Yeah, the elephant in the room. Why go for 2? I agree with the decision, although, clearly, one could make an argument for either way. Our run game was closed down; our defense was gassed; going for two would have narrowed $C to one 40+ second drive versus- do or die. We just got successfully disrupted on the 2 point play.
During the last drive I told the people I was sitting with I'd go for 2. Like you said, the D was gassed, our 2 top RBs were out, and Vatakani was hurt. I don't think he came back.
I'd rather have had a better play, but we used our only (I assume) trick 2 pt play earlier in the game. All other other 2 point plays during the season never were close to scoring.
It was win with a smaller chance to lose - either not make the 2 or they move and make the FG. A 2 wound give $C a much smaller window for success than OT
The Sonny Dykes reference is apt. We need more NIL to recruit more players to field players for Off and Def and Special teams. Every year, we get a few injuries and the gameplans fall apart. Recruiting->Depth-> better play calling. Which comes back a dynamic, inspiring coach. Wilcox seems a good guy, but can he raise $$ and recruit? Certainly chancellor and AD head aren’t helping him…
Totally agree going for 2 against an opponent who were running through our D at the end. Also we can’t assume we’d make the extra point.
That was a blast to attend, though I hate that we literally fumbled away that win.
Wilcox somehow created the perfect Sonny Dykes game.
This isn't the first time Ott has been unavailable later in a game and I don't hear an answer later. Is it concussion protocol or something?
I would have kicked the XP at the end, but it was really a 51-49 thing for me. As far as I'm concerned, the gamble was justifiable. I was also functioning on minimal sleep and had a long drive home so maybe that's why I'm not mad we skipped overtime. (I was there for that crazy Arizona game in '96.)
I liked the aggressive playcalling throughout the game but disagreed with the 2-pt try for the very reason you mention. If there was less time and SC had 1-2 timeouts, then it seemed right.
Cal had plenty of chances to execute and put the game away.
1) Jayden Ott disappeared after the first half.
2) too many turnovers
3) Marshawn Lloyd could not be stopped when it mattered
4) the 2 point conversion at the end was the right call, but they needed a trick play and didn’t have one
5) We were penalized less, but the taunting call didn’t help.
6) Special teams was actually pretty good.
7) We lost the game on third downs. You can’t blame losing the game on a single play (the 2 pt conv). Reason being… if your team was good enough, you wouldn’t be relying on a single play to win the game. We simply could not get offense on third down enough times to maintain a comfortable lead. Mendoza makes Cal exciting, but weirdly, his offensive potential causes our defense to relax and not play as hard. When our quarterbacks were less flashy, our defense actually played harder to help keep us in games. Somehow we have to convince our defense that our quarterback sucks. Sort of a snake eating its tail scenario.
Cal made USC punt seven times. What more do you want? USC had eighteen possessions. In part this is due to the theee turnovers and the fact Cal moved the ball down the field briskly on multiple occasions with quick passes, etc., resulting ultimately in scores, which gives the opponent the ball again. The fourth quarter also reflected to a degree the accumulation of some of Cal’s key injuries. The defense pressured Williams well for most of the game. Overall I was impressed with Cal’s defense, especially given the opponent.
You have a valid point but I see it both ways. We play in a tough conference and our defense will need to rise to the level of our competition out of necessity. It is not normal to give up 9.2 yards per pass and 369 yards passing to any opposing quarterback and expect to win the game.
Yes, we forced 7 punts which weirdly should be dominant for average competition, but I'm going all the way back to my discussion with Nick Kranz on a different post about how we transferred in good defensive talent, but it seems that our defense has regressed versus when Wilcox first joined as HC. So, my comment about the defense seeming worse still stands as a reflection of maybe our coach not preparing the defense to be situationally aware and to play better in the moments that matter the most. They played quite well, but as a fan, I'm always going to selfishly want better. In this particular game; the defense wasn't to blame, but more so overall execution. Each phase of the game needs to pay attention to the other phases and have the killer instinct of making good things happen at the right time.
I don't think the two-point conversation try was the right call nor did I think it the right call in a smilier situation when we lost at home to Arizona about five years ago. In both cases we went for it and lost. In both cases if we had kicked the PAT we might have won. Going for two in those situations means you've blinked first. It smacks of desperation. If someone can show me some statistical data that supports going for two in these situations I might change my mind but I've never seen any.
There are valid justifications for either option. And we were actually desperate and I don’t think Wilcox trusted our team to be able to outscore USC in extra innings, especially with our in-game injuries. Looking back, yeah, it would have been nice to have that option, but if we had actually scored on that 2pt conversion, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We lost a gamble, and it stinks.
