49

Football: Postgame recap of Cal’s 31-28 loss to Stanford

I see there’s some encouragement from the fan base over the Bears’ effort in a 31-28 loss to Stanford on Saturday night. It was a solid effort by Cal, no doubt. After Andrew Luck found his rhythm in the third quarter, I thought a blowout was in the making. But the Bears jumped back in the game.

“We played a good game on both sides of the ball,” quarterback Zach Maynard said. “Stanford’s a great team and we couldn’t afford to make the mistakes we made. Other than that, we played a good game.”

A couple things to be encouraged about:

–Maynard turned in a pretty strong game, finishing 20 for 30 for two touchdowns and no interceptions. What a start to his game … he hit Keenan Allen for a 42-yard gain on the first play, and then made a bad pitch to Isi Sofele that Stanford recovered for a turnover. “That was just a bonehead play by me,” Maynard said. But he completed some big passes.

–Allen enjoyed an incredible first quarter, catching six passes for 97 yards and a touchdown. He was everything that Stanford coach David Shaw feared he might be – an athletic downfield threat that Cardinal defensive backs would have trouble matching up against.

–Cal finishes out the regular season next week against an Arizona State team that is struggling. The Bears are 7-1 against the Sun Devils under Jeff Tedford.

A couple of things to be discouraged about:

–After the first quarter, Allen didn’t catch a single pass. In fact, Maynard threw his way just twice after halftime. Tedford said he didn’t think Stanford did anything specifically that took Allen out of the game. Maynard’s take: “Keenan’s a great receiver and they double- and triple-teamed him to keep him from getting the ball.”

–The defense played hard and came up with some big stops. But there were way too many Stanford receivers who broke free with no one around them, particularly fullback Ryan Hewitt, who continuously hurt the Bears by leaking out of the backfield for short passes and turning them into bigger gains.

–Cal has got to find a way to score touchdowns and not settle for field goals in the red zone. Two drives stalled inside Stanford’s 10-yard line in the first half, and those ended up being difference-makers …

Here’s a final version of the notebook I wrote for Sunday’s paper, focusing mainly on Allen.

That’s all for now …

Joe Stiglich

  • abe

    Tedford: “didn’t think Stanford did anything specifically that took Allen out of the game”
    Maynard: “they double- and triple-teamed him to keep him from getting the ball”

    Can anyone explain this? Did the turds indeed took Allen out of the game and we failed to adjust, hence Teddy once again bailing the coaching staff out? Or is Maynard (who played very well by the way, smart and accurate) just making stuff up? does one need to look at film to see if a receiver is being double, triple covered? in the midst of all this contradiction is the saddening fact that one of the best play makers in the country and by far the best player on the field did not touch the ball for three quarters.

  • covinared

    Well played game. The difference was the O line play. Our O line did not control the inside like theirs. I don’t fault the coaching. Maynard came through except for the pitch that was supposed to be the hand off and the diificult short end zone pass that almost got picked. The receiver was open. Interesting note: Calvin goes down with no stats and his replacement is involved in three key gains on the final drive. His dad Matt Bouza was Cal’s best receiver in my day, and went on to a long nfl career. The announcers did not mention that. This was loss where there is no need for shame or blame. Go Bears! Beat ASU.

  • The Wisdom Cow

    Did anyone ever see an angle of the Isi “fumble” that showed whether he stepped out of bounds first. I do not think the refs even looked. I hate blaming refs, and I actually put this loss on Tedford’s redzone play calling, his crap clock management, and the decision to sit on the last minute of the first half. Yet, I have serious reservations over the way the refs seemed to slant toward the Cardinal in this one. Would the league having a huge interest in Stanfurd getting the second BCS bid resort to SEC style reffing?

  • rotfogel

    Good game, too bad Cal didn’t win. Maynard played well enough to win, Andy Luck not so much.

    Wow, Andrew Luck isn’t that great at all. I’d take Robert Griffen III ahead of him in next year’s draft:

    http://www.sfbaysports.com/2011/11/19/cal-at-stanford-the-big-game/

  • Eric

    Yes, the Pac-12 has a tremendous economic incentive to see Furd win, though U$C’s win against Oregon was more damaging to the Pac-12 (as much as I hate U$C’s football program, some of the calls against U$C were truly astonishing).

