BearGreg said:

---

1980s to today.

Best team in your mind by whatever criteria you think is most relevant.

Who you got?

---

You'll get a lot of votes for 1991. We had playmakers, speed and muscle on both sides of the ball. It's quite amazing when I see videos of that team how good we were across the board. We were able to sign the unicorn too, Russell. Speaking of Russell and April fool's, do you remember the Daily Cal sports page on 4/1/88? After verbaling with us, he still was having trouble getting a min SAT score to qualify. The headline on the sports page was something like "Russell White Gets A Perfect Score on the SAT." I remember one of the quotes attributed to Russell, "When you have me and books, we get action." We were sitting there reading the headline in the Unit I Dining Commons going, oh man, we're cheaters now.

Sucks that one of the all time college teams in UW had to be in our conference that year.

I mean, obviously it's 1991 (before my time). I mean, it would be trolling to say otherwise.

But what is No. 2?

I'd argue (as I've done before) that it's 2006, and not 2004 (which everybody seems to like).

1. Cal won a co-Pac-12 championship in 2006, the only Cal football championship in Justin Wilcox's lifetime.

2. Cal won the bowl game against a tough highly regarded arrogant opponent, which set up the greatness of the next (first half) of the 2007 season (while the 2004 team lost to a tough highly regarded arrogant opponent).

3. Cal had the Pac-12 offensive and defensive players of the year (Marshawn and Dante Hughes).

4. Cal had a tougher Pac-10 schedule in 2006 having to play 9 teams and going 7-2, which is more challenging than playing 8 teams and going 7-1.

5. Tougher OOC schedule: 2 Power 5 teams in 2006 vs. 0 Power 5 teams in 2004.

6. Tougher schedule, period. Playing 13 games in 2006 vs. Playing 12 in 2004.

7. 3-2 vs. ranked teams in 2006 vs. 1-2 vs. ranked teams in 2004.

8. 2 legendary wins in 2006 (destroying a ranked Oregon and a ranked Texas A&M) vs. 0 legendary wins in 2004.

9. The best win in 2006 is actually a win. The best "win" in 2004 is actually a loss (USC).

10. 2006 Cal players earned 3 rings from their season.

The 2004 team may not have been the best, but consider this: What if they had not whiffed at the end of the USC game and scored and won the game, and then won the rest of their games as they did? There would have been a solid chance that they would have ended up in the National Championship game. They clearly outplayed USC in that game but shot themselves in the foot. A victory over USC would have meant a great deal as USC was considered the top team in that era, and even Mack Brown wouldn't have been able to sabotage them. Yes, in 1991 they came very close to beating the eventual number one team, Washington, but they also face-planted against Stanford in the worst way. Now, would Cal have done better in the championship game in 2004 than they did in their dismal bowl game? We'll never know.

Larno said:

---

The 2004 team may not have been the best, but consider this: What if they had not whiffed at the end of the USC game and scored and won the game, and then won the rest of their games as they did? There would have been a solid chance that they would have ended up in the National Championship game. They clearly outplayed USC in that game but shot themselves in the foot. A victory over USC would have meant a great deal as USC was considered the top team in that era, and even Mack Brown wouldn't have been able to sabotage them. Yes, in 1991 they came very close to beating the eventual number one team, Washington, but they also face-planted against Stanford in the worst way. Now, would Cal have done better in the championship game in 2004 than they did in their dismal bowl game? We'll never know.

---

Yeah, but beating USC would've set up a very different dynamic.

Remember all the times Cal went 5-0 the past 2 decades?

Cal's last 6-0 start to the season was 1950 because going undefeated is hard. Very hard. The team might've believed its own hype. Or it might've been distracted by the even more media attention. And the 7-0 Cal might've faltered against the Ducks, which it barely beat. And if Cal did go 11-0, the shameless guy currently running for U.S. senator in Alabama might've pulled a Mack Brown and succeeded in getting his team into the championship game.

Unfortunately, all of our teams have some warts except the undefeated untied Andy Smith teams 1920 and 1922. There are a few undefeated but tied teams, again Andy Smith 1921, 1923, 1924 and the Thunder team of 1937.

