How is it humanly possible for a Pac 12 team to schedule this many cream puffs in a row? Usually teams pay dearly later in the season for this kind of scheduling.

As far as "looking up at 'Furd," they said the same things about us a while back. Things change, and as gloomy as some are around here, things are looking up for the program, and 'Furd will go back to its losing ways soon enough, possibly this season, and certainly next.

BeachyBear;584442 said:

---

How is it humanly possible for a Pac 12 team to schedule this many cream puffs in a row? Usually teams pay dearly later in the season for this kind of scheduling.

As far as "looking up at 'Furd," they said the same things about us a while back. Things change, and as gloomy as some are around here, things are looking up for the program, and 'Furd will go back to its losing ways soon enough, possibly this season, and certainly next.

---

No matter what, we need to get better and we can't count on Stanford being bad. Stanford may be good (at least not nearly as bad as they were) for a while as long as they do not go back to the admission standards (and process) they had before Harbaugh. Over the last few years they have been bringing in top 25 classes. That will probably continue, especially if they are a BCS team again this year. Their coaches are also doing a good job of utilizing their talent (they utilize position changes and employ strategies to get their best players on the field in positions to make plays).

[U]Scout [/U]
2009 Stanford 15th Cal 34th
2010 Stanford 24th Cal 27th
2011 Cal 15th Stanford 19th
2012 Stanford 30th Cal 60th (Obviously very early)

Bottom line is we cannot count on Oregon sanctions or Stanford incompetence. We have to get better.

Never will. Listening to people glorify a program they once made fun of..not so long ago we all laughed at Harbaugh..and now we have bandwagoners. Oregon State anyone? We get our stadium and workout facility and will outperform them in 2 years..keep your Cal gear clean!

72CalBear;584500 said:

---

Never will. Listening to people glorify a program they once made fun of..not so long ago we all laughed at Harbaugh..and now we have bandwagoners. Oregon State anyone? We get our stadium and workout facility and will outperform them in 2 years..keep your Cal gear clean!

---

Quote:

---

If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.
--Sun Tzu

---

I don't think anyone here is glorifying them, and I STILL laugh at Harbaugh (it is gratifying to confirm that my assessment of him as an a*hole was not just because he was Stanford's coach)--however, there are some things he did/does, and Stanford does, well--that we can do too.

72CalBear;584500 said:

---

Never will. Listening to people glorify a program they once made fun of..not so long ago we all laughed at Harbaugh..and now we have bandwagoners. Oregon State anyone? We get our stadium and workout facility and will outperform them in 2 years..keep your Cal gear clean!

---

The voice of reason...well said!

GO BEARS!

Yes I will desire to win like Stanford...and our expectations should be to glorify/emulate successful programs...

How many bcs bowls have we won?

Snyder finally brought us to the level where orgasms are possible...

Gilbert/Holmoe fucking sunk us...

Tedford is bringing us back to some respectability...some...

Goddam right I glorify a program who is fucking winning....like a boss...

72CalBear;584500 said:

---

Never will. Listening to people glorify a program they once made fun of..not so long ago we all laughed at Harbaugh..and now we have bandwagoners. Oregon State anyone? We get our stadium and workout facility and will outperform them in 2 years..keep your Cal gear clean!

---

Please...

Furd between 2009 and now looks a LOT like the Cal of 2004.

Dominating run game setting up an accurate and mobile passer with good tight ends and FB. VERY good at executing details, allowing a ridiculous number of plays to be run out of a few basic formations. Say what you want about our 2004 team, but it was a LOT of average players, with a very good QB. Most or our 2004 team's success came from out playing, not out talent-ing.


Contrast that with between now... Terrible with details, running a thousand formations and not executing the details of any of them, an ineffective run game, setting up endless pressure on our already inaccurate passers putting the D back on the field and finally giving up.

This has less to do with FURD and more to do with US; how FURD has been using what was Tedford's bread and butter (execution, power and a dozen plays from simple formations) and has been at least as successful (likely more) reflects on what we have lost, more than what Furd has gained. TRUST that a stadium and the HPC will not cause the players to hit their assignments any better than they do now.

