Postgame nuggets
By Jonathan Okanes
Saturday, October 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm in Gameday.
Some quick hits from the press room:
–Jeff Tedford said Nate Longshore will “probably” play in the next game at Arizona. Longshore was 17-for-28 for 198 yards, three touchdowns and an interception.
–Shane Vereen finished with 93 yards on 27 carries and five catches for 51 yards.
–Darian Hagan and Cameron Jordan co-led the Bears with eight tackles. Jordan also had two sacks and a forced fumble, making him a leading canddiate for Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Week honors.
–Tedford said the Bears wanted to keep running the ball in the second half because they were consistently deep in their own territory and didn’t want to do anything risky. He pointed out the two times in the second half they made a little progress out of their own part of the field, they couldn’t convert on third down.
–Arizona State quarterback Rudy Carpenter left the stadium on crutches becasue of a lower leg injury. Carpenter took some big hits, especially on a Zack Follett sack late in the game.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
October 4th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
cignetti is a joke
October 4th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
A joke that keeps winning games with his schemes.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
JO - Does Tedford mean to imply that there is still on ongoing QB competition?
October 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Why can’t we do a delay blitz or just fake like we are rushing 5? Rush 4 then send a backer to knock the QB down. what’s up with the lollypop shotgun snap to longshore…how about a line drive type snap?
It would be great to have last year’s O and this year’s D.
Go Bears!
October 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
What’s it say when the coach doesn’t have confidence in its fifth year senior QB to throw in the second half for fear of making a mistake?
Perhaps it has something to do with that stellar 4th quarter TD/INT ratio…
October 4th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Maybe I just have a thing for Riley but I thought Longshore played well in his first couple outings but then but then the Offense was extremely lackluster the rest of the game (it reminded me of last year a lot).
I admit, we did start faster than we normally do but it would be a shame if the QB job is closed now.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:42 am
What worries me about Nate Longshore is that he does so poorly in late game situations. The game against Arizona State definitely did not ease my concerns. He doesn’t seem as relaxed as Riley in “heart-pounding” moments. Maybe they should let Nate play the first half then let Riley play the second half.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:47 am
A win is a win.
I’m not the biggest Longshore fan, but he played well and looked composed out there.
The play calling in the second half was conservative, but the Sun Devil coaches made some nice half-time adjustments. Not to mention, their defense masked alot of what they were doing out there.
It has hard to read what defensive scheme or coverage they were in until the snap of the ball.
Tedford will go down as probably the greatest Cal coach of all time.
How can you second guess his decision about the starting qb? Especially when you don’t even know what’s going down at practice.
Go Bears!!!
October 5th, 2008 at 8:37 am
JO
Who is this guy?
More from Diante Jackson
By Contra Costa Times Prep Sports Staff
Saturday, October 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am in Ben Enos, Football.
Sorry I didn’t post more on Las Lomas receiver Diante Jackson committing to Oregon last night. It certainly turned into a long night very quickly.
Both Diante and Las Lomas coach Doug Longero have said throughout this entire process that the school that gets Diante will be the one with the academic support system in place that will offer the best education he can get. You talk to Diante and he’s an extremely bright young man and the first thing he said when I talked to him last night a few minutes before midnight was that the academic support system was a big reason he chose to go to Oregon.
October 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I was critical of any decision to re-open the QB competition. I remain critical, but if the standard is less than stellar play, then there has to be another open competition for the next game.
Longshore had a good, but not great, game. Of the three TD passes, the first was a duck (though he led the receiver nicely), the second was a legitimately beautiful pass, and the third was hard to judge because the safety and the CB covered the same guy (but I credit NL for seeing the open reciever). He still has the tendency to throw off his back foot (remember the pass downfield where the receiver and stop, sit, and wait?) and his play action roll-outs to the FB almost always end up with the FB getting crushed.
Importantly, NL fell off in the second half. Look at the stats - at half time, Longshore was 14-22 for 159 yards and 2 TDs. By the end of the game, he was 17-28 for 198 yards, which means he was a mediocre 3-6 for a mere 39 yards. Moreover, most of his yards game in the first quarter (92 yards) and, even then, a lot were check down passes to Vereen (not criticizing the pass decisions, but we shouldn’t read too much up into the yardage).
And extremely worrisome is the 2 for 10 on third down conversions, including several very critical drives in the fourth quarter.
But for the stellar Cal defense, this game would have been very, very close. I continue to firmly believe that Cal will not win the close games with Longshore.
