Combined feed (RSS)
Football: Season review — wide receivers
By Jonathan Okanes
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pm in off-season stuff.
We obviously didn’t know what to make of Cal’s receivers before the season started. I’m not sure we still do.
The Bears entered the season completely unproven at receiver. Guys like Nyan Boateng, Verran Tucker and Jeremy Ross proved to at least by steady and serviceable, but nobody really knocked your socks off.
As we discussed with the quarterbacks, there are a lot of factors at work. Perhaps the quarterbacks weren’t doing a good enough job getting the ball in the receivers’ hands. There were some games the offensive line’s injuries brought the passing game to a standstill.
But there’s no question the wide receivers didn’t make enough plays. Boateng led the Bears with 29 catches. Lavelle Hawkins had 72 to lead Cal in 2007.
Boateng was able to find the end zone five times, but he, Tucker and Ross combined for only 67 catches. Tucker demonstrated flashes of his potential, with his acrobatic catch against USC or his first half against Arizona especially sticking out.
The question is how much they will improve during their first offseason in which they played extensively the previous season. They will be able to digest what happened last year and apply that to spring practice and offseason workouts. That should result in some improvement. For Cal’s sake, it would be good to have it be substantial.
Cal’s receiving exploits took a hit becasue of the health of MIchael Calvin. He was the one guy everybody had penciled in to be productive this season. Even though he was a redshirt freshman, there was no questioning his ability.
But Calvin never got going because of a sprained toe that he suffered during training camp. It never fully healed, and hampered him all the way until he suffered a season-ending torn ACL in October.
If Calvin can return fully healed, it would be a big boost to Cal’s receiving corps.
Freshman Marvin Jones was expected to contribute right away but after catching just one pass for 8 yards during the first three games, he suffered a sprained knee as well and missed most of the rest of the season. Jones, along with Boateng, may be the most physically gifted receiver the Bears have. Coach Jeff Tedford said Jones was practicing well near the end of the season. Expect big things from him in 2009.
The Bears also could get a boost from an incoming freshman, such as Randall Carroll of Los Angeles. Carroll has yet to commit but is believed to be favoring Cal at this point.
One thing the receivers did do very well this season was block. They took pride in it, something that couldn’t be said about the receiving corps of 2007. The receivers kept track of blocks and it became a competition. Many of the long runs by Jahvid Best during the season were aided by wide receivers blocking down field.
2008 WIDE RECEIVERS GRADE: C+
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
January 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
One of the things this year demonstated is that we have to “ladder” our receivers, like our running backs. That is, during Tedford’s tenure, we have always had a top notch running back ready to go when the starter graduated or left early for the NFL. Last year, being quite certain that none of the starters would be back, Tedford needed to prepare someone. I am a big fan of what Tedford has done with the program, and I think Tedford learns more and more each year, and this is something that should not happen again.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
GoldenBear77 – Agreed that “ladder” would be a good idea, but I don’t think the talent was there last year for the laddering. Some of the freshman had been redshirted and Boateng was in the midst of his transfer. There appeared to be a talent gap at WR for whatever reason just doesn’t exist as much at RB.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
What I observed this year is that the receivers rarely helped out the QBs. There were plenty of passes off target, but few memorable catches of these errant passes. The receivers have to step up and make plays on the less than perfect throws. That in itself will build the QBs’ confidence.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
They should try going with a two back set more frequently. Certainly it helps to get your best athletes on the field. I think moving Best or Vereen to the slot would certainly open up your options.
If Carroll chooses Cal that will be phenomenal news but it’s not a certainty; therefore they should plan to roll with what they have. I’ve noticed that the receivers came back to the ball only a few times all season. Of course if the QB constantly overthrows them it’s kind of difficult to train yourself to come back for a ball that will be 4 feet over your head.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I do agree with Go Bears82. With 2 backs, the defense will have a harder time to defend. Because, they will be confused. And, that will add many more options. and rotating 3 backs together. Since now Cal is loaded with talents at that position.
Go Bears!
January 7th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Jonathan,
Love your coverage of Cal football, but a C+.
Cal receivers were well below average. Your own stat proved that: top three receivers had fewer catches than Hawkins in 2007.
Maybe Nate/Riley wouldn’t have looked so bad with better play at the receiver position.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
GoldenBear77 -
Tedford did ‘layer’ the receivers; Jones and Calvin, but, they turned out to be fragile.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
This deals with a recent observtion from Steve W re Bridgeford.
Cal should be thankful a QB has shown an interest in Cal after the poor showing of the offense; particularly the passing game(OL, receivers, play calling). Bridgeford might be reconsidering his ‘oral’ choice after talking to other players at the all-star games. Steve, wait until he gets here(if he doesn’t change his mind) before you attack. You have criticized and written off the 7th ranked QB. Let’s hope he doesn’t use your negativism as an indication of Cal’s support for him.
