In the pros it's different.
College football is driven by scoring.
It has to do with the kids.
At that level, the students don't get excited by defense.
This brand of football is much more campus appropriate and already there is much larger interest amongst the student body.
Are you really going to say that winning is the only thing that makes it interesting?
If that is the case, why not just wait until the results come in and watch the recorded version.
I actually believe in the saying that "it isn't whether you win or lose but how you play the game".
Yes Cal has a long history of moral victories only, but how this team plays is significantly different than the large majority of Cal's history. These guys are winners. They just didn't win today.

heartofthebear;842363712 said:

---

I'm sorry that some folks here are seeing this team through the lens of Cal's dismall history and hence can't see how this team is different than most others, including some of our better more talented teams.

For one thing, these players truly care about each other and that makes for unusual teamwork that can surpass teams with talent.

I'm also sorry that folks are blaming this coaching staff for Cal's history. This is one loss for Cal's DC along with 2 wins. And our offense coaches put up 45 points in the heat on the road showing that they have clearly improved greatly from last year.

Folks here are so fickle. If Cal wins the next 4 games, nobody, absolutely nobody will be saying the things they are now.

I wouldn't trade the coaches for anyone at this point. They coach an exciting brand of football. In some ways I'd rather see Cal lose a game like this than root for team that just runs the ball all the time and wins 17-10 each week (yeah I'm talking about you 49ers).

---

It is the way we lost that seems to let so many down. Heat of the desert, 100+ plays to defense, some questionable 3rd/4th play calling on offense, but what we all have to remember is that we were from a 9-12 underdog in this game. We are performing after three games better than preseason paper suggested. We just did not nail down the win last night.

Agree with your post heart---but then I am an optimist. Even so, this team has turned. We are on our way, and it is now step by step.

True, these coaches are not responsible for Cal's history; they are responsible for the last 15 games, which rank near the bottom for any comparable period of that history. I'll concede that we've shown improvement, probably as much from personnel recovered from injury as anything else, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. We may be better but probably not enough so to matter a lot. That you can value a team that scores points in bunches but doesn't win over one that scores less but does win is puzzling and, I'd posit, a rather unique position. Dykes is not going to keep his job with a string of high effort, no-win games nor will the stadium be filled with fans breathlessly waiting for the next onside kick or "Hail Mary".

No, winning is not the only thing that makes it interesting. Good, solid football makes games interesting and wins result from that. Students are important, but it isn't all about them, or all about any other fan group for that matter. And I guarantee that more students are interested when their team wins than their team scores a lot but still gets torched weekly (last year).
Hopefully the remainder of the year is a great improvement over last year, we are much improved, but the league is tough and we have no easy games ahead.

To each his own.

59bear;842363739 said:

---

True, these coaches are not responsible for Cal's history; they are responsible for the last 15 games, which rank near the bottom for any comparable period of that history. I'll concede that we've shown improvement, probably as much from personnel recovered from injury as anything else, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. We may be better but probably not enough so to matter a lot. That you can value a team that scores points in bunches but doesn't win over one that scores less but does win is puzzling and, I'd posit, a rather unique position. Dykes is not going to keep his job with a string of high effort, no-win games nor will the stadium be filled with fans breathlessly waiting for the next onside kick or "Hail Mary".

---

WRONG!
Many are getting down on the defensive staff but half of them including the DC are 2-1 with the one loss involving a hell of a lot of luck for the other team. And the offensive staff did not lose this game. So I guess that leaves Dykes. I guess now were back to fire Dykes talk (yawn). That is more boring than losing.

damn right .... is damn ok MB

CalConor;842363433 said:

---

The effort was great. I thought the effort was great most of last year, too. But effort has to translate to wins or what's the point?

---

The effort was awful last year period. This team is much better and a hell of a lot more fun to watch.

Boot;842363810 said:

---

The effort was awful last year period. This team is much better and a hell of a lot more fun to watch.

---

Agreed. Many times last year the effort was NOT there. Can't say that about this year's team (so far).

dimitrig;842363530 said:

---

Coaching is about adjustments.

Cal comes in prepared and ready to play.

