We need to get competitive.

Where's the like button?

easdog1;583595 said:

---

Where's the like button?

---

Phantomfan;583594 said:

---

We need to get competitive.

---

You are right! Somewhere, someway, sometime, about 3-4 years ago, we lost our mojo, our fighting spirit -- just about the same time that stanfurd found theirs. Now we are down below them looking up and I'm not sure that we are on track to get it back, but I can tell you that the solution starts at the top.

That quote from Jeff Warren about Coach Bryant taking blame for mistakes and crediting players for successes really hit home with me, especially in light of Tedford's remarks after the UW game.

after the Raiders lost at Buffalo, he took the heat. He's the lightning rod, allowing players to play, that is the job

OK.

While I have little doubt that the 'Furd are a very good team this year, they haven't really beaten anyone good yet: San Jose St., Duke, Arizona, UCLA. Let's face it, they all kind of suck. Let's see what happens when they hit the meat of their schedule in the 2nd half.

2011 furd = 2004 Cal

RaphaelAglietti;583626 said:

---

2011 furd = 2004 Cal

---

2010 Furd = 2004 Cal. 2004 Cal doesn't give up 300+ yards to Brehaut and that Pistol gimmick.

Luck's going to have to carry that team all season.

Their offensive line, makes things work for them. Open holes for the RBs and protect Luck.

Oh good. Another thread where people vent their personal problems and try to make tenuous connections between what makes them feel sad inside and the Cal football team. What a treat.

maxer;583636 said:

---

Oh good. Another thread where people vent their personal problems and try to make tenuous connections between what makes them feel sad inside and the Cal football team. What a treat.

---

Says a guy posting at 2 am pst. :rollinglaugh:

93gobears;583640 said:

---

Says a guy posting at 2 am pst. :rollinglaugh:[/

Great logic!! He's posting in the wee hours and thus he has your personal problems. Amazing!

When you have the first guy that will be taken playing QB for you it all looks good.

If the supreme being has a sense of humor perhaps we can "ruin another college career" like Cal did to HorseFace with the Play.

...the went 12-1, won a BCS game and may even play for a NC this year and the least that will happen is rose Bowl berth. Contrast that with 10 years of JT which has produced nothing but a few minor bowl wins...pathetic.

I said I wouldn't pile on for a few games, but after watching this team and seeing the conference I think we are going to be lucky to win 6 games.

drunkoski;583741 said:

---

We had the chance to really make a leap in this conference and failed. Very very sad. We may not see a similar opportunity in our lifetime.

---

Agreed, though I think it would have taken two things for us to make that leap: (1) Rose Bowl in 2004 or 2006, and (2) SAHPC getting built asap instead of drawn-out treesitter saga.

(1) alone wouldn't have done it. One BCS berth doesn't permanently lift a program. See Kansas 2007, Illinois 2007, Furd 2011-12?

But (1) could have led to (2).....ugh.......

510Bear;583818 said:

---

But (1) could have led to (2).....ugh.......

---

Water cannons might have led to (2) faster than (1) would have, but I guess that's fruitless daydreaming on my part...

LessMilesMoreTedford;583629 said:

---

2010 Furd = 2004 Cal. 2004 Cal doesn't give up 300+ yards to Brehaut and that Pistol gimmick.

Luck's going to have to carry that team all season.

---

Didn't 2004 Cal give up 597 yards to Texas Tech's pass-happy spread "gimmick" and lose handily? How is that any better than giving up 343 to the Bruins and winning handily? Sure the 2004 Bears were down a couple great receivers, but Lyman and McArthur didn't play on defense.

It's actually an interesting comparison between the two teams (Cal 2004 and for Furd, either 2010 or 2011 so far, take your pick). I will say that while Furd has a few other good players, they are far more reliant on a single mega-star (Luck) than the 2004 Bears were on any single guy, even Rodgers.

OneKeg;583839 said:

---

Didn't 2004 Cal give up 597 yards to Texas Tech's pass-happy spread "gimmick" and lose handily? How is that any better than giving up 343 to the Bruins and winning handily? Sure the 2004 Bears were down a couple great receivers, but Lyman and McArthur didn't play on defense.