    The team played its heart out, and Maynard did well. I agree that it made no sense that Allen was not made a factor after the first quarter.

    On coaching, while this game was far less egregious than others (and the score, with no turnovers and virtually identical stats, reflects it), it was disheartening that Tedford chose not to go for points at the end of the first half. In those circumstances, the middle is often open, and the playbook has some good plays to the TE in precisely those circumstances. That lack of guts was unfortunate, and Furd’s missed FG turned out not to be a momentum killer.

    After watching the game (and the U$C and Oregon games), not sure Luck deserves the Heisman. Griffin at Baylor, Blackmon at OSU, and any of a couple LSU defensive players have proved to be more valuable.

  • bigdruid

    First off, great game. The players played really well, and the coaches had them ready to go with a gameplan that gave them a solid chance at winning.

    I find it amusing that the conventional wisdom pre-game was that Tedford had to get the ball out of Maynard’s hands and keep him from making game-killing mistakes, while now the complaint is that Tedford was *too* conservative, and should’ve had Maynard run a 1-minute-drill deep in our own territory in a one-point game.

    It’s as if some of you guys don’t remember the stuff you wrote 24 hours ago.

    For me, I actually feel like Tedford might’ve righted the ship this year. The team is getting better every game, we’re playing our best ball in November, we’ve lost games, but at no point have the wheels fallen off like past years. And best of all, we’re back in Memorial next year :)

    I promised myself after UCLA that I would no longer make excuses for Tedford, but instead would just let the results on the field speak for themselves. In this case, I think they do.

  • http://capitolgoldbuyers.com BlakeStreetBear

    Tedford thinks you can win on the road against good teams by kicking field goals. He will never make a Rose Bowl with this thinking.

    @ UW, loss by 8: fgs of 29, 36 and 25 yds.
    @ UO, loss by a lot: fgs of 27, 38, 54 yds.
    @ ljsu, loss by 3: fgs of 25, 19 yds.

    Tedford plays not to lose. Settling for fgs time and time again is plain and simply uninspiring (and stupid) coaching. Great effort by the boys in the cleats last night, not so much by the men in the headsets.

    Where is the killer instinct JT? You always take your foot off of the opponents throat, just when the chance is there to inflict some MAJOR DAMAGE: 1st down and goal with a chance to go up 10, ON THE ROAD! bad play calling. then settle for a 19 YARD!!! field goal. game over.

    Go Bears despite your gutless HC. uggh.

  • Kent Wilson

    After 6 consecutive seasons of the cal football team performaing BELOW expectations, the 2011 team has firmly MET expectation this season, and with a win over ASU, Cal will have EXCEEDED expectations this year.

    It was nice to not get blown out by an upper echelon conference opponent for a change. Perhaps the team will gain confidence from their performance and perform at a high level next week and in the Bowl game.

  • Kyle

    Great game by the bears last night. Tough loss but that might be the best Maynard has looked all year. Encouraging going forward. I like our chances against the highly OVERRATED Sun Devils. 7-5 and I’ll take it. That damn Washington game would’ve changed the entire complexion of the season. Oh well. Go bears!!

    Kyle

  • http://capitolgoldbuyers.com BlakeStreetBear

    Kent,I disagree about this season having met expectations.

    I do not think that losing at ucla met expectations, unless you expect Cal to lose to every flawed and mediocre (at best) team on the road. I would hope that is not to be expected. I expected them to pound ucla and win. I did not expect KPrince, the slowest running qb in D1, to go off for 100+ rush yds against our fairly stout D. Unfortunately I did expect our coaching staff to make ZERO adjustments at halftime and for us to therefore lose going away in embarrassing fashion to a mediocre team yet again. And last night went as expected too, gutless playcalling, sitting on it with 50 seconds left before halftime, stalling a drive at the 2 and not going for the jugular, settling for fgs, etc. What kind of message do these decisions send to the kids? “I have no confidence that we can score from 2yds out so send in the kicker.” lame. This coaching mentality would not go over with fans in the Midwest or South. They would not allow a coach to get away with sitting on the ball with 50 seconds left in a rivalry game. If I am not mistaken, JT did the exact same thing in last year’s big game, sat on the ball at the end of the 2nd quarter despite a large deficit. Why?