I don’t think I have enough data to dig deep enough into the statistics of it to help decide. The basic decision is run vs pass, and I think Rick pointed out to me earlier (correctly) that basically SC knew we were gonna throw it, due to Ifanse leaving the game. That would suggest that your analysis of not wanting to go forward with the 2pt conversion makes sense, given the defense only needs to cover receivers in a short field, and not have to worry about a power run. Based on the defensive assignments post-snap, Mendoza had no chance for a QB designed run. So, we needed some kind of trick play, which we didn’t have. At least not against SC while down our best RBs.
Yeah, I would have liked to see something less vanilla, for example misdirection; maybe a quick throw to the weak side flat to Thomas, who is super fast. He was open after executing his cursory rub block. Monday morning quarterbacking (I know it’s Sunday morning) on my part, admittedly.
We had a two-touchdown lead twice. That is pretty comfortable given the history under Wilcox. I am not going to fault any aspect of offensive efficiency for losing this game. We scored 49 points for crying out loud. If I could key in one one play where we lost the game, it is the Nohl Williams punt fumble on our 18. We had the ball back with 6 minutes leading by a touchdown. That was deflating as hell.
USC had so many drives, and whenever they had a short field, they scored.
It sounds basic but field position and opportunities to score proved pivotal. The latter is why I thought we shouldn’t have gone for two at the end of the game. In the fourth quarter, we were down to a first-year running back! (Ott was unavailable, and Ifanse left the stadium on an injury cart!) USC knew we’d throw on the two-point attempt. In overtime, we could’ve been harder to figure out, given we’d have a wider field (and a larger set of plays to choose!) to play with.
I missed the part where Ifanse left the game. That does narrow our ability to execute. Still, the overall comments I made still stand. Cal has never once this season ever really earned a win. We always luck ourselves into a win. This is not a “I hate our team” comment. This is a “I love our team” and wish they were more confident in their execution.
Hey, I make no bones about my serious, serious doubts over Wilcox, but I do probably have more confidence in the guy to figure out the defensive issues to be a passable unit, especially as we transition over to the ACC, which on paper is not as strong. That seems an easier fix in '24 than the 5-6 year offensive malaise we had.
The ceiling is, what, 7-8 wins next year, but it's a start. And despite initial misgivings over Mendoza, I really like the kid. He can absolutely win you some football games.
Our inaugural Sun Bowl bid will be as a member of the ACC!! I'm going to reserve a book of rooms in El Paso for New Year's Eve Day, 2024...who's in?
Wow. You are so positive. Our team is primarily composed of underclassmen which makes me feel like the future looks good. yesterday our team out gained SC and lost because of turnovers, NOT coaching.
KJ: You aren't kidding! Why do we abuse ourselves like this? I guess it is because we are eternal optimists at heart and hope that SOMEDAY, we can pull off some meaningful wins and not always come up short. GO BEARS FOREVER!!!!!!!
Yeah, the elephant in the room. Why go for 2? I agree with the decision, although, clearly, one could make an argument for either way. Our run game was closed down; our defense was gassed; going for two would have narrowed $C to one 40+ second drive versus- do or die. We just got successfully disrupted on the 2 point play.
Either choice we had was a roll of the dice.
During the last drive I told the people I was sitting with I'd go for 2. Like you said, the D was gassed, our 2 top RBs were out, and Vatakani was hurt. I don't think he came back.
I'd rather have had a better play, but we used our only (I assume) trick 2 pt play earlier in the game. All other other 2 point plays during the season never were close to scoring.
It was win with a smaller chance to lose - either not make the 2 or they move and make the FG. A 2 wound give $C a much smaller window for success than OT
The Sonny Dykes reference is apt. We need more NIL to recruit more players to field players for Off and Def and Special teams. Every year, we get a few injuries and the gameplans fall apart. Recruiting->Depth-> better play calling. Which comes back a dynamic, inspiring coach. Wilcox seems a good guy, but can he raise $$ and recruit? Certainly chancellor and AD head aren’t helping him…
Totally agree going for 2 against an opponent who were running through our D at the end. Also we can’t assume we’d make the extra point.
I agree. You are obviously someone who understands this pile of sxxt the portal and NIL is.
well, at least we're getting better?
That was a blast to attend, though I hate that we literally fumbled away that win.
Wilcox somehow created the perfect Sonny Dykes game.
This isn't the first time Ott has been unavailable later in a game and I don't hear an answer later. Is it concussion protocol or something?
I would have kicked the XP at the end, but it was really a 51-49 thing for me. As far as I'm concerned, the gamble was justifiable. I was also functioning on minimal sleep and had a long drive home so maybe that's why I'm not mad we skipped overtime. (I was there for that crazy Arizona game in '96.)
Ott took a helmet to helmet shot, and an official stopped the clock and escorted him to the sideline. Ott never returned
Thanks for answering. Couldn't see that in the stadium.
Sucks that we lost, but I had a great f*cking time!
I liked the aggressive playcalling throughout the game but disagreed with the 2-pt try for the very reason you mention. If there was less time and SC had 1-2 timeouts, then it seemed right.