Given the question of the teams from the 1980s on, there are the "could have been" and the "might have if" teams. Bruce Snyder and Jeff Tedford performed miracles gathering together some great teams. I hope that we are seeing another in Justin Wilcox.

okaydo said:

---

Larno said:

---

The 2004 team may not have been the best, but consider this: What if they had not whiffed at the end of the USC game and scored and won the game, and then won the rest of their games as they did? There would have been a solid chance that they would have ended up in the National Championship game. They clearly outplayed USC in that game but shot themselves in the foot. A victory over USC would have meant a great deal as USC was considered the top team in that era, and even Mack Brown wouldn't have been able to sabotage them. Yes, in 1991 they came very close to beating the eventual number one team, Washington, but they also face-planted against Stanford in the worst way. Now, would Cal have done better in the championship game in 2004 than they did in their dismal bowl game? We'll never know.

---

Yeah, but beating USC would've set up a very different dynamic.

Remember all the times Cal went 5-0 the past 2 decades?

Cal's last 6-0 start to the season was 1950 because going undefeated is hard. Very hard. The team might've believed its own hype. Or it might've been distracted by the even more media attention. And the 7-0 Cal might've faltered against the Ducks, which it barely beat. And if Cal did go 11-0, the shameless guy currently running for U.S. senator in Alabama might've pulled a Mack Brown and succeeded in getting his team into the championship game.

---

Yes, if Cal had beaten USC in 2004 that could have altered the season, perhaps even losing to Oregon in the close game you referenced. But USC went on to win the championship that year, absolutely roasting Oklahoma.

Remember, USC playing in the first championship game was supposed to open up Cal to play in the Rose Bowl. But that aside, when since then has Cal had a team that could beat, much less play with, the national champion? Cal outplayed USC on the road and should have won. The answer, or course, is that it hasn't, and given the present state of college football and the decline of the Pac 12 it probably never will. Having said all this, I'm not necessarily saying the 2004 team was the best. The 2006 team, other than at quarterback, probably had better talent, and it too should have gone to the Rose Bowl if not for the Arizona debacle.

Despite the '91 team being by far my favorite team, the '04 team with a healthy chase Lyman is a completely different thing all together.

I'm certain they beat sc with a healthy chase and who knows what would have happened after that.

The opening sequence.of the 2004 game put us behind the eight ball. If memory serves, Cal fumbled the opening kickoff with SC recovering around the 40. Cal held for three downs but Carroll went for it on 4th and 10.
Leinart completed a pass a bit beyond the first down marker leading to an SC touchdown. Give Carroll credit. Tedford in the same situation would either have punted or tried a field goal.

santacruzbear said:

---

The opening sequence.of the 2004 game put us behind the eight ball. If memory serves, Cal fumbled the opening kickoff with SC recovering around the 40. Cal held for three downs but Carroll went for it on 4th and 10.
Leinart completed a pass a bit beyond the first down marker leading to an SC touchdown. Give Carroll credit. Tedford in the same situation would either have punted or tried a field goal.

---

Schneider also missed a chip shot FG on the second to last drive, which would have given him the chance to kick another one to send the game to OT.

BearGreg said:

---

1980s to today.

Best team in your mind by whatever criteria you think is most relevant.

Who you got?

1958 team just called. Wanted to know if you wanted to compare Rose Bowl games with all of those "1980 to today" teams. Oh, they just hung up, said never mind.

---

All off our best teams had small defects that prevented them from capturing the ultimate prize. 2004 it was wr depth. If Chase Lymon doesn't go down in the third quarter of the SC game, I think Cal wins the NC. Rodgers was that good.
2006 could be mistake prone and Longshore's talent was not up to the rest of the team's. He was prone to the pick six.
1991 had a lot good players. Pawlaski was ok but not much more.I have a hard time getting over both the play, and especially, the behavior in the BG.

HearstMining said:

---

I'd like to open the time-window just a little wider and bring the 1975 team into the conversation. It's natural to be biased towards a team that played during your Cal years and I clearly am. I was a kid during the Willsey years. Fans of the 1991 team had to endure the bleak mid-late 80's teams. Fans of the 2004 and 2006 still bore the scars of Holmoecaust. The 1975 team ultimately shared a conference championship with UCLA, who went on to beat #1 Ohio St in the Rose Bowl. That Cal team took a while to find their mojo and the defense was only (at best) good, but by the end of the season, they clearly could have beaten anybody in the country.

---

That team deserved to go to bowl game. Certainly far more deserving that SC whom we beat 28-14.

kelly09 said:

---

All off our best teams had small defects that prevented them from capturing the ultimate prize. 2004 it was wr depth. If Chase Lymon doesn't go down in the third quarter of the SC game, I think Cal wins the NC. Rodgers was that good.
2006 could be mistake prone and Longshore's talent was not up to the rest of the team's. He was prone to the pick six.
1991 had a lot good players. Pawlaski was ok but not much more.I have a hard time getting over both the play, and especially, the behavior in the BG.