Also, this recent circus regarding oral commitments is ludicrous. Any player can change their mind at any time and it has happened several times already. The formal commitments are made on signing day, about a month from now. What may seem ‘good news’ now could be a big disappointment a month from now.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
is everyone fogetting the offensive line? they gave up more sacks than they had in years…many injuries forced young untested guys into action…they responded later in the season but there was a rough patch were our qbs had little time to pass…there’s no doubt that we need better qb play for our receivers to produce and hopefully we’ll get it next season
January 8th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Calduke,
What I mean is “layer” or “ladder” players with actual game experience (in this case live catches in games), not have them waiting on the scout team where they do not really learn the offense. What did we come into the season with, wide receivers who had a total of 10 or less actual game catches, in total. That is not adequate in my opinion.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:37 am
GoldenBear
With Jackson, Hawkins,Jordan(the me,me,me guys)there were not going to be any receivers with significant game time.
Let’s hope it works out next year.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Calduke,
I guess that is the coaches job (to mitigate the me, me, me). In other words, the inmates should not be running the asylum. Think Arrington-Lynch, Lynch-Forsett, Best-Vareen. This has been masterful coaching. As an example, when Forsett steps up as every day, he had had hundreds of catches, and over 1,500 yards. Why should this not be the same with receivers? Not of this magnitude, but getting playing time for receivers should be even easier than running backs since there are often only one back and three receivers.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:24 am
OOPs, meant “carries” for Forsett, not “catches”.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am
77,
I completely agree with you. We had this wr “ladder” problem in 05 and again in 08. I do think one of the keys is bringing in more than 1-2 wrs with each recruit class, because the position has a fair amount of attrition (lofton, canada, etc). And then making sure the young guys get enough playing time.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
The problem is in part the ladder issue, the other part of the problem is that there weren’t any receivers in the recruiting classes between DeSean’s and Calvin’s that matured into good players.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
The play of the year for the receivers imho was Tucker’s unbelievable one-hander down the right sideline at USC.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
So much for WR ladders.
What about QBs? Some people tried to suggest playing Mansion to prepare him; but, those people were shouted down. The coaches seem to play the guys who will win.
When the team had the meltdown in 2007 I doubt the coaches were in the mood to think about ‘laddering’ for the 2008 season.
Maybe I, and the rest of us, don’t want to admit that there was no depth in quality receivers to ladder. Recruit more receivers, definitely, but how do you do that with Riley,Mansion Sweeney, Bridgford?
I want the Bears to win. We need a QB!!
January 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
OOOOPs
Forgot to mention this;
Which WRs should CAL have given more playing time to in 2007(laddering) to prepare for the 2008 season.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
After watching two good teams play tonight I have come to the objective conclusion these are the top 4 teams…
1. USC – We would have beaten either team tonight – the score being only a reflection of how much we let our foot off the gas pedal like we did against Penn State. The fact that the Pac 10 went 5-0 this bowl season does nothing to hurt us.
2.Utah – They would put points on the board against anybody
3. Florida – Good but not great especially with an offense as one dimensional as it is. One hit by Taylor or Rey would have Harvin out of the game.
4. Penn State – Laugh all you want but they would have taken Oklahoma.
5. Oklahoma – when will the BCS stop giving them another chance. They have choked twice now and the conference is a joke. Texas Tech goes down, OKie State goes down, Texas barely beats Ohio State.
Another great season but it shows everyone how biased the BCS is against USC.
See you soon.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:36 am
I knew you were going to post this Moron. Why wouldn’t you pick USC #1. That hilarious- LMAO!!!
When will you and all the USC whiners realize that the formula is simple- WIN AND YOU’RE IN!! Except if you are Utah or Boise St. But for you guys, all you had to do was beat OSU. It doesn’t matter who you think should be #1. The Sears trophy goes to Florida.
Why don’t you go down and tell your Trojan buddies to get their act together and stop choking. I’m tired of seeing those lame Rose Bowl games against weak Big-10 teams. But I don’t see any change unless Coach Carroll can keep his teams focused all season long and keeps his players from being the most penalized in the Pac-10. Otherwise post your address and I’ll send you come cheese to go with your “whine” next year when we are right back here and your are talking about the same thing.
USC #1- HAHAHAHAHAHA!