It's actually an interesting comparison between the two teams (Cal 2004 and for Furd, either 2010 or 2011 so far, take your pick). I will say that while Furd has a few other good players, they are far more reliant on a single mega-star (Luck) than the 2004 Bears were on any single guy, even Rodgers.

---

Texas Tech was actually good? Cal isn't the only team to get Leached by the Airraid. Don't think they'd ever faced anything like that in the Pac-10.

It's a gimmick at UCLA. Two years in and the Pistol generates mediocre results.

LessMilesMoreTedford;583848 said:

---

Texas Tech was actually good? Cal isn't the only team to get Leached by the Airraid. Don't think they'd ever faced anything like that in the Pac-10.

---

Also, Cal was completely unmotivated in that bowl game. I doubt we'd have seen the same effort if they'd actually been playing in the Rose Bowl.

Tedford is pretty much sleepwalking through the balance of his lucrative contract.

Maybe he could guzzle a little 5-hour energy before a game so he'll have a clue as to which RB plays when on the two-yard line.

SmellinRoses;583869 said:

---

Tedford is pretty much sleepwalking through the balance of his lucrative contract.

Maybe he could guzzle a little 5-hour energy before a game so he'll have a clue as to which RB plays when on the two-yard line.

---

That's complete bullshit, frankly. You might not like the results, but he works his ass off.

I have never witnessed more entitled, whinier, poor-me negative thinkers than I have seen on this board. It sounds exhausting.

My god BI - back away from the ledge. Until Furd shows it can withstand the graduation of Luck you need to ALL take a big breath. AL is a freak of nature - lets see how they perform with an "ordinary" QB

sycasey;583863 said:

---

Also, Cal was completely unmotivated in that bowl game. I doubt we'd have seen the same effort if they'd actually been playing in the Rose Bowl.

---

I think the motivation factor was over-argued because it was easier (and we could blame someone else). I went to the Holiday Bowl, and I sure wanted to win. I think the players did too.

Defense was huge: we had a month to prepare and watch film on Tech and study what other teams did to stop them, but instead we just went with our base 4-3 defense and our secondary got shredded.

On offense, injuries were a factor, but they had been. Again, we had a month to prepare. Instead of going with walk-on WRs and our same offense, I would have liked to see us figure out a way to get BOTH Arrington and Lynch on the field (both good receivers) and both Cross and Stevens and just stick with power running (we were running well against them as it was) and Rodgers throwing off play-action.

calumnus;583887 said:

---

I think the motivation factor was over-argued because it was easier (and we could blame someone else). I went to the Holiday Bowl, and I sure wanted to win. I think the players did too.

---

Well, that proves it then! IMO, there is no way the players were as motivated to win that game as much as (1) Texas Tech was or (2) they would have been to win a Rose Bowl.

LessMilesMoreTedford;583848 said:

---

Texas Tech was actually good? Cal isn't the only team to get Leached by the Airraid. Don't think they'd ever faced anything like that in the Pac-10.

It's a gimmick at UCLA. Two years in and the Pistol generates mediocre results.

---

Yes Texas Tech was good. Maybe that's why they put up over 250 more yards against '04 Cal than the gimmicky/weak UCLA on '11 Furd.

Maybe more comparable are these efforts (both home wins) by '04 Cal:

Cal 45 UCLA 28, gave up 378 yards vs. UCLA (who finished 6-6)
Cal 28 Oregon 27, gave up 359 yards vs. Oregon (who finished 5-6)

I was definitely happy with both wins at the time and admittedly both those opponents might still be a bit better than '11 UCLA. But frankly I don't see the big difference between '04 Cal doing that and '11 Furd giving up 343 to the Bruins while gaining 442.

So I can't agree with your suggestion that there's no comparison because the '04 Cal team would never give up yards to a team like UCLA is now. I think on that basis, they're pretty comparable. And furd has had a pretty major injury too (Skov).

Man, I loved the '04 Cal team. LOVED them. Great talent, lunch-pail attitude, punched you in the mouth. That's why it kills me that somehow Furd has gotten to the point where they seem to have a comparable team (I know you disagree), and we have fallen back. I do agree with everyone who is saying that things could be very different for Furd with Luck gone next year, because I think their dominance is much more focused on 1 player than '04 Cal's was.

