But didn't make it. Everybody around here just assumes that it we hadn't gone for the field goal that making that the one yard was a foregone conclusion. What if we didn't make the one yard? Even it we did make it what assurances are there that we would have scored a TD or a field goal? Who is to say that Ohio State still wouldn't have marched down the field and scored the win? I get the probabilities of this or that argument, but that doesn't necessarily ensure a specific outcome. It is what it is, let's all move on.

The argument is that in every single game there is a moment of winning time -- a key decision that signals to your squad that you're going to fight aggressively and play to win.

You trot out a FG kicker who has badly shanked his 2 previous attempts from essentially the exacty same spot tells the team that (a) you are not aggressive, and (b) do not understand those crucible moments when you have to put your guts on the line and make a tough decision.

Cal had moved the ball all day and on that possession. If it was 4th and long, no doubt you give the fg kicker a shot but on 4th and 1 considering how bad the kicker had looked and the fact the cal had averaged 5.5 yds a carry on 41 rushes, you go for it.....ALL DAY.

Tedford lost the nerve that he entered the program with, the nerve that all got us excited to be Cal football fans

I postulate that Tedford going for it on 4th and 5 and 4th and 6, irrespective of getting the first down or not, was crucial in getting the offense to dominate in the 3rd quarter.

If we had gone for it and not made it and ended up losing, I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining and I think a lot other fans on here wouldn't be either. Or we'd likely be complaining about the biased refs and not the coach. Blown coverages, interceptions, missed field goals, etc. happen. These are kids trying their hardest, not professional athletes. A coach on the other hand, who makes millions of dollars a year, I would expect more from during a key decision than defering to some chart that says when the game is tied with X minutes remaining at Y position, you kick a field goal.

CALiforniALUM;841952545 said:

---

But didn't make it. Everybody around here just assumes that it we hadn't gone for the field goal that making that the one yard was a foregone conclusion. What if we didn't make the one yard? Even it we did make it what assurances are there that we would have scored a TD or a field goal? Who is to say that Ohio State still wouldn't have marched down the field and scored the win? I get the probabilities of this or that argument, but that doesn't necessarily ensure a specific outcome. It is what it is, let's all move on.

---

Of course it doesn't assure a win. It was just clearly the better percentage play to go for it, even aside from the team morale aspect. In blackjack, if the dealer has a 7 and you have a 14, you hit. What are your assurances that you won't bust, or that the dealer won't outdraw you? None. But you still make the right move.

And notice how there is virtually no one (that I have seen) that is criticizing JT for going for it on the prior 4th and longer distances, despite not making it. That's because those were the right call too. With the exception of a few crazies, no one would have blasted JT for going for it on the late 4th and 1, even if Cal still lost.

Now if it was just an isolated deviation, then you could just chalk it up as unfortunate. Everyone tries a gambit once in a blue moon. But it was not an aberration. It was the norm. JT doesn't even go for it on 4th and 1 near midfield when down 21-0 (USC 2010). From his comments, it is clear that JT thinks he made the percentage play and is surprised that there is any debate. He gives every indication that he will continue to make similar decisions.

Tedford seems like a good man and, like most football coaches, knows far more about football than almost all of us (myself included of course).. But he does not know football math, or perhaps has his own math that transcends our comprehension.

That being said, let's hope the team can build on the otherwise strong performance. It won't be easy though. I think both USC and Furd may be better than OSU, not to mention Oregon.

Why all te long posts? If tedford thinks we're good enough to hold off the buckeyes for a 3 point win, we should be good enough to hold them off to force overtime. That's all you need to say to justify going for it there. Add all the other elements, and there's "no question" why you go for it there.

The argument would have been we should have kicked the field goal, you can't come away from a turnover like that with nothing, and that it was a stupid decision to go for it after already being 0 for 2 on 4th down conversion attempts in the game.

Seriously though, if we can't count on our field goal kicker to do better than that we are screwed. There was nothing wrong with the decision. There were only two decisions really possible there...field goal and fake field goal.

Personally the bigger issue for me was the fact we missed 3 freaking field goals, all wide left and all wide by a good margin. If we can't make field goals we are screwed no matter what head coach we have.

Add on to that the completely blown coverage on a third and long that left a man with no one within 15 yards of him BEHIND the defense and you have a loss.

~MrGPAC

We would have got it. Our players deserved to get that chance. Tedford cheated the team and the fans.

tim94501;841952632 said:

---

We would have got it. Our players deserved to get that chance. Tedford cheated the team and the fans.

---

What if we didn't get it? My hypothetical is as good as yours.

