said after the game that they emphasize over and over that you must make toughdowns, not field goals (of course, in that situation you have to go for the field goal). But you'd have thought that he would have liked to have been a bit closer. His quote about settling for field goals reminds me of someone else I know (!). As a matter of fact, if we hadn't settled for field goals in the first half of the Big Game this year, we could have beaten Stanford. I sat there so frustrated having outplayed Stanford the first half and yet going in to the halftime locker down a point. I was afraid it was over for us at that point. Tedford always says it's his responsibility to give his players the best chance to win, but he fails to to this again and again.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">CalBarn;665641 said:</div><hr>said after the game that they emphasize over and over that you must make toughdowns, not field goals (of course, in that situation you have to go for the field goal). But you'd have thought that he would have liked to have been a bit closer. His quote about settling for field goals reminds me of someone else I know (!). As <b>a matter of fact, if we hadn't settled for field goals in the first half of the Big Game this year, we could have beaten Stanford</b>. I sat there so frustrated having outplayed Stanford the first half and yet going in to the halftime locker down a point. I was afraid it was over for us at that point. Tedford always says it's his responsibility to give his players the best chance to win, but he fails to to this again and again.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />With a different QB maybe. <br />Did you ever notice our poor performance when Cal had the ball 1st and Goal inside the 10 yardline.<br />I think our failure was due in large part to the QB, i.e. another over throw in the corner of the endzone (and to a lesser degree to the play calling).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SchadenBear;665114 said:</div><hr>That is a lame excuse.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Looked rather blatant to me.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">68great;665769 said:</div><hr>With a different QB maybe. <br />Did you ever notice our poor performance when Cal had the ball 1st and Goal inside the 10 yardline.<br />I think our failure was due in large part to the QB, i.e. another over throw in the corner of the endzone (and to a lesser degree to the play calling).<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Getting senile, 68? The records show that ZM had only <b><i>one single</i></b> incompletion inside Stanford's 10-yard line....all game long.<br /><br />Compare that to a TD pass and a successful 2-point conversion ZM made inside Stanford's 10-yard line. In other words, ZM had two completions (TD, 2-point conversion) vs. one incompletion. How is that a poor performance by the QB inside the 10? It was great, stat-wise. Hell, RGIII would be proud.<br /><br /><i>CalBarn</i>, who, unlike you obviously watched the game, is right -- Cal settled for FGs against Stanford. The play-by-play show that the RBs played a "large part" in Cal's "failure" inside Stanford's 10, not the QB. I know you have a personal hard-on for ZM, but blame the play-callers for Cal's close loss against Stanford, not the QB who had 3 whole passes inside the 10 and completed 2 of them for scores (TD, 2-point conversion).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">68great;665769 said:</div><hr>With a different QB maybe. <br />Did you ever notice our poor performance when Cal had the ball 1st and Goal inside the 10 yardline.<br />I think our failure was due in large part to the QB, i.e. another over throw in the corner of the endzone (and to a lesser degree to the play calling).<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I actually think it's less about the qb and more about the OL. When you get inside the 20, defenders can bunch up more, don't have to worry about getting beat deep. It's about the line surge. That's why Stanford's been so good.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Looperbear;665833 said:</div><hr>I actually think it's less about the qb and more about the OL. When you get inside the 20, defenders can bunch up more, don't have to worry about getting beat deep. It's about the line surge. That's why Stanford's been so good.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I'm beginning to wonder which will be the bigger lost for Furd next year, Luck or several key members of the OL. Maynard would have thrived with the same amount of protection.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">HungryCalBear;665858 said:</div><hr>I'm beginning to wonder which will be the bigger lost for Furd next year, Luck or several key members of the OL. Maynard would have thrived with the same amount of protection.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />It really was something to see when RG DeCastro would pull, putting him and LT Martin at the point of attack, they were clearing it out pretty good last night. The play fakes were there all day.