We lose to less talented teams. That means we HAVE the talent. Maybe not to be elite, but we have enough not to lose to OSU, Washington and UCLA.

We HAVE to get back to that kind of football. AT least the execution and accuracy (not just QB) part.

Phantomfan;584556 said:

---

Please...

Furd between 2009 and now looks a LOT like the Cal of 2004.

Dominating run game setting up an accurate and mobile passer with good tight ends and FB. VERY good at executing details, allowing a ridiculous number of plays to be run out of a few basic formations.


Contrast that with between now... Terrible with details, running a thousand formations and not executing the details of any of them, an ineffective run game, setting up endless pressure on our already inaccurate passers.

This has less to do with FURD and more to do with US, and how FURD has been using what was Tedford's bread and butter (execution, power and a dozen plays from simple formations) and has been at least as successful (likely more).

We HAVE to get back to that kind of football. AT least the execution and accuracy (not just QB) part.

---

Well said. You have to take the best ideas from your enemy. In both WWs we stole ideas from Germany and then kicked their *ss with them. To not do so would be prideful and stupid.

calumnus;584564 said:

---

Well said. You have to take the best ideas from your enemy. In both WWs we stole ideas from Germany and then kicked their *ss with them. To not do so would be prideful and stupid.

---

I agree with the boldfaced comment however, as a student of armaments and tactics in the WWs I don't see how anyone other than Patton remotely "borrowed" anything from the Germans other than Blitzkrieg warfare. In fact, he actually developed it simultaneously. We stole their jet technology and used it in Korea. We utilized their tank technology but only at the end of WWII in the form of the Pershing tank after the war was already won. We never duplicated the effects of their MG42 machine gun until the Vietnam war. Our elite units were as good as or better than theirs. Truth be told, we were mostly plodding and methodical. We won because we had an overwhelming disposal of air power, good men and artillery in our hands which the Germans never fully utilized nor concentrated as we did. That and they tried to take on the world at the same time. We also carpet bombed the crap out of their industrial centers, rail yards and population centers. Lastly, the Germans also were guided by madmen in both conflicts with no effective training in tactics. Otherwise, I guess we stole their ideas :p.

Back to football. I agree that we need new tactics to beat Oregon and everyone else. Tight end usage, better D coverage, more original offensive play calling and more gambles would obviously be welcome. We certainly need to adapt to the level of of adversaries in all areas. We also need to play with precision. When we do I hope it is fully Cal scripted and not borrowed from anyone. We have the men, and good men at that. What remains to be answered, and I am with you (I am with all of you) is the question, can we prevail? We need to evolve or we're going to get our *sses kicked. This, my fellow Cal fan, is the real question- it's the million dollar question.

Let's hope we wind up as victors in the end....

GO BEARS!

Phantomfan;584556 said:

---

Please...

Furd between 2009 and now looks a LOT like the Cal of 2004.

Dominating run game setting up an accurate and mobile passer with good tight ends and FB. VERY good at executing details, allowing a ridiculous number of plays to be run out of a few basic formations. Say what you want about our 2004 team, but it was a LOT of average players, with a very good QB. Most or our 2004 team's success came from out playing, not out talent-ing.


Contrast that with between now... Terrible with details, running a thousand formations and not executing the details of any of them, an ineffective run game, setting up endless pressure on our already inaccurate passers putting the D back on the field and finally giving up.

This has less to do with FURD and more to do with US; how FURD has been using what was Tedford's bread and butter (execution, power and a dozen plays from simple formations) and has been at least as successful (likely more) reflects on what we have lost, more than what Furd has gained. TRUST that a stadium and the HPC will not cause the players to hit their assignments any better than they do now.

We lose to less talented teams. That means we HAVE the talent. Maybe not to be elite, but we have enough not to lose to OSU, Washington and UCLA.

We HAVE to get back to that kind of football. AT least the execution and accuracy (not just QB) part.