CALiforniALUM;841952545 said:

---

But didn't make it. Everybody around here just assumes that it we hadn't gone for the field goal that making that the one yard was a foregone conclusion. What if we didn't make the one yard? Even it we did make it what assurances are there that we would have scored a TD or a field goal? Who is to say that Ohio State still wouldn't have marched down the field and scored the win? I get the probabilities of this or that argument, but that doesn't necessarily ensure a specific outcome. It is what it is, let's all move on.

---

I wanted him to go for it, so if we didn't get it I would not complain because he did what I wanted him to do.

I didn't complain the other times we went for it and didn't get it, so I wouldn't complain this time.

Give us more credit.

This whole line of thought is that we can no longer, for the rest of the season, count on any field goals. May as well skip that part of practice anymore.

If you can not count on making a field goal - which, by the way, he has made thousands of times in practice, and last week in game, then you are screwed all year long.

SC lost the game yesterday by NOT KICKING FIELD GOALS, because their kicker is out. I frankly am excited by that - not worried that they are constantly going to go for it on 4th down. I am frankly pleased that they do not have a kicking game. I guess most of you would like to see a healthy SC kicker so they can score more - but just three - as opposed to the inevitable 7 they always get.

NYCGOBEARS;841952639 said:

---

What if we didn't get it? My hypothetical is as good as yours.

---

They would have been 7 yards further than they ended up after that joke of a fg attempt.

A very simple argument:

• 4:25 remaining is more than enough time for Ohio State to score a FG or TD; a 3-point lead is very tenuous.
  
• You have the weapons to not only make the first down, you have the weapons to get closer, burn more clock and possibly score a TD.
  
• If you make the first down, you should be able to burn two more minutes off the clock at least before attempting a FG.
  
• Even if you miss with 2:30 remaining, presumably it's a tougher deal for Ohio State to march far enough to kick an FG to tie, or score a TD for the win.
  

In college the ball stays at the los after a misse field goal, right? Not 7 yards back.

bearsandgiants;841952660 said:

---

In college the ball stays at the los after a misse field goal, right? Not 7 yards back.

---

I stand corrected. Point blank we had nothing to lose and all the momentum. The call was chickensh1t

SkyBear;841952643 said:

---

The idea is that our kicker already missed 2 field goals from the same range. He was clearly rattled and his game was off that day. Let him practice hard and let him have it in the next game. Not when it's 4th and 1 in the opposing team's territory.

---

Exactly, why try to create a straw man. We are only talking about the decisions on that day in that situation.

If we go for it and don't make it or better if we do make it, the two missed FGs are a footnote (like the missed FG at USC in 2004), not the focus.

There are plenty of situations you absolutely do take the FG, (hypothetically say 4th and 15 on the 20 up 7) ones that will be with far less pressure on a guy who missed two already that day.

SFBear2012;841952571 said:

---

If we had gone for it and not made it and ended up losing, I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining and I think a lot other fans on here wouldn't be either. Or we'd likely be complaining about the biased refs and not the coach. Blown coverages, interceptions, missed field goals, etc. happen. These are kids trying their hardest, not professional athletes. A coach on the other hand, who makes millions of dollars a year, I would expect more from during a key decision than defering to some chart that says when the game is tied with X minutes remaining at Y position, you kick a field goal.

---

+1

tim94501;841952632 said:

---

We would have got it. Our players deserved to get that chance. Tedford cheated the team and the fans.

---

+1

tim94501;841952669 said:

---

I stand corrected. Point blank we had nothing to lose and all the momentum. The call was chickensh1t

---

Hear, hear!

To quote the old man in Rome: "It's better to live on one's feet than die on one's knees."

SkyBear;841952547 said:

---

The argument would be that our kicker already missed 2 field goals, and Tedford needs to make aggressive calls to show confidence in the team, gain additional swagger, and make a statement that Cal isn't afraid to go toe to toe with the big boys.

---

Really?

Lets do a refresher on the game:

Cal was only 40% on Third down
Cal was 0 for 2 on 4th down
Cal was 0 for 2 on Field Goals


Now that we have that settled:
What you are saying is that if Cal is 0 for 2, Tedford should learn and not take that option, instead opting to trust that the team can accomplish something it is 0 for 2 doing?

That is opposed to the idea that if Cal is 0 for 2, Tedford should learn and not take that option, instead opting to trust that the team can accomplish something it is 0 for 2 doing?

Awesome.


Glad to have you around.








Honestly, he "should" have tried for the first down at that point, BUT NOT because Cal had missed two field goals. He should have done it because of the clock and the lost potential for 4 extra points.

OTOH, CLEARLY give our inability to convert, I would say 90%+ coaches would have opted to kick the FG. Remember, he gave the ball away at mid-field twice going for it on 4th. This is not a coach who was calling a risk adverse game as some have claimed. There are arguments for both going for it and kicking it.

Phantomfan;841952930 said:

---

Really?