Naw, he was admiring the stadium architecture. He was overheard making this rather astute architectural observation. "Wow, this stadium is kind of an oval shape"

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666121 said:</div><hr>Maynard had excellent protection against Ucla, Oregon, and usc so i'm thinking thrived is a bit optimistic.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!<br /><br />So now you just make facts up to keep your anti-Maynard/Tedford crusade thriving?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666143 said:</div><hr>Never in your mind is Tedford or the qb ever at fault. Of course you look at the truth as made up.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Maynard having excellent protection = Maynard running for his life against blitzing Oregon/SC/LA linebackers/DEs/safeties. That's high comedy drunk, even for you.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665217 said:</div><hr>shaw will send the furd back to tedford level mediocrity.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />No doubt Shaw Tedforded the game. Not just the inexplicable decision to kill the last two minutes on offense and hand the game over to the frosh kicker, but the two wildcat plays earlier.<br /><br />And I find distasteful Shaw's personality -- part Hue Jackson egotistical bluster, part simpering political hack. But I wouldn't write him off as a coach yet (I wrote Tedford off in '08 for comparison). He was 11-1 in his first year going into a BCS bowl game in which he almost (should have) beat a talented and more athletic team. That speaks to his team's preparation and motivation. Also, he got the job because he is an alum, but not just because of that. Remember, Harbaugh <i>already</i> had him on his staff at San Diego and then gave him play calling responsibility equal to his own and Roman's. Given what those two have proven this season, that's no small concession of responsibility. Overall, Harbaugh has had pretty good judgement in choosing coaching talent. So I think it a bit premature to celebrate our rival's misfortune in hiring such a lousy coach.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BUMP;666173 said:</div><hr>No doubt Shaw Tedforded the game. Not just the inexplicable decision to kill the last two minutes on offense and hand the game over to the frosh kicker, but the two wildcat plays earlier.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Love how the negabears call any mistakes under two minutes "Tedfording" it up, despite little evidence that Tedford has really made hideously bad decisions under two minutes left. <br /><br />Tedford has never done anything quite as bad as what Shaw did in those last two minutes.

Yes the coach did cost them the game, and it brings a smile to my face <img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />"><br /><br />-R

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LessMilesMoreTedford;666176 said:</div><hr>Love how the negabears call any mistakes under two minutes "Tedfording" it up, despite little evidence that Tedford has really made hideously bad decisions under two minutes left. <br /><br />Tedford has never done anything quite as bad as what Shaw did in those last two minutes.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Well, ya got a point there. JT has NEVER made a bad call in the last 2 minutes of a BCS bowl.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LessMilesMoreTedford;666145 said:</div><hr>Maynard having excellent protection = Maynard running for his life against blitzing Oregon/SC/LA linebackers/DEs/safeties. That's high comedy drunk, even for you.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Maynard had more protection in 2011 than Riley had in 2010 or 2009. But Riley did not have the same number of turnovers as Maynard did.<br /><br />[But to clarify my position I think that JT is a better coach than Shaw.]

i can't remember the last game we were down with the ball and a chance to win it late in the 4th.....or even in the 4th......<br /><br />like others point out, for a long time, most knew by the 2nd qtr if we were going to win.........that was even back 5-7 years ago.......

<blockquote><div class="name-said">mouseandcat;666436 said:</div><hr>i can't remember the last game we were down with the ball and a chance to win it late in the 4th.....or even in the 4th......<br /><br />like others point out, for a long time, most knew by the 2nd qtr if we were going to win.........that was even back 5-7 years ago.......<hr></blockquote><br /><br />UW this year. Oregon and Arizona last year. Furd, Arizona, and ASU the year before. <br /><br />3-3. Not so bad.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">mouseandcat;666436 said:</div><hr>......<br /><br />like others point out, <b>for a long time, most knew by the 2nd qtr if we were going to win.........that was even back 5-7 years ago</b>.......<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Say what?<br />You must have been watching a different Cal team than I have for the past 5-7 years.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">GivemTheAxe;666376 said:</div><hr>Maynard had more protection in 2011 than Riley had in 2010 or 2009. But Riley did not have the same number of turnovers as Maynard did.<br /><br />[But to clarify my position I think that JT is a better coach than Shaw.]<hr></blockquote><br /><br />For better and worse, Riley had the "gunslinger" mentality he came to Cal with coached out of him.

thanks for the info, i was really looking for "come from behind" wins in the fourth......throughout the season it just felt like we weren't winning close games......

Running those stupid Wildcat plays when you have them so hooked for play action was stupid, AND running them when you're already killing them out of your base set was stupid. Running Wildcat after they stuffed it once was utterly Cal-like - and of course, the results were the same. Yes, if you're freshman kicker is praying on the sideline and looks like he's about to barf, can't look anyone in the eye, it's time to turn the number 1 pick in next year's NFL draft loose.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666121 said:</div><hr>Maynard had excellent protection against Ucla, Oregon, and usc so i'm thinking thrived is a bit optimistic.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Against USC? I don't think so.