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

By: rollonubears

rollonubears — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:25:20 +0000

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.

By: Steve W

Steve W — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:37:08 +0000

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.

By: MoreNCsarecoming

MoreNCsarecoming — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:26:49 +0000

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.

By: Easy Ed

Easy Ed — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:33:36 +0000

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).

By: MoreNCsarecoming

MoreNCsarecoming — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:27:37 +0000

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.

By: Kent Wilson

Kent Wilson — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:54:02 +0000

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.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:25:00 +0000

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

By: PeteBear

PeteBear — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:23:41 +0000

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?

By: H8sRed

H8sRed — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:44:50 +0000

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.

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:39:35 +0000

…”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.