DISQUS

Links updated. It'll give you a link to the post and allow you to stream it.

This team does fit well for traditional Tedford ball. I really think we're in for a pretty fun season with a much more physical unit.

Thanks for the positive feedback!

I don't expect him to return to the 2006 form completely, just because the talent of that '06 backfield really made it difficult for defenses to come back into coverage in typical passing situations. This backfield isn't quite as talented (although Best is emerging), so you might find defenses dropping more into coverage and making it difficult for Longshore to air the ball out as much.

I'd be very surprised if he struggled with his mechanics with two years of experience under his belt. He should have a solid season, although if what Tedford says is true we'll see a bit of Riley too.

Brock's going to find this and kick my ass. That should be fun.

Hey there bud,

Just to let you know, a low defensive passer rating is good because it reflects how well the other team is passing against them. Hence you want those numbers to be low low low.

I do agree that defensive passer rating is an inadequate measure of all the defensive intricacies, but it seems to get it mostly right by having USC 1, ASU 2, Oregon 3, etc.

RenoBear,

What do you mean by being slow? Longshore has one of the quickest releases in the conference and he sidesteps the pass rush a lot. If you're talking about mobility to run out of the pocket or pick up yards with his feet, that doesn't have much to do with throwing picks.

And the team had pretty much mailed it in the last two games. Few were really trying 100%, so it was hard for Longshore to have a good game.

JustFinish,

Good job summarizing the main points:
"However, I would contest that the reason Riley is successful is due to his mental state during a game. Nate, when confidence diminishes for whatever reason, becomes a victim to the game around him. Riley’s mind is constant. You can see he just plays the game. It is dangerous, very dangerous, he lets his instincts take over and in many cases that is extremely effective."

Both quarterbacks have strengths (Riley's attacking mode and Longshore's pocket awareness) and weaknesses (Riley's need to make a big play versus Longshore's overthinking it) related to their main characteristics. Will either be able to subvert their weakness or at the least limit them so they don't hinder their respective games?

It's part of the way we think--we don't like processing the whole outcome of a game, so we condense it into singular moments and focus the blame or praise on the players responsible for the play. They focus on beginning and end rather than context and gameplay because it's easier and lazier to digest.

Not that I don't think there's a place for great plays. They're exciting, they're part of the game, and they deserve their mention. But it's only a part of the process. You have to grit and grind too.

What I'm trying to say is that the more plays an individual is called on to make, the team suffers because the focus goes on that one player. Whether it's a power forward in basketball or a quarterback in football, they can only do so much on their own.

I know, but initial lines are a decent way of indicating how Vegas feels about every team in the Pac-10. And it's odd seeing two teams that made bowl games as dogs in their rivalry game. If ASU and Oregon were thought of as formidable you'd probably see -1 rather than +1.

I've also lost 10 units on college football, so I'm probably not too qualified to debate it.

It's no secret Tedford and Levy were never best buds. Levy was always getting into trouble. Still is, if I recall correctly.

I think this series was a pretty good reflection. The 2006 team brought their A-game to Games 1 and 2, their F-game to Game 3, their C-game to Game 4, their B-game to Games 5, 6 and 7. That was about right for that Golden Bear team.

That 2006 team wasn't really dominant. Other than that Oregon game, much of their wins were spent beating up on inferior competition. Remember how much Longshore struggled after the Oregon game that year too (we nearly lost the Washington game, and he was barely heard from those last three games); even though he wasn't in the doghouse quite like Ayoob, he wasn't exactly Mr. Consistent either.

Also our defense was definitely better in 2005 than 2006, especially with . Other than the Maurice Jones-Drew debacle, we kept Reggie Bush in check, knocked out Dennis Dixon, shut out Arizona, etc. etc. We could have gone 11-1 if Ayoob didn't throw so many picks and the running backs weren't fumbleprone.

That 2006 team was a classic bend-don't-break defense; they'd give up 20 points, but our offense would lay out 40. Against USC they finally broke, and I'd say our 2005 defense was only a few degrees worse than those '06 Trojans.

That Oregon game also intrigues me, just because I have no idea how good either team is. I'm sure it'll be different in November, but right now I'm totally in the dark as to how either team will perform.

Enough of this trashtalk. Take that shit to the message boards.

Hey Mike,

No worries. What I hear from one person is not going to be what I expect from the school's population.

MSU1978,

USC....our big brother?

Gag.

Hey Brian,

Yeah I don't remember them wearing that ever. But when I saw that jersey I was thinking, "Hmm this garish color scheme looks familiar."

Georgia blue/Go Blue,

When I say become Lloyd Carr, I mean "later in his life/stubborn as can be" Carr who got Tresseled every year, not the younger feistier Carr who stomped over the entire Big 10. Tedford has a slight streak of stubbornness in his playcalling.

Actually, I'm not sure I want him to become like Bo either, who got to the Rose Bowl plenty but barely won there.

I didn't factor in anything. I just ran that simulator. They're cold and ruthless. But the 2007 team has tougher games ahead.

Briefly debated that. But I wasn't too concerned considering I knew who the top two teams were, by a wide margin.

2007 Cal was a 5 seed solely based on its performance during their respective season (7-6 is the worst record overall, although I put them above the 2002 squad because they made it to a bowl). It really doesn't matter too much in the overall picture I think.

Hydro; it uses the statistics from that year, but also uses the depth charts and takes into account stamina and regular ratings. Because Rodgers and Ayoob took the majority of the snaps, they were the starting quarterbacks for those team.

As for underperforming...well, the 2007 team just swept the 2003 team. So I'm guessing the variable strength of schedule is only a small issue.

I assume the majority of student-athletes want to revel in this "college" thing and have a great social life too. In addition to this, it takes a lot of work and training to be a Cal athlete, and it eliminates most of the fun opportunities you get to participate in the college experience.

As it should be.

I agree that UCLA has good value, but it still seems a little high. I'd put them at +1000, maybe a little more. The only reason I can think of is that the diehard Bruins fans/backers, basked in euphoria over the firing of Dorrell, will pour themselves into Slick Rick hype. The diehard fans have become...unhinged, shall we say.

Toward Hawkins? I think Longshore's arm strength was an issue all game and airing it out was not something Tedford wanted. I would've preferred a screen dump to Forsett or a tight end thread to Stevens.