  • rollonubears

    The officiating is criminal. Seriously. US Attorney General should investigate. Sadly, the fix in this game, and the Oregon game likely ensured Cal about a 1.5mm payout, which covers a good chunk of Tedhead’s salary.

  • http://capitolgoldbuyers.com BlakeStreetBear

    Not picking on you Kent, promise. “It was nice to not get blown out by an upper echelon conference opponent for a change.” That is extremely sad, but unfortunately true. We used to compete, now we just try not to get embarrassed. Thanks JT. Keep sitting on the ball at the end of the half in rivalry games, its SO inspiring…

  • milo

    We shouldn’t have lost to UCLA but they are better then advertised. I’m encouraged by the progress and we played Stanfurd basically even despite being 18 pt underdogs.

    Any way…adios Andy Luck.

  • http://capitolgoldbuyers.com BlakeStreetBear

    Last comment before closing the laptop: the players played their axxes off last night, what great energy! With similar effort they can win these last 2 games and get to 8 wins, a respectable number. Go Bears! Trounce the devils!

    ps:
    looking fwd to Thanksgiving sports: Niners on TurkeyDay evening, Cal on BlackFriday night! Not to mention a VERY GOOD Cal bball team on TV Mon and Tues this week too! Go Bears!

  • rollonubears

    The PLAYERS have earned a bowl bid. I was pleased with last night. And I totally agree about them trying to win in spite of Tedford. UCLA, people forget, was without 6 players, including 2 starters, in that game where we laid an egg. We should have won that easily. Maynard looked better in this game, but almost all of his passes were floating ducks, and some required great catches. Some should have been picked, and on about 5 occasions where they were wide open, Stanfurd guys either dropped passes or Luck overthrew them. If Stanfurd had even played marginally better, we’d have been blown out, and it had nothing to do with our defense. We applied no pressure to Luck. They tried to give that game to us. Tedfurd refused to let them.

  • Caladan

    Go Bears, beat the Sun Devils! (Then maybe some of these nay-sayers will shut up for awhile).

  • Bears

    So tired of the ridiculous comments. When our coaching staff laid an egg against ucla they were called out. They are not perfect but look to be on the right track. The past three games our players and coaches came together, were on the same page fighting together and playing well.
    Our run game yesterday was not good enough to win on the road. The difference in the game was the penalties, they ran the ball better and we lost the turnover battle. If those stats are opposite we win that game.
    Would have loved to have seen the Bears go for points at the end of the first half but to do that we need to get some yards on our first down run. The play was stuffed and the time left in the rain made sitting on the ball the smart call. If our OL and RB popped a solid run we would have gone for more.
    In the red zone, Maynard (who played a good game) missed a wide open Jones that would have put us up 17-7 and had to settle for 13-7.
    We went for two in an uncoventional time and got it. We went for it and were well coached yesterday.
    I don’t think the entire Cal staff gets credit for the potential they have. This year we have to learn from mistakes. I like a lot of changes I’ve seen in the way our team plays.
    We have two more chances to keep getting better this year and I hope the program stays strong and fights to build for next year.
    2012 has the potential to be a strong one for Cal football.
    People on here (whoever they are) throw out so much bs.
    Go Bears!!!

  • bigdruid

    BlakeStreetBear: What *were* your expectations for this season? Were you expecting *no* losses to middle-of-the-pac teams? Were you expecting a 9+ win season with unproven QBs and RBs and no Memorial stadium? For me, I expected a 7/8-win season (counting the bowl), and we’re still on track.

    From where I sit, we are solidly a middle-of-the-pac team, and like *every other* team at our level, we’ve lost to the top teams (USC, Oregon, Stanford), have beaten the worst teams (Colorado, OSU, WSU), and have split against the middle (UW-pre-price-injury, Utah, UCLA, hopefully a W next week against ASU).

    Every mid-tier team has had some faceplants on the road (Cal vs UCLA, UCLA vs Arizona/Utah, UW vs OSU, Utah vs Cal, ASU vs everyone). If anything, we’ve been more consistent than the rest of the teams at our level, as we haven’t lost to any of the cellar-dwellers.

    So I’d say we are the model of meeting/exceeding expectations this year – I think people can make an argument that it’s Tedford’s fault that we don’t have higher expectations (better players in the system) and so he should be held responsible for the program not being in a better state, but just looking at this single year with the players he had going in, I think he and the coaching staff have done a solid job.