January 9th, 2009 at 12:43 am
And why are you posting your opinion about who’s #1 here anyway? Do you really not have any friends to share your USC football thoughts with? How sad. How really really sad. Go ahead, post your address and I’ll send you some cheese next year. You’ll see. It’s nice to get presents.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Jake Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 12:36 am
When will you and all the USC whiners realize that the formula is simple- WIN AND YOU’RE IN!! Except if you are Utah or Boise St. But for you guys, all you had to do was beat OSU. >>>> Did you really
mean to post this? Florida lost to Ole Miss!!!! And they played for the NC. What is the difference between our record and their record? We both share one loss. Oklahoma lost to Texas and they made it to the NC. Do you really think that Oklahoma team would have beaten us? Do you really think that Texas team would have beaten us? Look let’s face it. Unless the rest of the Pac 10 raises up its standards and the way it is perceived by the rest of the country none of our teams except for USC stand a chance to ever get into that game. If being undefeated is what matters then why didn’t the BCS select Utah? They knocked off two ranked teams – TCU and BYU to stay undefeated.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:14 am
he’s right for once. Florida lost AT HOME to Ol’ Miss, who went 9-4. As did Oregon St. So it’s totally biased against the Pac, and for the SEC. This year was the biggest cry for help for a playoff.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Randall Carroll will visit UCLA this weekend.
Unfortunately,mother Carroll wants Randall to stay close to home. Slick Rick and their new QB recruit are going to put on the big sell.
We shall see.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Look Moron,
Everybody knows the BCS system is flawed. Everybody knows their is a bias towards the SEC. Everybody knows that if you do not play for one of the 6 “major” conferences, you likely do not have a shot of playing for the NC.
My point is the last few years you and all the Trojan whiners can complain all you want. The point is if your team took care of business (not losing to OSU and not losing to 41-point underdog Stanford, not losing to UCLA) would we be having this discussion?
And to say whether or not any of the other teams could beat USC at this point, does that really matter? Did we think any of those other teams had a chance a beating USC? THAT’S WHY YOU PLAY THE GAME. Someone gets hurt, someone gets flustered, and that changes the complexion of the whole game.
If your “Mighty” Trojans would stop cough, cough.. choking, I agree we would likely have seen a few more NC’s in the last few years by USC. But because of the SEC “Bias” and the Trojans inept ability to seal the deal, we have now seen the last 3 champs from the SEC and of course Texas the year before that.
So what’s up for next year…more of the same or will USC finally stay focused and play the whole season.? Since the NC is in Pasadena next year, maybe your Trojans finally get back to playing in a Rose Bowl that matters. Or maybe they keep up the trend of the last few years and play the week before.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Jake Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
If your “Mighty” Trojans would stop cough, cough.. choking, I agree we would likely have seen a few more NC’s in the last few years by USC. But because of the SEC “Bias” and the Trojans inept ability to seal the deal, we have now seen the last 3 champs from the SEC and of course Texas the year before that.>>>> We lost to Texas in the NC game when they refused to play us mano y mano. Their QB ran around like a sisy. However what you are really saying is that in order for USC to make it into the NC game we have to go undefeated. Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, etc can lose a game or even two but shame on us for losing. Thank you. You just proved my point Jake.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“Think Arrington-Lynch, Lynch-Forsett, Best-Vareen.”
Don’t forget Forsett-Best!
January 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Let me get this straight Moron,
You want to be rewarded for playing/ underperforming like other teams you are complaining about? So why was this year’s NC game not Utah vs. Boise St. if you are looking at the 2 most deserving teams? Weren’t they the only 2 undefeated teams at the end of the year?
The problem is you cannot rationalize the BCS. As mentioned before it is flawed. And I did say there is a bias towards the SEC, Big 12, and Big 10 in previous posts, did I not?
My point, and get it through your thick skull, is that USC cost themselves the opportunity to play in the NC this year and last year. If USC wins one more game last year, especially the loss to 41-point underdog Stanford, are you telling me they don’t end up the NC game against Ohio State over a 2-loss LSU? If USC beats Oregon State, would we have to be listening to your whining? Probably not because you are in the NC game. Unless you guys lose that one. Then you’d probably complain on this board again on how another sissy QB ran all over your Trojans or how you got ripped off by some refs call or how you guys got jobbed on some play. And all that just proves how anti-USC the BCS is. HAHAHAHA!
We all know you’re a sorry excuse for a USC fan with no friends to share in victories or losses with. We all know you have no life other than to come on this board to pretend you are here to promote and celebrate the pac-10. We all know that you are a loser. Thank you. You just proved my point, Moron.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The BCS is like law school admissions, moron.
If you screw up and you’re not worth it, you don’t get to go to the good bowls, or the good law schools.
CalStateDavis? Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha. You don’t even have to win 3 games to be bowl eligible for that law school.
And you? You couldn’t even finish it.
Be careful what you ask for, moron.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Auburn went 13-0 and missed the NC game a few years ago. So don’t go crying about fairness.