Saying Goodbye–Justin Forsett
Tex was a great player, a great kid, a stout Christian who did things right and played right. Every game you could expect 100% from Justin, healthy or not healthy. His effort was unparalleled, and he provided the clinching TDs in 4 of Cal’s 6 victories (Tennessee, Arizona, Oregon, Wazzu). While his size could be a drawback on his draft stock, his heart will probably be the determining factor in how far he goes in the NFL. And I like putting my stock in Forsett’s heart.
Advantages: In the open field, Forsett is at his best. He has great speed in the flat, can cutback at just the right moment, and when he gets to the edge, he’s almost certain to pick up ten-plus. That number will drop at the NFL, but his abilities off-tackle are really a sight to behold.
It also doesn’t hurt that he’s a big-time performer–he was Cal’s offense for most of the USC game, and dominated Tennessee’s front seven for the entire contest. He also had sterling performances against Wazzu, Air Force, Oregon both years and Texas A&M last year (officially taking the reins from Marshawn).
[youtube yOMLaCV8ENo]
Disadvantages: Not a great power runner, as evidenced by Oregon State and UCLA (and a half-dozen other Pac-10 defenses) stuffing him up the middle. And he does fumble the ball a bit. Not a strong goalline runner because of the size factor, but is great at around 5-7 yards and 1st down offense.
NFL Future: Not likely to be a top running back, but could be the quintessential second back in the ever popular NFL platoon-back system. Hopefully NFL coordinators will use him correctly with screen dumps and outside running. He can run through the middle too, just not for the entirety of the game.
What are your thoughts on Forsett’s future? Where will he end up in the NFL?
And Now You May Cringe
[youtube t9ZdNA36ulI]
This treesitting farce and the comical way the UCPD has decided to combat this particular incidents (allowing hippies to intrude onto campus ground again and bang up their bongos to disturb the classrooms) makes me requestion our tactics in the war on terror. You know, waterboarding people with frayed ponytails and tye-dye shirts. I’m thinking the cutoff age for the program should be around 75.
In any case, we’ve gone long past the point of the University not embarrassing itself with this tree nonsense. The wasteful erection of fences and the staging of security personnel has been more than enough. Now we have bongos drumming and screaming activists yelling throughout. Pathetic.
It makes strategic sense to remove them immediately. Hippies are the laziest people on Earth–Lindsey Bluthe has nothing on them. Remove them by force and they’ll be too petrified to return. Leave them up there and they feel validated in their struggle. They’re passive-aggressive; knock them out and they’ll disappear. Additionally you can take the focus off the circus and place it solely on the infrastructure argument. Re-frame the situation by eliminating the sideshow and you’ll make it easier to win.
And finally, I’ll channel my inner Obama–do we want the Berkeley of the past, or the Berkeley of the future? A Cal that promotes or allows loser activism to promulgate on its campus, or a Cal that promotes a tradition of winning and scholarship that shows the brightest to succeed on it? We can make the change to the future, and we need to do it today. YES WE CAN!
Please suggest how you’d deal with the treesitters. Hoses? Horse tranquilizers? Tear gas?
Cal Football 2007 In Numbers: 4th Down
4th Down Offense
T6 ASU 13/19
T14 Oregon St. 9/14
T30 USC 10/17
76 Cal 5/10
T81 Stanford 8/18
T81 Washington 8/18
T87 Oregon 6/14
112 UCLA 4/13
114 Wazzu 7/24
116 Arizona 5/19
4th Down Defense
T-7 Stanford 5/17
UCLA 5/17
T-9 Oregon St. 6/20
T-21 ASU 6/16
T-40 Oregon 9/21
T-43 USC 7/16
T-49 Arizona 6/13
87 Wazzu 10/18
102 Washington 11/18
109 Cal 13/20
Looking at these statlines is sickening to a Cal fan. Cal was LAST in the Pac-10 in 4th down defense, and risk averse with strong offensive talent (only 11 attempts overall, which means plenty of 4th and short attempts were shirked). Admittedly, we don’t know for sure how many solid opportunities Cal had on 4th down situation, but to see how low we are at at attempts in our own division is a bit disturbing.
