Comments on: Postgame nuggets

By: Dixon Bear

Dixon Bear — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:38:14 +0000

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.

By: Goldiebear

Goldiebear — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:58:55 +0000

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.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:06:57 +0000

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.

By: Big D

Big D — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:03:22 +0000

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.

By: KMoney

KMoney — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:55:24 +0000

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

By: BoaltBlue

BoaltBlue — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:34:20 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan Okanes

Jonathan Okanes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:42:03 +0000

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.

By: Davidson

Davidson — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:36:44 +0000

Jan, I don’t need a website to tell me the stats, did you watch the game?

By: KMoney

KMoney — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:10:02 +0000

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

By: rookie

rookie — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:07:14 +0000

Thanks Oski