Thought he nailed the article especially with his comments below:

* Tedford noted after the game that the Bears knew moving the ball would be tough that Stanford's front seven would make life difficult for the running game and pressure Zach Maynard.

Then why didn't they do something about it?

The gameplan was so unimaginative so filled with standard fare it was like Cal didn't take into account that fact that it would most likely have huge trouble blocking the Cardinal.

There were very few wrinkles when, in fact, there should have been wrinkles galore.

And the fourth-and-one run by Sofele early in the fourth quarter, when Cal still had a glimmer of a prayer of a chance? Sooooooo predictable.

Tedford said afterward that Sofele never had a chance because of a missed block.

Again, shouldn't the off-the-charts chance of a missed block have been taken into account when you called the play in the first place? Why not call something new?

* As for the limited use of Brendan Bigelow: Yes, he fumbled. But he also had a fabulous catch-and-run and the Bears, once again, should have used him more out wide, in the slot, in motion, anywhere and everywhere.

Again: More Bigelow couldn't have made it any worse.


http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/10/22/cal-football-grading-the-week-37/

I don't think there is such a thing as a game plan that will allow for missed blocks. "Well, we have to assume that the RG and LT are gonna totally whiff, so we'll just run Z-Counter Split Trap Xray all day and score at will." Nah.

I would've tried to exploit our speed on the edges more. A lot of the runs went inside, where we KNEW we wouldn't have a chance. Maybe some fly sweeps, end arounds...those kinds of things.

Much preferable to have our WRs against their secondary than say, their front seven on our OL.

D- is an improvement over the F from a few weeks ago, so in terms of big games against ranked opponents, according to Wilner, JT's on the right track.

JSC 76;841983908 said:

---

I don't think there is such a thing as a game plan that will allow for missed blocks. "Well, we have to assume that the RG and LT are gonna totally whiff, so we'll just run Z-Counter Split Trap Xray all day and score at will." Nah.

---

think you missed the larger point - the line was already at a disadvantage before the first snap due to lack of skill/effectiveness, to continue with a pedestrian running game in a best case scenario came with the perception that the run game wasn't going to go anywhere. That things got worse with whiffed blocks and still the same stubborn and myopic "we need to run middle" and yet there was no adjustment made borders on good old fashioned stupidity

JSC 76;841983908 said:

---

I don't think there is such a thing as a game plan that will allow for missed blocks. "Well, we have to assume that the RG and LT are gonna totally whiff, so we'll just run Z-Counter Split Trap Xray all day and score at will." Nah.

---

No, but when you know your line is overmatched and having problems the worst thing you can do is nothing.

Screens, quick hitters, traps, moving the pocket, 3 step drops etc.

Problem is that Maynard is never going to be confused as three step drop guy.

Frankly as soon as Cal started having issues on the Oline they needed to move to no huddle 4Wrs/1RB or 5 WRs and just go from there.

I wish Tedford was as stubborn with the run against SC and OSU.

Indeed, we might have won both of those as a result.

RaphaelAglietti;841983989 said:

---

No, but when you know your line is overmatched and having problems the worst thing you can do is nothing.

Screens, quick hitters, traps, moving the pocket, 3 step drops etc.

Problem is that Maynard is never going to be confused as three step drop guy.

Frankly as soon as Cal started having issues on the Oline they needed to move to no huddle 4Wrs/1RB or 5 WRs and just go from there.

---

That offense with Maynard would be a disaster. We lose 45-3.

Our coaches figured out that Maynard cannot possibly win if we make him pass the ball 70% of the time, but that he can be successful, if we can run the ball successfully. The pac-12 analysist, prior to the game, all said the same thing. For Maynard to be successful, we had to be able to run the ball. A game plan was designed for his strengths. But our team could not execute that plan. But it was the only that could have worked. Maynard cannot run the Leach air raid attack. He cannot run a bill walsh west coast offense, where you throw short passes instead of running the ball. And counter, etc. only work, if the main things you are doing are having some success.