---

And besides playing with precision Stanfurd (and Cal 2004) plays TOUGH. Stanfurd players just looking more muscular now and when they hit and tackle and block the opponent gets jarred backwards. That's the way Cal 2004 played and I don't know where that has gone. Part of me thinks we've (Tedford) lost our identity. We recruit some QBs that run and some that are passers. We try to power run but we don't recruit FBs or great blocking TEs. We recruit TEs that catch but don't block well or those that block well but don't catch. We encorporate the spread when we should be pounding the hell out of teams with the run and play-action (Longshore/Lynch years). As Phantom states, we now have a mish-mash of 1000 different things that we only partially master. Nice facilities and talent won't overcome this. Even when SC dominated with talent they ran the same basic, Chow offense year after year.

82gradDLSdad;584747 said:

---

And besides playing with precision Stanfurd (and Cal 2004) plays TOUGH. Stanfurd players just looking more muscular now and when they hit and tackle and block the opponent gets jarred backwards. That's the way Cal 2004 played and I don't know where that has gone. Part of me thinks we've (Tedford) lost our identity. We recruit some QBs that run and some that are passers. We try to power run but we don't recruit FBs or great blocking TEs. We recruit TEs that catch but don't block well or those that block well but don't catch. We encorporate the spread when we should be pounding the hell out of teams with the run and play-action (Longshore/Lynch years). As Phantom states, we now have a mish-mash of 1000 different things that we only partially master. Nice facilities and talent won't overcome this. Even when SC dominated with talent they ran the same basic, Chow offense year after year.

---

The hope is that we are now finally getting back to this after losing our way for a little while (see: JT taking the reins back on offense, Coach M back to coach the OL, etc.), but it will take longer than this season to see if it's working, IMO.

'Furd is doing well right now, but all it will take is for their next QB to go all Ayoob on them and they will come back to Earth.

Phantomfan;584556 said:

---

Please...

... Say what you want about our 2004 team, but it was a LOT of average players, with a very good QB. Most or our 2004 team's success came from out playing, not out talent-ing.


Contrast that with between now... Terrible with details, running a thousand formations and not executing the details of any of them, an ineffective run game, setting up endless pressure on our already inaccurate passers putting the D back on the field and finally giving up.

This has less to do with FURD and more to do with US ..,

---

Can't say this any better. Saying that the 04 had a huge amount of talent compared to now sounds more like an excuse.

There were talented players, but the one true oustanding player was the QB. Didn't have the flashiest receivers or DBs though they are good. Can't underestimate drive, motivation, and leadership.

ultramantaro;584853 said:

---

There were talented players, but the one true oustanding player was the QB.

---

Arrington/Lynch?

That team was more talented than the current team, no doubt about it. The only position this team beats that one at is WR.

sycasey;584870 said:

---

Arrington/Lynch?

That team was more talented than the current team, no doubt about it. The only position this team beats that one at is WR.

---

And mostly because MacArthur and Lyman were hurt.

sycasey;584756 said:

---

The hope is that we are now finally getting back to this after losing our way for a little while (see: JT taking the reins back on offense, Coach M back to coach the OL, etc.), but it will take longer than this season to see if it's working, IMO.

---

I haven't been following recruiting nearly as closely as I used to. Are we recruiting the type of player to go back to the 04 Cal/ 10 Stanford power football scheme?

HaasBear04;584887 said:

---

I haven't been following recruiting nearly as closely as I used to. Are we recruiting the type of player to go back to the 04 Cal/ 10 Stanford power football scheme?

---

Yes, but they mostly play on the DL :p

Our DL talent recently has been off the charts, especially for a Pac-10 team.

The 2004 OL was way bigger and way better than our recent lines, well, than all our Olines since. We really, really need to get back on track recruiting and training huge Olinemen. I'd even be ok taking a flyer or two on some huge kids who don't have too many stars by their names. Anyone remember Kevin Gogan? He went to my high school, Sacred Heart in SF, and he was bloody awful as a high school player. But he was already 6'6" and 350lbs. He was just too big for his age. Washington gave him a schollie and the rest is history. He ended up having a couple of Pro Bowl years in the NFL.

calumnus;584879 said:

---

And mostly because MacArthur and Lyman were hurt.

---

Yes, though Keenan Allen is more than a match for either player, even when they were healthy.