However, they cannot adjust. That's on the coaches.

---

How do you know that defensive adjustments weren't keeping UA off balance through the first three quarters? Why aren't the 2 4th Q TD's the result of adjustments after a 3rd Q lull?

We lost the game because UA had 6 different offensive possessions in the fourth quarter. They needed all of them to win. The INT to start the 4th gave them a short field and a 10 point swing in 70 seconds (the FG at 14:46 + the TD at 13:36). The onside kick penalty gave them a short field and a 14 point swing in less than a minute (the TD's at 3:30 and 2:44). If we don't gift them two extra possessions with short fields, they aren't in position to throw the Hail Mary in the first place and we're celebrating a reasonably comfortable 8-15 point win right now.

It's also not right to write off those bad plays as "flukes," because you make your own luck, but last night showed me a young team that just wasn't ready for this stage yet, particularly at CB.

shake it off .. life is full of ups and downs its all about how one handles it

berk18;842363883 said:

---

How do you know that defensive adjustments weren't keeping UA off balance through the first three quarters? Why aren't the 2 4th Q TD's the result of adjustments after a 3rd Q lull?

We lost the game because UA had 6 different offensive possessions in the fourth quarter. They needed all of them to win. The INT to start the 4th gave them a short field and a 10 point swing in 70 seconds (the FG at 14:46 + the TD at 13:36). The onside kick penalty gave them a short field and a 14 point swing in less than a minute (the TD's at 3:30 and 2:44). If we don't gift them two extra possessions with short fields, they aren't in position to throw the Hail Mary in the first place and we're celebrating a reasonably comfortable 8-15 point win right now.

It's also not right to write off those bad plays as "flukes" because you make your own luck, but last night showed me a young team that just wasn't ready for this stage yet, particularly at CB.

---

Berk: Do you know where I can find the drive charts for the game? I want to look to see what the time of possession was for each Cal drive in the 2nd half, particularly the 4th quarter. Honestly, I think we need to improve in that area. The defense needs more than 1.5 minutes of game clock to rest on the sidelines if we are going to expect to hold a lead, even a big one.

heartofthebear;842363895 said:

---

Berk: Do you know where I can find the drive charts for the game? I want to look to see what the time of possession was for each Cal drive in the 2nd half, particularly the 4th quarter. Honestly, I think we need to improve in that area. The defense needs more than 1.5 minutes of game clock to rest on the sidelines if we are going to expect to hold a lead, even a big one.

---

The ESPN box score for the game has a tab for play-by-play, and you're right, the offense didn't take much time on its scoring drives. My personal take is that I can't fault an offense that scores two clutch 4th Q TD's (rushing TD's, no less) for being too efficient. Getting those points was the most important thing the offense could have done, because each TD made UA require an extra possession. Doing anything other than going for the TD as best as you can seems to me to run the risk of over-thinking it or, dare I say, "playing not to lose instead of playing to win." If they'd gone 3-and-out and only taken 30 seconds of the clock, though, I'd be in total agreement.

heartofthebear;842363895 said:

---

Berk: Do you know where I can find the drive charts for the game? I want to look to see what the time of possession was for each Cal drive in the 2nd half, particularly the 4th quarter. Honestly, I think we need to improve in that area. The defense needs more than 1.5 minutes of game clock to rest on the sidelines if we are going to expect to hold a lead, even a big one.

---

They were all under 3 minutes with of the touchdowns being a 50 yard TD run. I don't know how many seconds were on the playclock when they snapped the ball. But against Northwestern they had at least one nearly 7 minute drive. So to say they can't have long drives is ignoring the evidence from earlier this season.

An ideal would be to advance the ball while using time but much of what any offense does is predicated on what the defense. If they're going to crowd the box, runs and short passes are likely to be less productive. If you see a choice between a quick strike score and a 3/out, I suspect you take the score. Maybe we taxed a tired defense too much but they still had to have 2 favorable outcomes on onside kicks and the miracle throw to prevail. Most coaches, IMO, would take those odds.

A striking stat from the Box Score:
Arizona had zero (0) Kickoff Return yards. Every kickoff was downed, except those that went through the end zone.