Where was Slocum?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Jon
is anyone from the media going to press Tedford about Longhore and the offense’s tendency to bog in the second half? You guys need to corner him on this. What’s he going to do to counter a USC barrage like we saw last night against Oregon? Can anything be done to keep Longshore pumped for the entire game?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Cal fans are too hard on Longshore. He had a very good game, and did exactly what Tedford said the team needed to do–start fast and give Cal the early lead. After we got the lead, we ran the ball a lot more, and that is why his stats tailed off in the second half.
Because we got off to such a comfortable lead against Colorado State, many fans forget that the offense came out very flat in our first 2 or 3 possessions. Longshore gave us 10 points on our first 2 possessions.
You are right Eric, 3 for 6 in the second half is mediocre. But 3 for 6 against Arizona State is still better than Riley going 6 for 13 against lowly Colorado State.
Further, if you actually watch the Maryland game in which Riley threw for more than 400 yards and had 3 touchdowns, you will see that Riley actually played very poorly. He threw it nearly 60 times with pretty low accuracy and was only able to pad those stats with drives after the game was already nearly out of reach. The final score in that game was not indicative of the kind of game it was. We were down double digits most of the game.
I am a Cal fan (I never boo my own players, unlike other so-called “fans”) so I like both Riley and Longshore. I just think that, because Riley is only a sophomore, and Longshore is slightly better at leading the offense right now, that Longshore should be our starter. Of course, the open quarterback competition is good for the team. If Riley can prove himself worthy of starting, instead of simply having the blind, uneducated support of the fans, I would be happy with him starting as well.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Regarding Eric’s comments, I think Tedford has a good pulse on the team this year. As a result, the competition has been good for the team and NOT destructive. Both QB’s know that they have to play better to earn tenure and both seem to be handling it maturely. The team seems to be acting patiently; sort of like, “just give us some decent QB play and we’ll take care of the rest.” They don’t seem to care who that person is as long as they get the job done.
I do agree that the second half was nerve racking. Thank God, the defense was so strong!
Also, what’s up with Nate’s footwork? He looked very awkward in too many of his throws. I commend him for moving around more, but dude, set your feet when you’re ready to throw.
Go Bears!
October 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Eric, another long winded comment which should be in a forum where other’s can debate you. What are you afraid of? However, I agree with all of your assessments. Longshore will never take Cal to the next level, and I don’t get why Riley didn’t get a single snap in the 2nd quarter after several awful passes. My dead grandmother could have thrown a better ball to the wide-open WR for a TD. Finally, Slocum was benched, cuz he fumbled the kickoff. Cal was lucky it rolled out of bounds. Why he didn’t get a touch before that, is beyond me…
N8, you put it in a funny way, but I “hope” we see the same in 2 weeks. Since it’s a bye week, and I don’t think Tedford has a media day on the upcoming tuesday. I know Riley hasn’t shown much, but if it wasn’t for the defense, Cal could have easily lost this game. But, as I predicted before the Michigan game, the defense will carry this team. Where our Bears will end up is anyone’s guess…
Cal’s 25th in the Coaches poll! Go Bears!
October 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Hey JO, This is in response to your article. You left out the all important part of “kept the ball in play” for the kickoffs. I’m glad Alamar found Giorgio. He was a huge find and continually kept the Devils from the 40 yard line. I think that was the big difference between the Terps and this last game. Go Bears!
October 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Jan K - I am glad you agree with me. I shouldn’t say anymore, but, since I have to live up to my reputation of being longwinded, I’ll add the following:
1. I do post on Bear Insiders from time to time - I just do so under a different name, and, importantly, I think JO’s analysis usually sparks more intelligent posts (certain silly SC folks notwithstanding).
2. I wasn’t aware there were any rules on the length of posts (are there, or is it something you have decided by fiat?), but if we were to count the words of your multiple posts during each week against my “longwinded” missives, I think I’ll be within the range of reasonableness.
October 5th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Jan, that was hagan that fumbled the kickoff
October 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I agree with “mustang man” when he expresses concern about Cignetti- as far a qb developemment and offense. At this point in the season , I have no faith that late in a game we can generate offense or come up with something to catch the other team off guard.Looking at his credentials coming in made me worry. Maybe Jeff should return to calling plays from his carry-on jumbo tron play card !!!!