On another note, we'll probably never know, but I also suspect heavy juicing among the Furd OL given their systematic huge weight gains without getting fat (and without being initially thin guys filling out), and their crazy 5-hour-a-day type workout schedules, which for the vast majority of un-juiced athletes does not allow enough recovery time.

maxer;583880 said:

---

That's complete bullshit, frankly. You might not like the results, but he works his ass off.

I have never witnessed more entitled, whinier, poor-me negative thinkers than I have seen on this board. It sounds exhausting.

---

Well, what better way to change the board's tone to positive than giving us the 8,000th "you're all idiots and you can all suck it" post?

Can we have a separate thread for these? Please?

Our situation is really not that complicated. Tedford is a 6-6 (more or less) coach and that's it.

Does anyone on the board really think that Tedford, at this stage, is going to morph into a 9-3 or 10-2 coach? I know I don't.

Coaching is important in football perhaps more than in other major sports and it's particularly important in college football.

sycasey;583889 said:

---

Well, that proves it then! IMO, there is no way the players were as motivated to win that game as much as (1) Texas Tech was or (2) they would have been to win a Rose Bowl.

---

Maybe, but that does not prove that we actually lost due to motivation. Unless you want to argue our coaches were unmotivated to scout Texas Tech and adequately prepare the team because of missing the Rose Bowl.

I think our defensive players got frustrated playing the TT offense--our great DL could not run fast enough to get to the TT QB before he got rid of the ball, and he always seemed to find someone in our soft zone--to the tune of 520 yards passing (on 39 of 60). That was not unmotivated players, at least not initially. I really think we had a bad scheme for them.

On offense, we had 235 yards rushing (5.7 ypc). Our OL was dominant. That sounds like motivated players. However, we got behind and went to Rodgers and the passing game, which normally would be money, but Makonnen, Gray and Jordan did not play well and a lot of the completions were screens to the backs. Rodgers ended up 24 of 42 for 246 yards, one TD and 1 Int. I do not think the problems with Makonnen, Gray and Jordan in that game were due to motivation.

Tedford:

Quote:

---

"The players who were not available to play tonight are great players. They are All-Americans. It is not an excuse, but it is a great learning tool for our younger guys.

---

An only if quote from Rodgers:

Quote:

---

"This is a frustrating loss, but we just didn't execute and make plays. We came up a little short. I thought we handled the pressure pretty good, I just wasn't at my best today. Every loss is tough, but I don't think this puts a damper on things. A lot of good things happened this year that hasn't happened at Cal in a while and I hope our fans stick with us. [U]We'll come back next season on a mission[/U]."

---

Just a few questions.

Is Lucky that good of a good QB? - Yes
Was he smart for staying for his degree? - I say yes
Is he trying to tell the world that he has finally reached puberty? - I would say another yes

510Bear;583904 said:

---

Well, what better way to change the board's tone to positive than giving us the 8,000th "you're all idiots and you can all suck it" post?

Can we have a separate thread for these? Please?

---

Only if we can have separate out all the axe-grinding about the same topics every other thread inevitably devolves into.

calumnus;583959 said:

---

Maybe, but that does not prove that we actually lost due to motivation.

---

It certainly contributed, is my point. No loss is only for one reason.

sycasey;584058 said:

---

It certainly contributed, is my point. No loss is only for one reason.

---

Agreed. I do think it contributed, which I know is what you were saying. I wasn't refuting you, it was just that since you brought it up, I took the occasion to opine that its magnitude has been overblown by many (not necessarily you--but then we got sidetracked). It is most often given as THE reason we lost, whereas I think it actually ranks relatively low on the list of contributing factors (but definitely a factor nonetheless as you correctly pointed out).

I think that once the game starts, the players are motivated. They want to win. The biggest impact is probably in the weeks leading up to the game, how hard you work in practice--and for the coaches, how many nights you stay up late studying game film and devising strategies. I think there would have been a lot more anticipation, excitement and motivation and thus [U]better preparation[/U] if we were playing in the Rose Bowl. Thus, I see inadequate preparation as the larger factor in the loss, though motivation can definitely be a factor behind that.

93gobears;583640 said:

---

Says a guy posting at 2 am pst. :rollinglaugh:

---

He could be posting from Hawaii. or Australia.