  • ConcordBear

    Joe,
    Nice work but want to point out a print error.
    Cal lost the past two times they played asu in tempe.
    They have only won one in a row when they played at Cal last year. So no win streak going into Friday’s game.
    Hope the Bears can build off the way they have played the past three games and get a much needed win on the road to close out the regular season.
    I like a lot of what I’m seeing but to win games on the road, you have to hit open wr’s, can’t turn the ball over on a mental error. Must run the ball better vs good rush D’s. Need to score points and our talented D needs to continue to improve. I think they can do it. Senior/all leadership must continue to grow and push for better. Think Maynard is starting to get it, can see the light going on and hope he keeps pushing for better by cutting out the few mistakes he made. Cut out all mental! That is the staple of a good QB that is in total control of the game. Tedford and Maynard need to get there.
    I really like the momentum that I’m starting to see build. Up to our coaches and players to keep moving it in a positive direction and I believe they will.
    Can’t wait for Friday night!

  • covinared

    Concord:Cal won in Tempe the last time they played there.

  • ConcordBear

    You and Joe are right.
    My bad.

  • H8sRed

    I’m so sick of all the whining. Cal went toe-to-toe with #9 Stanford and just came up a little short. NO ONE expected this game to be close, but Cal was well-prepared and executed well. This despite horribly inconsistent (at best) officiating that clearly favored the home team.

    All of you Tedford haters are so willing to criticize him for Maynard’s play; yet no kudos (to either Tedford or Maynard) for his Big Game performance. Arguably he was the better QB last night. And where are the props for Cal fighting back after trailing by 15 points?

    It was a well-played and well-coached game by Cal. The better team probably won, but the underdog made a great showing on national TV. I didn’t really want to sit in the cold rain for 4 hours, but the Bears made it well worth the effort.

  • covinared

    H8sREd: concur.

  • milo

    @H8sRed +1 – we played Stanfurd tough and the Trees are now #4. If we couldn’t beat them at least we scared those mothers.

    BTW, I think ND takes a page out of the Book of Karmic Payback and stomps the Furd for the LSJUMB’s nun and cross spectacle. I’d have that up on the bulletin board. I don’t know anything about ND but they’ll be at home and they’ll want pay back.

  • discdude

    Addressing some of above:

    1. Cal hasn’t met expectations often lately, but 2008 clearly exceeded expectations at 9-4 (unranked preseason and finished 26th in both polls). And this year they may in fact exceed expectations. I expected them to lose one game they “shouldn’t” lose (UCLA) and win one they “shouldn’t” win (ASU?). I never had Oregon, SC, or Furd as W’s, so we’ll see. I think they’d whip UW right now, they are playing much better and UW is sucking wind. 7 wins is a pretty decent year with a new QB, RB, previously porous O-line, and a good, but not great defense.

    2. Last night, Maynard clearly showed improvement over earlier this year. Most of his throws were from in the pocket, and when flushed and moving left, he made some nice plays. Would have loved to have had that 2nd FG turned into a TD though, the red zone has not been a Cal strength this year.

    3. Lots of heart shown last night. Any recruit seriously considering Cal can see that they may have turned the corner and the team is playing much better since the post-UCLA team meeting. They even look like they have an identity, a spirit, and toughness that was clearly missing earlier this year. Sometimes you have to go through hard stuff to get better, that UCLA game really made an impression, I think.

    4. Coaching still needs to improve in some areas. While Furd is a good team, there were too many mistakes in coverages, etc.

    On to ASU, I’m actually looking forward to seeing how they do.

  • eric

    @H8sred. You wrote: “All of you Tedford haters are so willing to criticize him for Maynard’s play; yet no kudos (to either Tedford or Maynard) for his Big Game performance. Arguably he was the better QB last night. And where are the props for Cal fighting back after trailing by 15 points.”

    I wrote: “The team played its heart out, and Maynard did well. I agree that it made no sense that Allen was not made a factor after the first quarter.

    On coaching, while this game was far less egregious than others (and the score, with no turnovers and virtually identical stats, reflects it), it was disheartening that Tedford chose not to go for points at the end of the first half. In those circumstances, the middle is often open, and the playbook has some good plays to the TE in precisely those circumstances. That lack of guts was unfortunate, and Furd’s missed FG turned out not to be a momentum killer.”