Does anyone recall when kickoffs went only to the 10 yard line followed by big returns?
This is but one (important) example of how special teams have improved.

Arizona had one (1) punt return for -3 yards.

TiredBear;842363431 said:

---

Of course the team deserves credit, and lots of it. I saw many wonderful things go right tonight. Honestly, I put this one entirely on the coaching staff...

---

yup

heart this may help .. http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548266

lasco was running hard all game .. loved the effort

going4roses;842363921 said:

---

lasco was running hard all game .. loved the effort

---

we found our running game. THAT bodes well going forward

Thanks for the help Berk and G4R.
I found them at CBS sports and I am preparing to post a new thread on the basis of what I found.

Berk: There is a middle ground where we can agree. I like the fact that offense remained agressive in the play calling. You can still call the same plays and take more time off the clock. Just don't snap as quickly. There is no need to go hurry up in the 4th quarter. If Cal does not know how to win the match-ups on offense without going hurry up then we have a serious problem. Because, in such a case, the defense will be forever worn out and getting injured.

going4roses;842363921 said:

---

lasco was running hard all game .. loved the effort

---

Khalfani also excelled, finally finding small gaps and bursting through them with his speed and showing some power to break tackles.
His discovering North/South has made him much better than his former East/West orientation.
We have a running game ... and Tre and VicE are still works in progress.

berk18;842363883 said:

---

It's also not right to write off those bad plays as "flukes," because you make your own luck, but last night showed me a young team that just wasn't ready for this stage yet, particularly at CB.

---

This is pretty much spot on, except even an experienced CB would have a tough time defending Caleb Jones. I'm glad he'll be off to the League by the time we play Arizona again.

Too many folks here were looking for a quantum leap in improvement in 9 months. What we have instead is a more experienced but still young squad that went on the road and gave a legit P12 south contender all they could handle for a full 60 minutes. In the end it just wasn't enough. The coaches deserve the most blame, particularly Art, but he seems to aknowledge there is more work to be done.

heartofthebear;842363927 said:

---

Berk: There is a middle ground where we can agree. I like the fact that offense remained agressive in the play calling. You can still call the same plays and take more time off the clock. Just don't snap as quickly. There is no need to go hurry up in the 4th quarter. If Cal does not know how to win the match-ups on offense without going hurry up then we have a serious problem. Because, in such a case, the defense will be forever worn out and getting injured.

---

Yes, this is the problem. The play calling is fine. I like remaining aggressive and continuing to pass. But you need to recognize the situation and bleed as much clock as possible.

Ok after being really down since last night, I've put back on my Blue n Gold glasses and ready for the next game! Last night's lost was tough but a win against the buffs will ease the pain!

GO BEARS!!

berk18;842363883 said:

---

How do you know that defensive adjustments weren't keeping UA off balance through the first three quarters? Why aren't the 2 4th Q TD's the result of adjustments after a 3rd Q lull?

We lost the game because UA had 6 different offensive possessions in the fourth quarter. They needed all of them to win. The INT to start the 4th gave them a short field and a 10 point swing in 70 seconds (the FG at 14:46 + the TD at 13:36). The onside kick penalty gave them a short field and a 14 point swing in less than a minute (the TD's at 3:30 and 2:44). If we don't gift them two extra possessions with short fields, they aren't in position to throw the Hail Mary in the first place and we're celebrating a reasonably comfortable 8-15 point win right now.

It's also not right to write off those bad plays as "flukes," because you make your own luck, but last night showed me a young team that just wasn't ready for this stage yet, particularly at CB.

---

Two teams have come back off the ropes against us in the second half. It could be a lot of things including conditioning. However, I definitely did not see Cal's defense adjusting to what Arizona was doing and I definitely did not like the clock management.

Yes the players left it all out there on the field. Can't fault the effort so far, unlike some instances last year.

But of course last year, there was just so much adversity. This year they hadn't faced adversity until the very end of Saturday's game. How they bounce back emotionally may be just as much a key to this season as the coaches figuring out how we can run tTFS without wiping out our D over the course of a game when facing decent teams.