Again, we go game by game.
Cal v. TN
0/0 for Cal
0/1 for TN (on a goalline stand at 4th and goal at the 1, TN down 38-21)
Cal v. CSU
0/0 for Cal
0/1 for CSU (on a 4th and 9 at Cal’s 31, CSU down 27-14)
La Tech vs. Cal
1/2 for Cal (4th and 1 succeeded, led to missed field goal, score still 7-0; failed on a 4th and 5 at Tech 36, score 42-12)
1/1 for Tech (4th and 5 succeeded on a left side pass, led to blocked field goal that kept score at 28-6)
Pac-10 2008 Helmet Schedule
Just a little something I cooked up–I was inspired by the SEC version and decided the nations’s other great conference deserved a little visual representation. Click on the image below for the gigantic version, because the helmets are pretty.
You can also download it as an Excel file by right-clicking on the link at the end and choosing “Save Link As”, which gives you the option to click on the helmets for direct links to buying tickets for most games. Enjoy.
Pac-10 2008 Helmet Schedule (Excel file)
Saying Goodbye–Tha1
It’s hard to see where you’re going DeSean. I know it’s tough for me to judge the type of player you are. One moment, you were Randy Moss in New England, doing everything in spectacular ways to help your team win, the next moment you were Randy Moss in Oakland, seemingly backing your way out of crucial plays or limping around with supposed injuries.
But when you were on, you were spectacular. And you provided some of the most raucous reactions in Memorial Stadium in recent memory with your big game plays. The team crowded your name in earnest, even when the team was falling apart, just hoping for a spark to come from somewhere, hoping you’d provide it. It didn’t really happen, although you’re not really to blame. But it was a good ride, and if anything, I’ll miss the excitement of it all.
Although I have to say the correlation between your performances and who was broadcasting Cal games this year was amusing.
ESPN: 6.33 receptions/game, 86.3 rec yards/game, 105.5 yds/game, 1 TD/game
Other Tv: 4.5 receptions/game, 40.7 rec yards/game, 65 yds/game, 0.33 TD/game
You didn’t happen to cut a deal with Desmond Howard and Mickey Mouse under the table, did you DeSean? Heh, coincidental I’m sure.
Videos and fond memories await after the jump.
Blue or Gold?
This site is overdue for a major rehaul, so I was happy to let LawVol from Gate21.com try out his hand at redesigning the site. He’s done a great job with the header, and I’m opening up discussion to my readers to help me choose which one to use and
Which design do you guys prefer, this one?
or this one?
Vote in the poll below or on the sidebar. Leave thoughts on what can be improved in the comments section.
Loading ...Cal Football 2007 in Numbers: Turnovers III
So to summarize the last two posts, let’s take a look at the table displaying the output off of turnovers. Cal turnovers stand for the number of times we forced a turnover, POT is points off turnovers.
[TABLE=14]
The symmetry is obvious: Cal forced eleven more turnovers than its opponents in its first five games–the results were wins. They then lost fifteen more turnovers (and at least three a game) than they forced from their opponents in their last eight games, and the result were two squeaker wins and six losses. I guess the idea that losing more turnovers than gaining is a resounding ‘duh’.
Cal Football 2007 in Numbers: Turnovers II
Continuing from Part I earlier, we begin delving into the ugly. I’ll go through the painful truths of how badly turnovers impacted our club both on the offensive and defensive sides of the field.
(When I put the team name next to the turnover, it is the team that ended up with the turnover, not the team that lost it.)