    Please explain why the statement “and Maynard did well” somehow means that Maynard did not get kudos.

    Please also explain why you chose not to answer the question whether Tedford’s decision not to try to score points at the end of the first half was the correct decision.

    And while you are right that kudos should be given for the comeback, please explain whether kudos should be withheld for blowing a first half lead.

    This was undoubtedly one of Tedford’s better coached games this year. We still lost, mainly because we did not adjust well in the second half until the last drive, and Stanford did adjust in the second half. That has been an issue for years. We have better talent than Furd at every position other than QB (but Maynard did outplay Luck) and TE. We did not maximize on that talent, but this was a good effort.

    I predicted nearly a year ago we would go 5-7. Right now, we are at 6-5, with a road game against a team that is face-planting and is ripe for an upset. 7-5 would certainly exceed my expectations at the start, but we absolutely should beat ASU – losing would be a significant disappointment. 6-6, given the surprising problems at Oregon State and us benefitting from Utah missing Jordan Wynn, is slightly better than expected, but still not great given our talent. Watching Conte on the field today, starting for the NFL Bears, it is maddening that the immense talent that has been on the field at Memorial over the last 4-5 years did not result in a Rose Bowl appearance.

  • Kent Wilson

    BlackStreetBear…the fact that you don’t think this year the team met expectations is perhaps more inidcative that you had unrealistic expectations for the team. Cal was voted to finish 5th place in the North Division. Cal has only lost 1 game as a favorite (UCLA)…Cal does not have any victories as an underdog (but I give cal a decent shot to beat ASU this upcoming week)…Even if Cal losses to ASU a 6-6 season is solid year relative to expectations. I think when I team losses only 1 game as an favorite, then I think you are in the realm of “meeting” expectations for the season.

    This year’s team does not have the talent at key positions (RB and QB) on offense and Defense is starting a bunch of new players this year…Cal’s performance is right where most prognosticators predicted…a win against ASU would clearly put Cal ahead of expectations for the season.

  • Kent Wilson

    Discdude,

    As you know I disagree with your assessment of Cal’s performance in 2008. Let’s revisit that year. Cal finished 9-4. Cal had ZERO victories over teams in which Cal was an underdog. Cal had TWO losses to teams in which Cal was a favorite. Cal was a 14pt favorite over Maryland and Cal lost 27-35. Cal was a 2.5pt favorite over Arizona and lost 27-42.

    This is the type of year that I am critical of the local media and many Cal fans for giving Tedford a pass on the performance of his team. While its easy to be lulled into a false sense of accomplishment with a 9-4 record…but this performance has to be reviewed relative to expecations. Cal was supposed to be 11-2 teanm, if they won all the games in which they were favored.

    I would be less critical of Tedford if the 2008 season was an abberation…but when we look at EVERY year between 2005 and 2010 we see the same type of result. Consistent losses to teams in which Cal was favored and very few “unexpected” victories. 6 straight seasons in which the Cal team “underperformed” relative to expectations….there were significantly more losses to teams in which Cal was the favorite vs. victories when Cal was an underdog.

    Between 2005 and 2011. Tedford teams are 40-14 as a favorite (only using games when Cal was at least a 3pt favorite…they are 50-17 as a favorite regardless of amount of point spread) but only 2-17 as an underdog. Bottom line is Tedford has compiled a bunch of losses when Cal was supposed to win…but has very few victories to offset these losses. Because Cal had high level of talent…Cal was favored to win 85% of their game…so Tedford overall record looks good (i.e. winningest coach in Cal history)…but he if you look closer…you would probably conclude that Tedford has not maximized the talent level he has recruited. Hence his critiques making the statement…”no coach has dones less with as much talent”.

  • Kent Wilson

    Interesting Blog about Overpaid NCAA football coaches…Tedford makes the list at #8. (At least somebody is paying attention!)

    http://bloguin.com/crystalballrun/2011-articles/november/2011-wtf-college-football-coaching-salaries.html

    “8. Jeff Tedford, California: $2.3 million (Incentives: $255,000)
    Remember back when Tedford was the rising star on the college football coaching circuit? When was that? 1995?

    Cal’s program got a little juice when Tedford was hired, but if you can think of a team that better fits the phrase “plateau of mediocrity,” I’m all ears. That’s a healthy chunk of change for a guy who you can pencil in for the Emerald Bowl without fail.”

