Comments on: Football: Quick notes

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:32:57 +0000

I am amazed at some of the comments on this message board in which people are still “stuck” and harping on the differences between Longshore and Riley at QB – - – as if THAT one position is dictating how well ( or poor ) the offense has been playing.

If you were actually at the game on Saturday in Berkeley against UCLA and had a bit of football knowledge, you would have noticed immediately the Cal’s O-Line was having great difficulty winning the battle against UCLA’s D-Lineman. In particular, Mark Boskovich was getting blown off the line for the entire first half! He was consistently winding-up in the Cal backfield on his rear. To make matters worse, Chet Teofilo left the game with a sprained ankle, and his replacement Matt Laird was also getting manhandled. He eventually left the game with a shoulder injury.

Forget about who is at QB.
Our O-LINE is not where it should be at this point in the season, and it is a HUGE problem right now!

By: Steve W

Steve W — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:15:19 +0000

Let’s not get lulled into thinking that Oregon is a juggernaut because they thrashed a deflated Arizona State team on the road. This is the same team that went down at home to Boise State and barely beat UCLA at home. Let’s also remember that USC dismantled them at the Colosseum three weeks ago. Cal’s defense has shown it can defend the spread as it did in Eugene last year with a far superior QB running the show. The home field edge should give Cal a win if they plus out in turnovers and keep Oregon’s front seven honest with any type of passing game. Look for plenty of screens to Best and Vereen coming out of the backfield and pray that Morrah steps up big.

By: richard yelland

richard yelland — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:48:24 +0000

there is one stat that Tedford definitely pays attention to. it’s one that he says is the the key…the difference between winning and losing. that’s turnover margin. when cal is plus, they win a great percentage of the time. qb interceptions are a contributing factor to the turnover margin. it doesn’t take a genius to see that Riley is winning the turnover margin vs. nate even though he has taken far more snaps.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:44:10 +0000

By the way, all you geniuses who think it’s so obvious who should start need to look a little deeper than just stats and wins vs. losses. Do you really think you are more qualified than Tedford in making that decision? There are many aspects of these quarterbacks that we do not see, such as their performance in practices and their body language and leadership skills. Tedford takes all of that into account–not just stats.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:40:00 +0000

I agree with Jethro’s analysis–Tedford did not just give the job to Longshore, Riley definitely lost it. He played terribly against Washington St. but we won because they are terrible. Then he played terribly again against Maryland (until, like you said, they went to prevent defense late in the game).

Longshore played well against Arizona St. and led us to that win. Against Arizona, he played well in the first half and poorly in the second half. However, our defense completely caved in during the 3rd quarter and that loss can partly be attributed to them.

Basically, they both have their strengths and weaknesses and neither are that good. At this point, I still think Longshore is slightly better, but Riley has a longer future at Cal so that should be factored in as well.

By: rick bruce

rick bruce — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:13:23 +0000

Just give Reilly the job. He can move and he actually gets better in the fourth quarter. His stats would hVE BEEN MUCH BETTER BUT FOR SOME DROPPED PASSES.

By: rollonubears

rollonubears — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:01:23 +0000

Riley is 4-1 as a starter with 9 tds and 2 picks on the year.

Longshore is 1-1 as a starter with 7 tds and 4 picks on the year.

What more does Tedford need to see?

By: Jethro

Jethro — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:38:52 +0000

Milo – I agree about the roll-outs/bootlegs. I think it was the Colorado State game where I was stunned to see Nate come into the game late and get 2 or 3 designed rollout/bootleg pass plays. Riley has had very few or none of these plays called for him all year.

From what I have seen, both Nate and Riley throw pretty well on the run, so why have they not called roll outs for Riley? At least he is a real threat to run. We ran at least 1 QB draw against UCLA to take advantage of Riley’s running ability, which was nice to see. Why not more of this? All I can think of is Riley must not demonstrate the ability to throw well on the run in practice.

By: DanTheCalFan

DanTheCalFan — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:24:00 +0000

I can not believe all the geniuses on here that either thing Longshore is better, or they are virtually the same QB with different strengths and weaknesses. All Longshore does is play well enough for Cal to be in the game, and then make a HUGE mistake contribute to Cal losses. No more Longshore- puh-leze. His performances and limited abilities have hurt Cal so much the past 2 years. It’s tired and deflating to the fans and the team.
It’s time to let Riley play. It is time he is accorded the same opportunity that Longshore, and Joseph Ayoob have had. If he is having a terrible game or really struggling, then maybe we see Longshore- but only as a last resort. Riley needs to play to be allowed to grow. He offers the best chance for Cal to win this year. Cal needs to know what we have him for next year too.

By: milo

milo — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:12:31 +0000

Jethro – nice summary. Indeed, neither QB is playing very well. The only thing I can add is if you’re going to play Riley, at least have enough sense to use his foot speed and call more play action and him roll out once in awhile. Frankly while the offense was shaky, the play calling was a little odd as well…guess that’s a chicken and egg deal.