---

Small correction: Lyman went down early in the SC game. I believe in the first quarter when we were driving in USC territory. Does anyone recall if he had a catch in that game before blowing out his ACL?

The astonishing thing is what his stats were up to that point on the season, IIRC he was averaging almost 30 years a per catch and had something like 6 TD's in three games...

NVBear78 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

All off our best teams had small defects that prevented them from capturing the ultimate prize. 2004 it was wr depth. If Chase Lymon doesn't go down in the third quarter of the SC game, I think Cal wins the NC. Rodgers was that good.
2006 could be mistake prone and Longshore's talent was not up to the rest of the team's. He was prone to the pick six.
1991 had a lot good players. Pawlaski was ok but not much more.I have a hard time getting over both the play, and especially, the behavior in the BG.

---

Small correction: Lyman went down early in the SC game. I believe in the first quarter when we were driving in USC territory. Does anyone recall if he had a catch in that game before blowing out his ACL?

The astonishing thing is what his stats were up to that point on the season, IIRC he was averaging almost 30 years a per catch and had something like 6 TD's in three games...

---

I think it was the third quarter on a 15 yard catch he made.

BearGreg said:

---

1980s to today.

Best team in your mind by whatever criteria you think is most relevant.

Who you got?

---

2004.

My argument. It is obvious. If you disagree with me you are just wrong.

kelly09 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

All off our best teams had small defects that prevented them from capturing the ultimate prize. 2004 it was wr depth. If Chase Lymon doesn't go down in the third quarter of the SC game, I think Cal wins the NC. Rodgers was that good.
2006 could be mistake prone and Longshore's talent was not up to the rest of the team's. He was prone to the pick six.
1991 had a lot good players. Pawlaski was ok but not much more.I have a hard time getting over both the play, and especially, the behavior in the BG.

---

Small correction: Lyman went down early in the SC game. I believe in the first quarter when we were driving in USC territory. Does anyone recall if he had a catch in that game before blowing out his ACL?

The astonishing thing is what his stats were up to that point on the season, IIRC he was averaging almost 30 years a per catch and had something like 6 TD's in three games...

---

I think it was the third quarter on a 15 yard catch he made.

---

You guys are right. I looked it up and it was the third quarter. Lyman was killing it before that with 5 TD Catches coming into the USC game and an average of 32 yards per catch.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but in my opinion Cal did not win a share of the Pac-10 title in 2006. If you lost head-to-head to the eventual first place team, as Cal did, IMO you cannot claim to have finished on level ground with that team. Claiming so is weak as shi!t. I don't care how many shiny championship rings were produced.

Cal had a chance to beat USC and failed.

I guess my pro-2006 argument (I think I'm alone in this opinion) is that it looks so good *on paper.* But 2006 probably felt more disappointing.

2004 was thrilling coming a few years after 1-10. It drove you crazy in a good way. It was a feeling that hadn't been felt in close to a generation.

2006's opening game, if I recall correctly, literally caused BI to melt down. It was a comedown. It was a near-miss. Had DeSean not stepped on the line at the Arizona game, Cal would've gone to the Rose Bowl.

But I'm in the pro-2006 side because the 2004 Pac-10 was weaker.*


*2004: 5 of the 8 Pac-10 teams Cal played finished with losing seasons.
2006: 2 of the 9 Pac-10 teams Cal played finished with losing seasons.

Cal won by 1 point to an Oregon team that had a losing season in 2004. And our OOC slate of Air Force, New Mexico State and Southern Miss is the kind of OOC slate that I deride Alabama for having. The kind of OOC slate that makes it easier to win games and keep your team healthy for the bigger games.

NVBear78 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

All off our best teams had small defects that prevented them from capturing the ultimate prize. 2004 it was wr depth. If Chase Lymon doesn't go down in the third quarter of the SC game, I think Cal wins the NC. Rodgers was that good.
2006 could be mistake prone and Longshore's talent was not up to the rest of the team's. He was prone to the pick six.
1991 had a lot good players. Pawlaski was ok but not much more.I have a hard time getting over both the play, and especially, the behavior in the BG.

---

Small correction: Lyman went down early in the SC game. I believe in the first quarter when we were driving in USC territory. Does anyone recall if he had a catch in that game before blowing out his ACL?

The astonishing thing is what his stats were up to that point on the season, IIRC he was averaging almost 30 years a per catch and had something like 6 TD's in three games...

---

I think it was the third quarter on a 15 yard catch he made.