Oregon State vs. Cal
Cal forced fumble at Cal 14, resulted in punt (Cal: 0)
OSU forced fumble at Cal 16, resulted in TD and 7-0 Beaver lead (OSU: 7)
OSU INT returned to Cal 17, resulted in FG and 10-7 Beaver lead (OSU: 3)
OSU fumble rec on kickoff at Cal 39 resulted in FG and Beaver 31-21 lead (OSU: 3)
Analysis: A decisive loss in the turnover margin. Even worse, all the Cal turnovers ended up providing Oregon State with a short field and guaranteed points. Cal’s only forced turnover ended up saving another likely score deep within Cal territory, given the strong leg of Serna.
One of the problems with giving up turnovers deep within your own territory is it keeps a less talented offense empowered and more leeway to work with. The thirteen point advantage of turnovers ultimately provided the difference in the game.
Cal at UCLA
UCLA forced fumble UCLA 32, turned into UCLA fumble at Cal 39 (UCLA: turnover)
Cal forced fumble at Cal 39, turned into missed field goal (Cal: 0)
Cal forced fumble at UCLA 36, turned into INT (Cal: turnover)
UCLA INT at own 23, turned into punt (UCLA: 0)
UCLA INT at UCLA 30, returned into TD (UCLA: 7)
UCLA INT at Cal 38, kneeldown (UCLA: 0)
Cal Football 2007 in Numbers: Turnovers I
There was one very interesting point about Cal’s collapse that I noticed. Turnovers. Obviously the Bears’s rise to #2 in the rankings had a lot to do with holding onto the ball and capitalizing on the mistakes of the opposition–Cal had one of the highest turnover differential margins in the country after their 5-0 start, and after that, they completely turned in the other direction, playing hot potato often and badly.
But turning over the ball is one half of the story. What did we do with them during the rise and how did we handle them during the fall? Did we turn them into points? We can go game by game and closely examine these discrepancies.
In this distribution, I’m going to vaguely assume that all turnovers are created equal (i.e. their relative impact is about the same). I’ll start with a game by game summary and then measure the impact later on in a table. (Note I represent the team by turnovers forced, not lost). Let’s start with 5-0, which is much more pleasant to discuss.
Tennessee v. Cal
Cal: 1 fumble recovery on TN’s first possession at midfield returned for a TD for a 7-0 lead.
Result: 7 points off 1 turnover.
Tennessee: 1 fumble recovery in the end zone down 45-31 late in the 4th, zero points.
Result: 0 points off turnover.
Analysis: In reality, we can see how big a psychological impact Cal’s turnover had over Tennessee–the Vols were driving, and the Bears immediately snuffed out the opening drive and claimed the lead. That set the tone for the rest of the game as Tennessee was forced to play catch-up the rest of the evening. Tennessee’s turnover came late, but I admit it did have a bit of a dent–a Longshore TD would have made it 52-31 and would have boosted that much more confidence into the Bears. 45-31 is a good win, but not exactly dominant.
Cal vs. Colorado State
Cal: 1 interception at Cal’s 3 yard line (tied at 7-7), converted into a punt; fumble recovery at CSU 37, converted into a punt; 1 interception at Cal 45 while down 20-14, turned into a TD.
Result: 7 points off of 3 turnovers.
CSU: 0 turnovers forced.
Analysis: Cal looked completely vulnerable in this game.
The Bear is Hunting
At the moment I’m undergoing some site design renovations–it’s the dead of offseason, and nothing will be happening that’s noteworthy for the next few months, so it’s the perfect time to get technical issues sorted out.
Just wanted to let people know I’ve joined the Yardbarker network to help finance my time-consuming hobby (you can also check the headlines and the badge on the lower right side). Hence the reintroduction use of banner ads up top–hopefully it’s not too much of a distraction (A special thanks to Diana at Yardbarker for the smooth transition). Hopefully I’ll be able to worry less about picking up a quarter a day and can focus more on what I enjoy doing–writing and discussing about what interests us.
Hang tight. New posts will be back up soon.
If you have any comments about the ad redesign (intrusion, hate them, don’t care), you know where to leave them.