82gradDLSdad;584900 said:

---

The 2004 OL was way bigger and way better than our recent lines, well, than all our Olines since. We really, really need to get back on track recruiting and training huge Olinemen. I'd even be ok taking a flyer or two on some huge kids who don't have too many stars by their names. Anyone remember Kevin Gogan? He went to my high school, Sacred Heart in SF, and he was bloody awful as a high school player. But he was already 6'6" and 350lbs. He was just too big for his age. Washington gave him a schollie and the rest is history. He ended up having a couple of Pro Bowl years in the NFL.

---

That O-line was loaded with talent, not "average" college players at all. Ryan O'Callaghan, Marvin Philip, and Aaron Merz all got drafted to the NFL.

The D-line was also loaded with NFL talent, including Lorenzo Alexander, Brandon Mebane, and Ryan Riddle. And also Tosh Lupoi.

The secondary had future NFLers Matt Giordano and Dante Hughes.

Our backup tight end was future NFLer Craig Stevens. Garrett Cross, the starter, was also no slouch.

Top WRs Lyman and McArthur probably make the NFL if not for injuries.

LB was probably the weakest unit, but Wendell Hunter was pretty good.

And of course, as mentioned, at RB we had future NFL picks in Arrington and Lynch.

So I'm not sure where the idea comes from that the 2004 Cal squad had a bunch of "average players" besides Aaron Rodgers. Maybe it just fits a now-popular narrative about Jeff Tedford?

..Lotsa people thought if we could just have A. Luck last year as Bear QB, we'd be winning games, going to bowls!..:cheer And we're still drooling over that two-way fullback/LB stud with the lion's mane.. wow! And their 6'10" tight ends who can slam duck..pow!..And that offensive line? Brick sh*t houses who eat glass and are engineering majors!! ..Yep..we really need to be like them! :bravo

I would like to win and be successful like Stanford....

sycasey;584870 said:

---

Arrington/Lynch?

That team was more talented than the current team, no doubt about it. The only position this team beats that one at is WR.

---

Arrington was running behind an awesome O-line. No doubt he's better than Sofele but is he pretty much fizzled in the NFL.

So this really begs the question, was the 2002 or 2001 class in the top 10 compared to the last few classes tha Tedford pulled in?

ultramantaro;585036 said:

---

Arrington was running behind an awesome O-line. No doubt he's better than Sofele but is he pretty much fizzled in the NFL.

So this really begs the question, was the 2002 or 2001 class in the top 10 compared to the last few classes tha Tedford pulled in?

---

Can we stop with this, please. JJ and Sofele aren't in the same league. Why does it help to downgrade the talent of the 2004 team? JJ isn't just some dude, he rushed for MORE THAN 2000 YARDS! Isi probably won't get 1/3 of that. JJ was a 2nd round pick. The NFL thought he was damn talented, it makes no difference what his career in the NFL was like.

The success of the 2004 team wasn't some miracle... they were very talented. This team is more talented than just about every team they play, but no where near 2004, even with the QB removed.

alarsuel;585043 said:

---

Can we stop with this, please. JJ and Sofele aren't in the same league. Why does it help to downgrade the talent of the 2004 team? JJ isn't just some dude, he rushed for MORE THAN 2000 YARDS! Isi probably won't get 1/3 of that. JJ was a 2nd round pick. The NFL thought he was damn talented, it makes no difference what his career in the NFL was like.

The success of the 2004 team wasn't some miracle... they were very talented. This team is more talented than just about every team they play, but no where near 2004, even with the QB removed.

---

The 2004 team was amazing. Even after the Holiday Bowl loss, Sagarin's Predictor still had them as the #2 team for the 2004 season after being neck and neck with #1 SC all season: LINK

And if Rodgers came back, the 2005 team would have been even better.

ultramantaro;585036 said:

---

Arrington was running behind an awesome O-line. No doubt he's better than Sofele but is he pretty much fizzled in the NFL.

---

So then either Arrington had outstanding talent or the OL did. This still doesn't support the notion that the 2004 team was lacking in talent besides the QB.

And anyway, we are talking about college talent, not how long someone lasted in the NFL. If you got drafted at all, it means you were a really good college player.