---

You guys are right. I looked it up and it was the third quarter. Lyman was killing it before that with 5 TD Catches coming into the USC game and an average of 32 yards per catch.

---

SC was taking away the long ball so Rodgers through under and out, setting an NCAA record for consecutive completions in the process. The problem was not missing Lyman in the 4th quarter (though who really knows), it was special teams all game: the fumbled kick off that turned into an SC TD, the Reggie Bush punt return for a TD and the missed chip shot FG.

Plus Carroll was more creative in his utilization of his back up star RB Reggie Bush than Tedford was in using Marshawn Lynch.

The 2006 Cal SC game was sad. After losing to Arizona it was a must win game but we only scored 9 points (2 on a safety) and were completely shut out in the second half, barely able to get a first down. Then the 2006 team struggled to beat a pathetic 1-11 Walt Harris Stanford team in the Big Game at Memorial.

The only real reason to consider 2006 over 2004 was at least the 2006 team won their Holiday Bowl.

I'll still take 2004 any day.

HearstMining said:

---

I'd like to open the time-window just a little wider and bring the 1975 team into the conversation. It's natural to be biased towards a team that played during your Cal years and I clearly am. I was a kid during the Willsey years. Fans of the 1991 team had to endure the bleak mid-late 80's teams. Fans of the 2004 and 2006 still bore the scars of Holmoecaust. The 1975 team ultimately shared a conference championship with UCLA, who went on to beat #1 Ohio St in the Rose Bowl. That Cal team took a while to find their mojo and the defense was only (at best) good, but by the end of the season, they clearly could have beaten anybody in the country.

---

The mojo was a change at the QB position. Remember, Roth only lost one game, a very sloppy affair vs. UCLA-like 7 turnovers, including a key fumble on a punt.
I think some of the other teams in the conversation had better D than the '75 team, but I am partial to them as well.

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I'd like to open the time-window just a little wider and bring the 1975 team into the conversation. It's natural to be biased towards a team that played during your Cal years and I clearly am. I was a kid during the Willsey years. Fans of the 1991 team had to endure the bleak mid-late 80's teams. Fans of the 2004 and 2006 still bore the scars of Holmoecaust. The 1975 team ultimately shared a conference championship with UCLA, who went on to beat #1 Ohio St in the Rose Bowl. That Cal team took a while to find their mojo and the defense was only (at best) good, but by the end of the season, they clearly could have beaten anybody in the country.

---

The mojo was a change at the QB position. Remember, Roth only lost one game, a very sloppy affair vs. UCLA-like 7 turnovers, including a key fumble on a punt.
I think some of the other teams in the conversation had better D than the '75 team, but I am partial to them as well.

---

When 75' season ended, I don't believe there was a team in the country that could have contained that offense. Pitt had Matt Cavanaugh and TonyDorsett. What an offensive extravaganza that would have been, had they played each other.

kelly09 said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I'd like to open the time-window just a little wider and bring the 1975 team into the conversation. It's natural to be biased towards a team that played during your Cal years and I clearly am. I was a kid during the Willsey years. Fans of the 1991 team had to endure the bleak mid-late 80's teams. Fans of the 2004 and 2006 still bore the scars of Holmoecaust. The 1975 team ultimately shared a conference championship with UCLA, who went on to beat #1 Ohio St in the Rose Bowl. That Cal team took a while to find their mojo and the defense was only (at best) good, but by the end of the season, they clearly could have beaten anybody in the country.

---

The mojo was a change at the QB position. Remember, Roth only lost one game, a very sloppy affair vs. UCLA-like 7 turnovers, including a key fumble on a punt.
I think some of the other teams in the conversation had better D than the '75 team, but I am partial to them as well.

---

When 75' season ended, I don't believe there was a team in the country that could have contained that offense. Pitt had Matt Cavanaugh and TonyDorsett. What an offensive extravaganza that would have been, had they played each other.

---

Before my time but I looked up the roster. Joe Roth, Chuck Muncie, Wesley Walker? Yeah I'm guessing that offense was pretty good.

But I'm still going with 1991. Because I'm biased. And how many teams can kick the **** out of Clemson in a bowl game these days?

BancroftBear93 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I'd like to open the time-window just a little wider and bring the 1975 team into the conversation. It's natural to be biased towards a team that played during your Cal years and I clearly am. I was a kid during the Willsey years. Fans of the 1991 team had to endure the bleak mid-late 80's teams. Fans of the 2004 and 2006 still bore the scars of Holmoecaust. The 1975 team ultimately shared a conference championship with UCLA, who went on to beat #1 Ohio St in the Rose Bowl. That Cal team took a while to find their mojo and the defense was only (at best) good, but by the end of the season, they clearly could have beaten anybody in the country.

