MailBag 10.23.2008

Here’s a quick Mailbag update as we wind down the week and prepare for UCLA. I’ll try and have my Keys to the Game feature up earlier than usual, as it will be Friday Fun Day at work, but no guarantees.

Dear Bears With Fangs:
Although I don't think that Longshore is incapable of making plays, I do think, and have believed for some years now, that his biggest problems are his eyes. He insists on looking straight at where he is throwing.

My solution to this is for him to wear one of those dark, shades over his helmet. This way, no one can see his eyes and he can throw to wherever he feels is best, without the CBs anticipating his throw.

Just my 2 cents.

Also, is it just me or does Tedford, or the coaches as a whole, have some requirement to call an equal amount of running vs. passing plays? Why not just use what is working? In the last game against AZ, Best had his 100 yards in the first half. Yes, I read of his elbow injury, probably from diving in for the TD, but why not call more running plays in the second half? Instead, we witnessed a ridiculous strings of 3 and outs, and interception/TDs. Why not run the ball, eat up some clock, and play to win. We were still ahead as of halftime.

- Daniel

Yeah the visor could work. But I wonder too if that might even further obstruct his vision out on the field. How about explaining that to Coach Tedford after throwing an interception.

Tedford: Nate, couldn’t you see the quadruple coverage?

Nate: Actually, not really…the tint on this new visor blocked out the safety from my view.

Tedford: …

Nate: But don’t you think I look pretty badass?


As for your second point Daniel, Tedford is an adamant fan of a balanced, pro-style offense. You’re not going to really move him too much one way or the other.

With that said, I think Tedford and Cignetti would have loved to have run the ball more in the second half…if Arizona hadn’t decided to stack 8 in the box consistently and jump out to a 15 point lead. In short, I think Tedford would have run more if he could, but the situation didn’t really allow for it.


Why is Tedford being so wishy-washy with his QBs? We are well into the season now. We should let one QB get some real game-time with his offense to build a strong chemistry with them. Do you know which QB the players like better?
-Abe

Really good question Abe. What’s so interesting about this musical chairs game for QBs is that it’s so un-Tedford-like. In fact, the biggest criticism last year from Cal fans was that Tedford was too stubborn, and kept Nate Longshore as the starter for far too long, despite his obvious injury and subsequent struggles.

I really think the main issue that stops Tedford from naming a full-fledged starter is that neither has really made the decision any easier for him. That is, neither has consistently really been that strong or played that poorly, both in games or in practice. With the exception of the Michigan State game, Riley hasn’t been able to string together a consistent four quarters in a game, and neither has Longshore. Both have shown glimpses of efficiency and at times brilliance, but both have also shown mental lapses in judgment , or have just been off.

I believe that Coach Tedford would much rather prefer either Riley or Longshore step up, grab the starting spot, and never relinquish control. It would make his life a whole lot easier. But that just hasn’t happened yet. And in Tedford’s mind, until that happens, he is going to have to treat both Longshore and Riley as two different weapons in his offense’s arsenal, and will go with whatever seems to be working at that particular time and place.

Abe, I haven’t heard too much about who the players prefer, and would hate to try any provide and insight about an area I’m not too familiar with. I haven’t spoken with the players. But from select coaches’ and players’ comments, I know Nate has the respect of a number of veterans and younger players on the team. Whether that’s a widespread opinion, I just don’t know.

To BearsWithFangs, Watching that game (Arizona) was utterly painful, yet utterly Cal. We do crap like this all the time - blow leads, choke when it counts, throw interceptions at precisely the wrong time, drop passes when we shouldn't ... Bottom line - we are NOT clutch under pressure.

A very flustered "Go Bears!".

On the upside this weekend, we get to chant, "What's a Bruin anyways?!?!" And (knock on wood) UCLA should not require clutch play.

Korey

You’re right Korey, Cal has shown its propensity to blow leads, and make its share of untimely turnovers late in the game. But considering that Coach Tedford has won more than two-thirds of his games here at Cal, I don’t know if you can say we do it all the time.

You’re right, we haven’t shown ourselves to be super clutch, but again, we need to re-evaluate our expectations. What would be considered “clutch” anyway? Going undefeated? Winning half your games in a last-minute scores?

How many teams really do that these days?

I know what you’re saying Korey. Losses like the one to Arizona hurt, and force us to think more about our failures, than our more usual successes. But in the brutal and heartbreaking world of college football, almost every team and every fan base has experienced what Cal fans went through on Saturday, and many times prior.

So cheer up, and suck on this.