Before Rod Gilmore mentioned it (and ESPN2 graphics showed it) repeatedly tonight, I had never really heard the mounting injuries as an excuse for Tedford's awful performance this season.

Sure, there have been a lot of injuries.

But it's the coaching that's been the problem. (Or the lack of seemingly basic coaching.)

So I wonder: If Tedford is retained, will the injury excuse be at the forefront of all excuses?

okaydo;841994444 said:

---

Before Rod Gilmore mentioned it (and ESPN2 graphics showed it) repeatedly tonight, I had never really heard the mounting injuries as an excuse for Tedford's awful performance this season.

Sure, there have been a lot of injuries.

But it's the coaching that's been the problem. (Or the lack of seemingly basic coaching.)

So I wonder: If Tedford is retained, will the injury excuse be at the forefront of all excuses?

---

Yup superceding AT&T being uncomfortable last season and injuries this season, is that Tedford has done a poor job of evaluating the QB position and not putting playmakers on the field (Bigelow). Our record should have been better, esp. this year. We should have beaten Nevada, ASU, and UW at home. We should have beaten Utah in Utah.

Cal's biggest problem is mental errors.

Penalties to start the season. We're getting better, but not by much.

Sacks all season.

Turnovers for the past few losses. Lots of them, at the worst possible times.

Cut down the mistakes, and Cal is a .500 team at worst, maybe a winning team.

But they keep on coming.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841994458 said:

---

Cal's biggest problem is mental errors.

Penalties to start the season. We're getting better, but not by much.

Sacks all season.

Turnovers for the past few losses. Lots of them, at the worst possible times.

Cut down the mistakes, and Cal is a .500 team at worst, maybe a winning team.

But they keep on coming.

---

I saw one sack today where the oline was chided but it was about 90% on Maynard. Maynard went back in the pocket and the rush came on but a pocket developed. He had an outlet CJA wide open and there was no one near him. Maynard was unaware of him and was busy scanning the field. Then he tried to take off, but it was too late as usual. Give me a QB that's aware and those sacks don't happen as much. Our o-line is bad at pass-protect but Maynard makes them look way worse.

KoreAmBear;841994460 said:

---

I saw one sack today where the oline was chided but it was about 90% on Maynard. Maynard went back in the pocket and the rush came on but a pocket developed. He had an outlet CJA wide open and there was no one near him. Maynard was unaware of him and was busy scanning the field. Then he tried to take off, but it was too late as usual. Give me a QB that's aware and those sacks don't happen as much. Our o-line is bad at pass-protect but Maynard makes them look way worse.

---

Watch out KAB. Pumpers will call you names. Maynard always seems to wait a beat too long. Right before Maynard got hurt, he ignored a RB who had flared out into space, double clutched looking downfield and took a sack. At least AB steps up into the pocket.

Just one element of a series of negatives for this team: Sacks, turnovers, penalties...we're among the worst in the nation in all categories. Injuries have played a role, particularly in the loss of potential starters in the OL (Brazinski, Galas, MSG) but are certainly not the main cause of our woes. Injuries can legitimately be ascribed to many of our defensive shortcomings, pretty much decimating our front 7.

okaydo;841994444 said:

---

Before Rod Gilmore mentioned it (and ESPN2 graphics showed it) repeatedly tonight, I had never really heard the mounting injuries as an excuse for Tedford's awful performance this season.

Sure, there have been a lot of injuries.

But it's the coaching that's been the problem. (Or the lack of seemingly basic coaching.)

So I wonder: If Tedford is retained, will the injury excuse be at the forefront of all excuses?

---

Injuries are already the implied excuse. So yes, SB can justify retaining Tedford on that basis. But she will be fired as a result because the donors won't buy it.

okaydo;841994444 said:

---

Before Rod Gilmore mentioned it (and ESPN2 graphics showed it) repeatedly tonight, I had never really heard the mounting injuries as an excuse for Tedford's awful performance this season.

Sure, there have been a lot of injuries.

But it's the coaching that's been the problem. (Or the lack of seemingly basic coaching.)

So I wonder: If Tedford is retained, will the injury excuse be at the forefront of all excuses?

---

I think the injury "excuse" is valid, to some degree and that if we had fewer injuries we may have won more games.

The biggest area where I think injuries could have changed the outcome are at OL. Galas, MSG, and maybe Braz. We're already thin and inexperienced at OL and given the number of sacks that have been given up it's not farfetched to say that an improvement here would make a huge difference.

The area where it's not valid is turnovers. The turnovers have been committed by either experienced players (eg. bad handoffs between ZM and CJ) or inexperienced players who would've played regardless (eg. Biggie, Harper).

Last night's game was close and have KA21 could've made the difference between a win and a loss.

Agree about KA21. 2-3 catches can be the difference in a close game.

I'd give injuries a consideration. Not 100% but considerable weight.

Holds true for the other positions. OL wasn't good partly due to injuries and lack of depth.

beelzebear;841995936 said:

---

Agree about KA21. 2-3 catches can be the difference in a close game.

I'd give injuries a consideration. Not 100% but considerable weight.

Holds true for the other positions. OL wasn't good partly due to injuries and lack of depth.

---

I dont believe even Keenan could have reached for a pass that was ten feet over hIs head while all alone in the end zone.

But does the injury excuse have credence? How badly is Cal depleted compared to other teams. I don't know but it seems likely we have effectively played 22 guys on defense this season. Is there anyone with knowledge on this to give a real perspective about the injury bug this year? How atypical is it?

(And I think this thread has missed the mark, I blame it on the refs. Pac-12 refs suck and it has drained our kids enthusiasm to play the game).

KoreAmBear;841994460 said:

---

I saw one sack today where the oline was chided but it was about 90% on Maynard. Maynard went back in the pocket and the rush came on but a pocket developed. He had an outlet CJA wide open and there was no one near him. Maynard was unaware of him and was busy scanning the field. Then he tried to take off, but it was too late as usual. Give me a QB that's aware and those sacks don't happen as much. Our o-line is bad at pass-protect but Maynard makes them look way worse.

---

ZM was looking in vain for his brother or his cousin.
Seeing neither, he ate the ball.

NJCalFan;841995957 said:

---

But does the injury excuse have credence? How badly is Cal depleted compared to other teams. I don't know but it seems likely we have effectively played 22 guys on defense this season. Is there anyone with knowledge on this to give a real perspective about the injury bug this year? How atypical is it?

(And I think this thread has missed the mark, I blame it on the refs. Pac-12 refs suck and it has drained our kids enthusiasm to play the game).

---

The refs ... Cal has become a feeble embarrassment because of ... omg ... the referees, the officials ... whoa, stop the presses ... a HUGE insight into failure.

:woohoo :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh:

The problem is that even without the injuries we are still probably just hovering around .500 again -- it's not like this was a potential championship contender if not for all the rotten luck (which was an argument you could make about the 2004-06 Tedford teams). It's still just a mediocre team even at full strength.