. The two TD's were obviously blown coverage & poor tackling angles and should have been limited to large gains at worst.

---

Other than the fact that I'm an Old Blue and as such fear the unknown because time has taught me it's the right thing to do, I'm actually encouraged for future games that we were able to pull a game like this out. Not only is our offense vastly improved, though still far from perfect, our team psychology is totally different. Having a QB who makes clutch throws and puts points on the board will do that, but still it's encouraging. I'm also wondering if this is a game we only won because of our new conditioning efforts. We got stronger at the end, at altitude, and didn't fold.
:gobears:

I agree with friend run2win....my grandmother told me that she could have intercepted Maynard's passes; they were that easy to pick. He has to learn to just turn and throw the ball out of bounds.....He going to have to pas for over 300+ yards for a win especially if the running game performs as usual, which if Bigs gets significant carries should be the difference in the game......offensively.......What bothers me is that I keep seeing whomever the washington quarterback is throwing short screen passes where Cal gets burned......then medium range passes for easy first downs.......Cal D is goingto be tested.....

freshfunk;576592 said:

---

I was looking at the stats from the Colorado game. How did we win this one?

---

We did not. It was all a wonderful dream and we are all suffering from a mass hallucination. It's like an episode of Twilight Zone.

To be honest the morning after "The Play" I woke up and for a second I was afraid that the The Play was all just part of my dream; and that Stanfurd really had won the game on the day before.

freshfunk;576592 said:

---

I was looking at the stats from the Colorado game. How did we win this one?

[
Red-Zone Scores-Chances
Cal 6-6
Col 3-4

Touchdowns (from red zone)
Cal 5-6
Col 0-4

Field goals (from red zone)
Cal 1-6
Col 3-4

Could this possibly be why JT took the knee to go into OT? He had more confidence in us in the red zone as all the passing TDs by Colorado happen to come off of big plays / Cal defense mistakes?

QUOTE]


JT reported at a Bear Backer event that this was in fact the reason for taking the knee at the end of regulation.
He was certain that with a short field the Cal D would hold Colo to a FG; and that Maynard would get the ball to Jones or Allen. Or that CJ would get the ball into the endzone.