October 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Jan K Oski - I agree why did we not see Riley in the second quarter? Personally I think Tedford has a thing for his senior QB who lacks what the team needs. I was frustrated watching this game knowing Riley did not get a chance, and in my hearts of hearts knowing that he probably would not.
Bottom line: I think if Tedford was really going to open back up the QB competition we would have seen Riley play yesterday. But we did not! Why? Because Tedford wants Longshore to play, despite the fact that Riley is… in my humble opinion… better suited for the job than Nate.
Also does anyone know of a forum for the bears… this is the closest I have found to such thing. Thanks.
And Thanks for the comments! I really enjoy this.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Anger was great offensive weapon in the 4th quarter!!!
October 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Playing Longshore is indefensible!
Nate couldn’t get us to the Rose Bowl with numerous (Lynch, Jackson, Hawkins, Stevens, Forsett) skilled players on NFL rosters. What makes Tedford think we’re going to the Rose Bowl with this team.
Let Riley learn on the job with the young receivers and maybe we get to the Grand Daddy next year or the year after. Who cares what second-tier bowl we go to; let Riley play.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Anger was great offensive weapon in 4th quarter!!
October 5th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
No. I want to win today and simply put, Riley hasn’t gotten the job done. If Nate slips, then put Riley in. But just throwing him in the second quarter is pretty dumb. This is a game where the offense was fine and we should have been up around 31-7 without that idiotic “hurdling” penalty. People need to stop making Riley an untapped god and Nate a complete goat. Many of the same people down on Nate were jocking him when he was tossing beautiful passes to Da One. It’s game by game and competition will make each one better.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Dixon,
Wow
$
I guess you think football teams are made up of only your starting skill players… which is simply stupid.
The reason why USC makes it every year is the incredible DEPTH the team has at EVERY POSITION, something which Cal didn’t have last year. So, when we lost starters to injury, we started losing games.
Everything starts up front. On both sides of the ball. Skill players get the most hype because of media and glamor.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
This whole situation has made Riley into Brett Favre and Nate into Aaron Rodgers… without justification.
I can’t believe how many armchair QBs we have at Cal
October 5th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Ooops! I forgot the “non-skilled” offensive players from last year’s team on NFL rosters: De La Puente (KC) and Mike Gibson (Philly). And don’t forget this year’s top draft pick Alex Mack.
To sum up (counting Mack), that’s 3 linemen and 4 skilled players (Forsett, Stevens, Hawkins, Jackson) from last year’s team on NFL rosters. Don’t forget Jordan who wasn’t cut, but left SF camp for personal reasons.
We know what we have with Longshore. He’s reached his potential and Cal has reached it’s bowl potential (Holiday) with him as its leader.
Let’s find out what Riley can do.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
“And extremely worrisome is the 2 for 10 on third down conversions, including several very critical drives in the fourth quarter.” This, and the slow start were the keys to Tedford’s decision to go with NL this last game. The 3rd down situation was just as bad as Maryland, and I’m sorry, but I’ve been calling for short passes all year. Saturday’s play calling was the perfect day for Riley to shine, and Tedford knows it, that’s why he put NL in there. Anybody can throw a short pass, but if that’s the primary play, and the receiver’s covered, Riley takes off and scrambles for yards. Longshore throws it to a linebacker for 6 the other way. So tired of this crap.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Davidson, I don’t know where you’re drawing your facts from, but I found mine on calbears.com where it was recorded that Slocum had a fumble. I’ll be the first to admit the stats on there aren’t perfect or complete, but how could they get that wrong?
“Thomas Weber kickoff 63 yards to the CAL7, Slocum, Tracy return 8 yards to the CAL15, fumble forced by Max Tabach, fumble by Slocum, Tracy recovered by CAL TEAM at CAL15, out-of-bounds.”
Go Bears!
October 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Hey Rookie, here are your options:
bearinsider.com (my favorite, since they seem to give a lot of info for nothing, but they just moved from scout.com, so the chatter isn’t high.)
scout.com (the old home of bearinsider with a new crew running the show.)
rivals.com (do they even have a free forum?)
then, there are several independent blogs with quality chatter and there was an SF Chron article on them last week. I especially like californiagoldenblogs.com, because the 5 Cal grads, who run it, are colorful, engaging and offer very different types of discussions and analysis of games. Go BEARS!
October 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Thanks Oski
October 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
why the hell don’t we ever hand the ball off to BIG WILL on 3rd and short situations? He’s a beast and he never gets carries, the perfect bowling ball to pick up a yard when necessary
October 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Jan, I don’t need a website to tell me the stats, did you watch the game?