  • Juancho

    Arguably maynard was the better qb? thats ridiculous. In the second half he wasnt the one ,aking nce deep throws. Team had a great effort. But lets not pretend maynard was anywhere near luck. Luck was the dfference last night.

  • Wehofx

    I am in the jt Camp. He is doing a much
    better job than last year & this team is
    improving.
    I get the negativity but disagree w it.
    Regardless, this is one of the most interesting
    threadsthis year because of the thoughtful
    arguments both pro and con.
    We are Cal!
    Go Bears! Beat asu.

  • http://Capitolgoldbuyers.com BlakeStreetBear

    You can’t beat top teams on the road when you settle for 19 yard field goals with a chance to go up 10. Just not gonna happen…i think most coaches of huge road underdogs realize the need for aggressive gambles, like going for it on 4th and goal from the 2. Worst case is we get stuffed and stanford takes over at the one. Instead, we kick, they drive and score to go up, game over. Does anyone else see the horrific simplicity of this fatal Tedford flaw?

  • nickle

    Nope.

  • go8ears

    well i do

  • Rollonubears

    I do, to. Plays not to lose. Been that way since he got here. We were blinded by relative
    Greatness in 2002 and 2003, and rodgers
    In 2004. Remember the Baylor game in 2002? Beat em 70-7 or so. How is Baylor doing now? How about us?

  • bigdruid

    Kent: “Please also explain why you chose not to answer the question whether Tedford’s decision not to try to score points at the end of the first half was the correct decision.”

    Hard to say. If we throw a pick or fumble the ball there, Stanford undoubtedly scores. Do you think the odds of us scoring with less than a minute on the clock were higher than the odds of Stanford getting the ball back and scoring on us?

    Fundamentally, Tedford is a conservative coach. He’ll run the occasional trick play, but he’s not the guy to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own territory, or try to squeeze out a 70-yard drive with 50 seconds left in the first half. You can disagree with the philosophy in general, but it’s not like it’s indefensible.

  • H8sRed

    Eric – “…blowing a first half lead.” Are you serious? Cal was up by 3 in the first half of a see-saw battle. You act like they blew a 27 point lead. What a pathetic premise.

    Oh, and your “Maynard did well” comment was hardly heaping praise on the QB or his coach. Abe, at the very least QB play was a push. Luck horribly overthrew several passes to wide open receivers in the first half. Their stats were almost identical. Both were 20 for 30 with 2 TDs. Luck had an INT and Maynard made the bad pitch. I give Maynard the edge because he led his team from down 15 to a 3 point deficit and a successful onside kick away from a chance to tie.

    As for the end of the first half, they were deep in their own territory in the rain, and they were operating without their starting fullback. Had they started at the 40, it would have been reasonable for them to try to set up for a half-ending FG or better.

  • eric

    Juancho – compares the statistics.

    Luck 20-30, 257 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 5 rushes for -1 yards (long of 8).

    Maynard 20-30, 280 yards, 2 TDs, no INTs, 7 rushes for 4 yards (long of 12).

    Exactly what is ridiculous? Not completion % – they are identical. Not TDs – they are identical. Not INTs – Maynard didn’t throw a pick. Not rushing – Maynard was better.

    Moreover, several of Luck’s missing were overthrows on wide-open plays that were easy TDs. Add the INT, which easily could have been a pick six, and yes Maynard was arguably better the entire game. Granted, Luck dramatically improved in the third quarter, but that goes back to my point of second half adjustments, which Cal did not make.

    Luck might have lost the Heisman yesterday, after the door was opened with Okla. State’s QB tanking.

  • eric

    H8sRed – wasn’t Cal up by 6 in the first half? And the failed attempt to make a 2-TD comback is no less a “pathetic premise” than what you have offered – it is easy to make your case when you define your terms. So when you say “no kudos” for Maynard, and there was kudos for Maynard for the “Tedford haters,” your response should have been “oops, I missed that. I was wrong.” It is a “pathetic premise” to say “hardly heaping praise on the QB.” Check Juancho’s post calling me out defending Maynard and my response back.