Lets do a refresher on the game:

Cal was only 40% on Third down
Cal was 0 for 2 on 4th down
Cal was 0 for 2 on Field Goals


Now that we have that settled:
What you are saying is that if Cal is 0 for 2, Tedford should learn and not take that option, instead opting to trust that the team can accomplish something it is 0 for 2 doing?

That is opposed to the idea that if Cal is 0 for 2, Tedford should learn and not take that option, instead opting to trust that the team can accomplish something it is 0 for 2 doing?

Awesome.


Glad to have you around.








Honestly, he "should" have tried for the first down at that point, BUT NOT because Cal had missed two field goals. He should have done it because of the clock and the lost potential for 4 extra points.

OTOH, CLEARLY give our inability to convert, I would say 90%+ coaches would have opted to kick the FG. Remember, he gave the ball away at mid-field twice going for it on 4th. This is not a coach who was calling a risk adverse game as some have claimed. There are arguments for both going for it and kicking it.

---

You are leaving out the distances in each of those. We failed to convert on some third and longs created by sacks and penalties. Much different than short yardage.

Other than that stop on Stevens that preceded it, we converted every short yardage situation, including the keeper by Maynard for the TD. (Even the "stop" by Stevens, if repeated, would have gotten us enough for the first down the second time).

D'Amato missed from the almost the exact same distance in the previous two attempts (but at least it was 4th and goal from the 23 and 4th and 5 from the 25).

I'm going to be in the extreme minority...but after an abysmal first two weeks where I had moved squarely from "Keep tedford" to "WTF ARE YOU DOING FIRE TEDFORD NOW!" (for the first time by the way), I was extremely pleased with Cal's performance in the game.

They got the short end of the stick on the refereeing, but kept battling.

They were down relatively large at the half, but kept battling.

They had a relatively good gameplan and were able to move the ball well against an athletic defense.

They went for it on fourth down...twice.

They weren't intimidated by the road and played well and executed well.

I liked the field goal attempt there. I think it was the right decision (though a fake field goal would have been epic there)

I get being angry at Tedford...but if your going to be angry at Tedford can it please be for having no reliable field goal/placekicker since Schnieder went down in 2007 warming up for the Tennessee game instead of the decision to take the lead? Even 2/3 on field goal tries and the game is completely different.

Or how about that stupid blown coverage that lead to the winning touchdown? That was just plain terrible...

Seriously, we just made a game of, and looked like the better team, vs OHIO STATE. Most here had us losing terribly. This really feels like complaining for the sake of complaining because we are so used to it.

Lets at least see how they play vs USC. If they play like they did vs Ohio State, I think they can win. If they play like they did either of the first two games...look forward to winning...the second half...maybe.

~MrGPAC

There are a lot of people who have already decided that Tedford is a dipshit, so that nothing he does will be right. If we had gone for it on fourth down and not gotten it, I guarantee the exact same people who are on here whining about the fact that we attempted a field goal would be whining about why we ran another run play up the middle with player X when it is so obvious we should have given it to player Y; or why we tried a sweep with player Z because everyone knows Z doesn't have the speed to turn the corner; or why we ran the ball at all because that's exactly what OSU was expecting; or why we passed it with only one yard to go because Tedford showed no faith in his OL, etc., ad infinitum. It is really easy to find fault with someone when you have already decided that person has no redeeming qualities.

I've thought for a couple of years now that Tedford has slipped as a head coach and needs to be replaced. However, that hasn't blinded me to the fact that he and the team did a pretty good job last Saturday. I hope that carries through to the rest of our games this year.

Cal was 50% on "and 2" or less. Still not great stats, but good point.


I would say that the yardage should not matter because the kicks were from different places, but they were 40, 42 and 42 from the same hash... That is interesting on its own.

Tedford proved he is a WUSS.
Even if he wins negotiations that pay him about
THREE MILLION DOLLARS, he is a WUSS.

But, as the saying goes, he's better than Holmoe ... ha ... and on a level with Theder (maybe).

I look down all the people who responded to my initial post and a few things stand out. For the most part, the individuals who are the most vocal against kicking the field goal or hating on Tedford have post counts in the tens and hundreds (I'm not picking on you SFBear2012 or GoBearsBert :p). Then there seem to be the more reasoned and seasoned posters (Phantomfan, calumnus etc) who as evidenced by their post counts in the multiple thousands have had a regular voice on BI.

All I can conclude is there must be a few trolls on this board who have an agenda. I've been a member of this community for longer than this particular board has been around. I've celebrated the winning field goals, and celebrated the converted 4th and 1s, and I've also lamented on many that went wide right and came up short. I think the negativity coming from some of the young posters, measured by post count, is what results in some players publicly saying this venue sucks. I have to agree with CJ Anderson that there are some fair weather fans amongst us.