October 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Rookie, I think Tedford is saying that, as of right now, Longshore is his guy. But they could always re-evaluate during the bye week.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
A few observations about unfairness in football.
First, how about that blind SEC bias that results in 3-2 Auburn ranked above Cal? Who did Auburn beat? Louisiana Monroe, Southern Mississippi, and Tennessee (Tennessee lost to UCLA). Three nobody teams.
We are the only team to beat 5-1 Michigan State. Our loss was to Maryland, who also beat #20 Clemson.
Second, Kevin Riley got the shaft. Against Colorado State, Riley was 6-13 with 3 dropped passes, including a missed TD by Sean Young. If these passes are caught, Rile would be 9-13 with 2 TDs and 0 INTs. Not poor enough to criticize him and/or bench him.
Against the same opponent, Michigan State, Riley won the game for us, whereas Nate cost us 2 INTs, and 2 touchdowns (1 lost for us; 1 TD for MSU). Nate is a huge risk of tossing the ball and the game to the opponent.
While we won the ASU game, Nate missed some easy throws (Vereen on the sideline that could have gone for a TD) or caused receivers to wait for the ball. He does not have the ability to rifle the ball downfield especially when scrambling. His worst games are against USC. Do we really want to have Nate as our QB againt USC as we make our run for the Roses?
USC lost this year to OSU. This is an opportune time to use Riley and see where he can take us.
The vast majority of Cal fans are not wrong in favoring Riley. Evaluate Riley fairly and he wins the QB job.
Note to Jan K. Oski: My review of the game video leads me to believe that Darian Hagan, not Tracy Slocum, fumbled the kickoff.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Why don’t we ever hand the ball off to Big Will on 3rd and short situations? We seem to struggle on 3rd and short, especially last year, and we rarely give Will a shot. Just hand it off to The Diesel and have him follow Mack Truck. 2-3 yards…First Down Bears
October 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Jan, maybe if you actually paid attention to the game you wouldn’t have to look at the stat lines. Number 26 fumbled the kick return. I don’t know, but last time I checked, 26 is Darian Hagan. And Dixon bear, Maybe in that little cow town they say “skilled” players but everywhere else in the world they’re known as “skill” players.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Boaltblue’s comments echo mine. Nate had a decent game - I won’t pretend he didn’t. But if the standard is a less than stellar performance in Game A means a QB competition for Game B, then there has to be a QB for the Arizona game. Nate did not have a stellar game; he had a very good first quarter - I won’t even criticize him too much for the pick because Vereen got caught up on the screen (though even if Vereen had worked himself free on the play, the play would have been blown up by the linebacker making the pick) - but after that it was ho-hum at best.
Thus, a QB competition is has to be. It won’t happen, and, absent an injury, Nate will almost assuredly start against Arizona and will play the entire game unless he completely botches it. Arizona is finally a dangerous team, and this is a game Stoops HAS to win to make the statement that his team has arrived. In those circumstances, I do expect a close game.
As for Slocum, if he wasn’t the guy who fumbled, then why wasn’t he playing? Vereen clearly was tiring in the second half, and on those 2nd and 4 and 3rd and 2 situations, Slocum would be perfect. If he did fumble the opening kickoff, is this another example of Tedford’s principle of punishing fumbling RBs? If so, with all due respect, it is foolish and entirely inconsistent with how he treats the QBs.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
It seems to me that Nate Longshore is at his best when Cal gets an early lead in a game and at his worst when the game is close or Cal is behind and trying to catch up. Riley has shown that he is at his best as a “rally the troops” type of QB when leading the team back from adversity (Oregon State, Air Force, Maryland). Why not play to their strengths and start Nate and hold Riley in reserve for the second half or if Cal gets behind early? Watching from the sidelines at the start of the game would also seem to help the more inexperienced Riley get an idea of what the opposing defense is up to. If Cal gets behind by 10 points or more, Nate is not the guy to have in there.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:38 am
To Big D:
Just got back from milking the cows and read your “skill vs skilled” concern…went and borrowed the town’s dictionary and see several adjectives for skill including “skilled,” “skillful.”
Should I call a musician with talent a “talent musician?”
Whether Nate had 4 “skill players” or 4 “skilled players” currnently on NFL rosters form last year’s team, the bottom line is he is not going to get any better and we should play Riley and let the kid develop.