In my mind, the issue is as follows: Did we really screw up our OL recruiting so badly five, four and 3 years ago - and is Maynard really our best option at QB (not including Kline who I fully support redshirting), and if so, really bad talent evaluation.

RealDrew2;841984245 said:

---

In my mind, the issue is as follows: Did we really screw up our OL recruiting so badly five, four and 3 years ago .

---

Interesting question, and as it happens I saw Mark Brazinski walking through campus after the game. Four-star OL recruit, the #2 center in the country. He's technically a Junior, but has played in a total of 4 games because he's always injured. So there's at least one case where we recruited well in that time frame, but it just didn't work out. We sure could use him this year.

We signed 4 OL the Brazinski year. Two left the program without contributing at all. One doesn't sound as if he took football seriously. And Schwenke. 1/4 is not good rate of contribution. And four is more OL that we normally take in a class. The OL recruiting has sucked since 2006 until last year and that has yet to prove itself.

CardinalTPS;841984266 said:

---

Jon provides excellent analysis once again. Really demonstrates how horribly the College by a BART station played. Uninspired, clearly has given up on the coach. Probably the only thing that could salvage the season would be a mid-season hire. Continue with the same leadership, and soon we'll have to ditch '59ers' and go with '1959ers' just to specify which century the last Rose Bowl occurred.

---

I don't get it. College by a Bart train? Is that some sort of zinger? Is that supposed to be worse than college by a Caltrain?

Funny how it took 2 back-to-back BCS appearances and 3 Big Game wins in a row for the Furd trolls to finally show up on this board. They're all over the Scout board also for like the first time ever.

Conversely, if we beat UW I'm going on Dawgman and getting banned that very night. :hammer:

From USAToday

Stanford wins 'No one is at our game' award for Week 6

Quote:

---

5:44PM EDT October 6. 2012 - Miami is on the road this week, leaving the door open for someone else to claim the No One Is At Our Football Game throne in Week 6.

Oh hello, Stanford.

---

and the photo that accompanied the article:

Oh look, everyone! It's the endangered Stanford Fan! Long thought to be extinct, the Stanford Fan (frontrunnerus fairweatherii) only emerges from its burrow under perfect conditions; utters a few bleats and twerps, and then disappears.

xultaif;841984316 said:

---

From USAToday

Stanford wins 'No one is at our game' award for Week 6



and the photo that accompanied the article:

---

High School teams in Texas are greatly amused.....

RealDrew2;841984245 said:

---

That offense with Maynard would be a disaster. We lose 45-3.

Our coaches figured out that Maynard cannot possibly win if we make him pass the ball 70% of the time, but that he can be successful, if we can run the ball successfully. The pac-12 analysist, prior to the game, all said the same thing. For Maynard to be successful, we had to be able to run the ball. A game plan was designed for his strengths. But our team could not execute that plan. But it was the only that could have worked. Maynard cannot run the Leach air raid attack. He cannot run a bill walsh west coast offense, where you throw short passes instead of running the ball. And counter, etc. only work, if the main things you are doing are having some success.

In my mind, the issue is as follows: Did we really screw up our OL recruiting so badly five, four and 3 years ago - and is Maynard really our best option at QB (not including Kline who I fully support redshirting), and if so, really bad talent evaluation.

---

I don't disagree but when you g 3 frickin yards rushing the ground and pound aint' working either ...

BerlinerBaer;841984310 said:

---

Funny how it took 2 back-to-back BCS appearances and 3 Big Game wins in a row for the Furd trolls to finally show up on this board. They're all over the Scout board also for like the first time ever.

Conversely, if we beat UW I'm going on Dawgman and getting banned that very night. :hammer:

---

Dawgman free board is gone.
Oregon fans buried it.
Dawgies continued humiliation by the Ducks was too much for them.

xultaif;841984316 said:

---

From USAToday

Stanford wins 'No one is at our game' award for Week 6



and the photo that accompanied the article:

---

Well, their fans suck. Our coach sucks and so do many of the performances as a result. Rather be in their position.