We missed a damn field goal. Hindsight is always 20/20. You can't say with any certainty that CAL would have won if....if....if....if.... Can you argue against the fact that the players competed and left it out on the field? I'm proud of our players. They deserve better from their fans regardless of the result on the scoreboard or the decisions made, or not made, on the field.

CALiforniALUM;841952983 said:

---

I look down all the people who responded to my initial post and a few things stand out. For the most part, the individuals who are the most vocal against kicking the field goal or hating on Tedford have post counts in the tens and hundreds (I'm not picking on you SFBear2012 or GoBearsBert :p). Then there seem to be the more reasoned and seasoned posters (Phantomfan, calumnus etc) who as evidenced by their post counts in the multiple thousands have had a regular voice on BI.

All I can conclude is there must be a few trolls on this board who have an agenda. I've been a member of this community for longer than this particular board has been around. I've celebrated the winning field goals, and celebrated the converted 4th and 1s, and I've also lamented on many that went wide right and came up short. I think the negativity coming from some of the young posters, measured by post count, is what results in some players publicly saying this venue sucks. I have to agree with CJ Anderson that there are some fair weather fans amongst us.

We missed a damn field goal. Hindsight is always 20/20. You can't say with any certainty that CAL would have won if....if....if....if.... Can you argue against the fact that the players competed and left it out on the field? I'm proud of our players. They deserve better from their fans regardless of the result on the scoreboard or the decisions made, or not made, on the field.

---

Well said. Thank you.

SonOfCalVa;841952982 said:

---

Tedford proved he is a WUSS.
Even if he wins negotiations that pay him about
THREE MILLION DOLLARS, he is a WUSS.

But, as the saying goes, he's better than Holmoe ... ha ... and on a level with Theder (maybe).

---

Because he went for it on 4th and long twice, but kicked on 4th and 1?

Huh?


He might be dumb, but he has shown a willingness to take risks, albeit maybe not at the right times.

Of course, we should have gone for it.

But, remember, Holmoe would have punted.
:gobears:

CALiforniALUM;841952983 said:

---

I look down all the people who responded to my initial post and a few things stand out. For the most part, the individuals who are the most vocal against kicking the field goal or hating on Tedford have post counts in the tens and hundreds (I'm not picking on you SFBear2012 or GoBearsBert :p). Then there seem to be the more reasoned and seasoned posters (Phantomfan, calumnus etc) who as evidenced by their post counts in the multiple thousands have had a regular voice on BI.

All I can conclude is there must be a few trolls on this board who have an agenda. I've been a member of this community for longer than this particular board has been around. I've celebrated the winning field goals, and celebrated the converted 4th and 1s, and I've also lamented on many that went wide right and came up short. I think the negativity coming from some of the young posters, measured by post count, is what results in some players publicly saying this venue sucks. I have to agree with CJ Anderson that there are some fair weather fans amongst us.

We missed a damn field goal. Hindsight is always 20/20. You can't say with any certainty that CAL would have won if....if....if....if.... Can you argue against the fact that the players competed and left it out on the field? I'm proud of our players. They deserve better from their fans regardless of the result on the scoreboard or the decisions made, or not made, on the field.

---

To be fair, I have been pretty vocal about not liking Tedford...

But the 4th and 1 call was just a call. Not anymore right or wrong than going for it. Possibly, given how often that call is made, it is the correct call.



In either case, it did not lose the game as many claim. There are a lot of factors. This one gets the posts because it is one of the few "gotcha's" that Tedford haters had in that game.


(I am a Tedford Hater, usually).

Irishbear;841953004 said:

---

Of course, we should have gone for it.

But, remember, Holmoe would have punted.
:gobears:

---

Holmoe would have started both halves by kicking... though, so would Tedford.

SFBear2012;841952571 said:

---

If we had gone for it and not made it and ended up losing, I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining and I think a lot other fans on here wouldn't be either. Or we'd likely be complaining about the biased refs and not the coach. Blown coverages, interceptions, missed field goals, etc. happen. These are kids trying their hardest, not professional athletes. A coach on the other hand, who makes millions of dollars a year, I would expect more from during a key decision than defering to some chart that says when the game is tied with X minutes remaining at Y position, you kick a field goal.

---

I call BS.... Especially if we ended up losing by a FG. Everybody would be screaming bloody murder about why we didn't just take the FG.

SkyBear;841952993 said:

---

Argumentum ad hominem.

---

Cute. Where exactly would this ad hominem attack be?

OneKeg;841952577 said:

---

And notice how there is virtually no one (that I have seen) that is criticizing JT for going for it on the prior 4th and longer distances, despite not making it. That's because those were the right call too. With the exception of a few crazies, no one would have blasted JT for going for it on the late 4th and 1, even if Cal still lost.

---

I'm pretty sure that's because both of the prior 4th down attempts were past the 40 and out of FG range.