---

The mojo was a change at the QB position. Remember, Roth only lost one game, a very sloppy affair vs. UCLA-like 7 turnovers, including a key fumble on a punt.
I think some of the other teams in the conversation had better D than the '75 team, but I am partial to them as well.

---

When 75' season ended, I don't believe there was a team in the country that could have contained that offense. Pitt had Matt Cavanaugh and TonyDorsett. What an offensive extravaganza that would have been, had they played each other.

---

Before my time but I looked up the roster. Joe Roth, Chuck Muncie, Wesley Walker? Yeah I'm guessing that offense was pretty good.

But I'm still going with 1991. Because I'm biased. And how many teams can kick the **** out of Clemson in a bowl game these days?

Just fyi: Ted Albrecht was an All-American OT for that team, and possibly the best O-lineman in Cal history.
The Citrus Bowl stomping of Clemson was great, and amazing to be at, but let's not mistake that team for really good Clemson teams...Clemson was ranked 12th in the coaches poll, Cal 14. But the '91 team had a better D than the '75 team..

---

I think, modern era
1. 1991 (faceplant with Furd but a win vs Clemson)
2. 2004 (faceplant with with TT but a great regular season that delivered on the preseason hype)


I would also say that 2005 is the "should have been best" team in Modern Cal History. If Rodgers doesnt get told he is the #1 pick and stays, that is easily the best team in the country, IMO.

I cant even wrap my head around the potential of that team. Hell, even with Longshore not breaking his leg, that might have been a top 3 team.

LunchTime said:

---

I think, modern era
1. 1991 (faceplant with Furd but a win vs Clemson)
2. 2004 (faceplant with with TT but a great regular season that delivered on the preseason hype)


I would also say that 2005 is the "should have been best" team in Modern Cal History. If Rodgers doesnt get told he is the #1 pick and stays, that is easily the best team in the country, IMO.

I cant even wrap my head around the potential of that team. Hell, even with Longshore not breaking his leg, that might have been a top 3 team.

---

The Texas Tech game was bad, but Cal had lost a ton of WR's. I think that's when I explained the "walk-on" concept to my daughter...

LunchTime said:

---

I would also say that 2005 is the "should have been best" team in Modern Cal History. If Rodgers doesnt get told he is the #1 pick and stays, that is easily the best team in the country, IMO.

I cant even wrap my head around the potential of that team. Hell, even with Longshore not breaking his leg, that might have been a top 3 team.

---

With a healthy Longshore we go at least 10-1 in 2005 and probably a BCS bowl, leading into a big 2006 which with a year under his belt nets a few more wins, which sets the stage for a mammoth 2007. If anything that affected us much more going forward than Rodgers leaving.

Plus that means that Nate would not have been starting on the Road for really his first game at Tennessee the following year.

A healthy Nate and we are the USC of 2000's instead of USC.

kelly09 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

All off our best teams had small defects that prevented them from capturing the ultimate prize. 2004 it was wr depth. If Chase Lymon doesn't go down in the third quarter of the SC game, I think Cal wins the NC. Rodgers was that good.
2006 could be mistake prone and Longshore's talent was not up to the rest of the team's. He was prone to the pick six.
1991 had a lot good players. Pawlaski was ok but not much more.I have a hard time getting over both the play, and especially, the behavior in the BG.

---

Small correction: Lyman went down early in the SC game. I believe in the first quarter when we were driving in USC territory. Does anyone recall if he had a catch in that game before blowing out his ACL?

The astonishing thing is what his stats were up to that point on the season, IIRC he was averaging almost 30 years a per catch and had something like 6 TD's in three games...

---

I think it was the third quarter on a 15 yard catch he made.

---

The catch that he was hurt on was at the 4:00 minute mark of this clip here...I remember being at the game and watching from the Cal side end zone thinking...uh oh...that didn't look good there.

I don't see the 1993 Cal team mentioned here...but I always thought that was one of the best teams I have seen, and one that really had a chance for a Rose Bowl. They pulled off one of the greatest comebacks in college football history against Oregon, and had Dave Barr not been injured in the middle of the season, I think they would have had a serious shot there. They also put on one of the most dominant performances ever (in my opinion) against Iowa in the inaugural Alamo Bowl on New Year's Eve, just completely manhandling them 37 - 3. The score is not indicative of how thoroughly they controlled the game.