    As for heaping praise on the coach – we lost the Big Game, after being up, with Luck not being particularly effective most of the game, with Furd with significant injuries we did not take advantage of, with us having significant advantages at WR that we did not take advantage of after the 1st quarter, with us falling behind at the start of the second half (typical of Tedford since 2007), with us having a defense that is supposed to match up well with Furd’s run, and with Tedford taking effectively no risks when there was nothing to lose by taking risks.

    Yeah, it wasn’t the blowout it was last year. Great – I’m glad you’re all for heaping praise on that.

  • Larry

    …”to answer the question whether Tedford’s decision not to try to score points at the end of the first half was the correct decision.Hard to say. If we throw a pick or fumble the ball there, Stanford undoubtedly scores. Do you think the odds of us scoring with less than a minute on the clock were higher than the odds of Stanford getting the ball back and scoring on us?”

    But what if we run it up their ____ and make it 21-7 at halftime? There are always at least 2 sides to a scenario.

  • H8sRed

    Eric — Oops. Cal was up by 6. Still, to call it a “blown lead” is pathetic.

    If you’re going to talk about how “weakened” Stanford was by injuries, you might want to remember that Cal was without two starting linebackers — who definitely could have slowed Stanford’s running game and put more pressure on Luck. Plus, Cal lost its starting FB 90 seconds into the game.

  • http://aol PeteBear

    generally a good game; certainly good entertainment. committed to keeping a positive framework re Cal. don’t you guys have better things to do than write these 350 word essays?

  • Kyle

    I love how everyone on here as all the answers. Its quite comical!!

  • Kent Wilson

    That was NOT a heisman type of performance from Luck…I agree with Eric on that point….but Luck will either win or lose the Heisman when they play Notre Dame on NBC with a national audience…no body watched the Cal-Stanford game except Cal-Stanford fans.

    As for Tedford…its simple…Over his 10 year resume at Cal…Tedford has proven he can bring in top talent to Berkeley. What he has also proven, is that he and his staff are incapable of getting that high level of talent to play up to their capabilities. If the Cal administration is serious about winning a Conference Championship, then Tedford has proven he is NOT the guy to lead the program and Cal should look to a new coach. If the Cal administration is satisfied with the past 6 years (5 Bowl appearances to lesser Bowl games), then Tedford is the guy.

  • MoreNCsarecoming

    Daddy spoke to one of your ex-players who played from 2004-2009. He said that your coach makes the offense too complicated. He said you can see it in the way the QB plays. He said that someone who has played the game like he has can see it.

  • Easy Ed

    I think that Zach Maynard and the rest of the Bears played one Hell of a game Saturday night. Our problem was the failure of the defense to adjust to Stanford in the second half. There was no excuse for the full back being open out of the backfield on several consecutive plays. Come on Clancy!

    You now see what a difference a QB can make who is mobile and can make plays. Say what you will about Zach’s erratic play at times this year but when he is on, he can keep us in games ( last year against Stanford remember?). As far as Coach Tedford goes, this was always a rebuilding year and he still put out a team which was competitive in all but 2 games (USC & UCLA).

  • MoreNCsarecoming

    It is not just about talent. It is about smart and although I didn’t see much of the game, Stanford players just play smarter than yours do. They don’t make dumb penalties. Yours do. They do make the right adjustments. Yours don’t. Your QB blows a pitch on the second play of the game which leads to a fumble because he doesn’t know the play. They don’t do that. Your QB wastes over 20 seconds at the end of the game because he got too emotional. Their players don’t do that.

  • Steve W

    The look on Tedford’s face after the game said it all. It said that just merely being competitive with Stanford was good enough to avoid any talk of buying out his contract during the off season. It said he can continue to hit the $2.8 million pay window in the coming years with 6-6 or 7-5 records, and the Old Blues will jus be happy going to bowl games in Vegas, San Francisco and Albequerque.

    In the meantime, that sister school in Los Angeles will put up a good fight in a losing effort next week against USC. But the Bruins will be going to their minor bowl without their head coach, who will be staring at a pink slip. Different expectations.

  • rollonubears

    I don’t buy the argument that the end-of-half decision is a wash. If you don’t have confidence that your QB can put your team in at least field goal position, with 2 timeouts and 50 seconds, regardless of the rain, then you need another QB. Now, a true leader would have said “Coach, we’ve gotta go for it here.” I don’t think Maynard is at that level where he can override our coach’s conservatism. He needs to get to that point, pronto, or it’s going to be another long year in 2012.