Cal had plenty of chances to execute and put the game away.
1) Jayden Ott disappeared after the first half.
2) too many turnovers
3) Marshawn Lloyd could not be stopped when it mattered
4) the 2 point conversion at the end was the right call, but they needed a trick play and didn’t have one
5) We were penalized less, but the taunting call didn’t help.
6) Special teams was actually pretty good.
7) We lost the game on third downs. You can’t blame losing the game on a single play (the 2 pt conv). Reason being… if your team was good enough, you wouldn’t be relying on a single play to win the game. We simply could not get offense on third down enough times to maintain a comfortable lead. Mendoza makes Cal exciting, but weirdly, his offensive potential causes our defense to relax and not play as hard. When our quarterbacks were less flashy, our defense actually played harder to help keep us in games. Somehow we have to convince our defense that our quarterback sucks. Sort of a snake eating its tail scenario.
Cal made USC punt seven times. What more do you want? USC had eighteen possessions. In part this is due to the theee turnovers and the fact Cal moved the ball down the field briskly on multiple occasions with quick passes, etc., resulting ultimately in scores, which gives the opponent the ball again. The fourth quarter also reflected to a degree the accumulation of some of Cal’s key injuries. The defense pressured Williams well for most of the game. Overall I was impressed with Cal’s defense, especially given the opponent.
You have a valid point but I see it both ways. We play in a tough conference and our defense will need to rise to the level of our competition out of necessity. It is not normal to give up 9.2 yards per pass and 369 yards passing to any opposing quarterback and expect to win the game.
Yes, we forced 7 punts which weirdly should be dominant for average competition, but I'm going all the way back to my discussion with Nick Kranz on a different post about how we transferred in good defensive talent, but it seems that our defense has regressed versus when Wilcox first joined as HC. So, my comment about the defense seeming worse still stands as a reflection of maybe our coach not preparing the defense to be situationally aware and to play better in the moments that matter the most. They played quite well, but as a fan, I'm always going to selfishly want better. In this particular game; the defense wasn't to blame, but more so overall execution. Each phase of the game needs to pay attention to the other phases and have the killer instinct of making good things happen at the right time.
I don't think the two-point conversation try was the right call nor did I think it the right call in a smilier situation when we lost at home to Arizona about five years ago. In both cases we went for it and lost. In both cases if we had kicked the PAT we might have won. Going for two in those situations means you've blinked first. It smacks of desperation. If someone can show me some statistical data that supports going for two in these situations I might change my mind but I've never seen any.
There are valid justifications for either option. And we were actually desperate and I don’t think Wilcox trusted our team to be able to outscore USC in extra innings, especially with our in-game injuries. Looking back, yeah, it would have been nice to have that option, but if we had actually scored on that 2pt conversion, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We lost a gamble, and it stinks.
I don’t think I have enough data to dig deep enough into the statistics of it to help decide. The basic decision is run vs pass, and I think Rick pointed out to me earlier (correctly) that basically SC knew we were gonna throw it, due to Ifanse leaving the game. That would suggest that your analysis of not wanting to go forward with the 2pt conversion makes sense, given the defense only needs to cover receivers in a short field, and not have to worry about a power run. Based on the defensive assignments post-snap, Mendoza had no chance for a QB designed run. So, we needed some kind of trick play, which we didn’t have. At least not against SC while down our best RBs.
I also agreed with going for two. But Spavital needed a trick play, just like he did earlier in the game
Yeah, I would have liked to see something less vanilla, for example misdirection; maybe a quick throw to the weak side flat to Thomas, who is super fast. He was open after executing his cursory rub block. Monday morning quarterbacking (I know it’s Sunday morning) on my part, admittedly.
We had a two-touchdown lead twice. That is pretty comfortable given the history under Wilcox. I am not going to fault any aspect of offensive efficiency for losing this game. We scored 49 points for crying out loud. If I could key in one one play where we lost the game, it is the Nohl Williams punt fumble on our 18. We had the ball back with 6 minutes leading by a touchdown. That was deflating as hell.
It wasn't Williams, it was Hunter.
Hunter
Yeah that hurt a lot. Any one of our turnovers we could have done without, but that one seemed to be ill-timed more so.
USC had so many drives, and whenever they had a short field, they scored.
It sounds basic but field position and opportunities to score proved pivotal. The latter is why I thought we shouldn’t have gone for two at the end of the game. In the fourth quarter, we were down to a first-year running back! (Ott was unavailable, and Ifanse left the stadium on an injury cart!) USC knew we’d throw on the two-point attempt. In overtime, we could’ve been harder to figure out, given we’d have a wider field (and a larger set of plays to choose!) to play with.
I missed the part where Ifanse left the game. That does narrow our ability to execute. Still, the overall comments I made still stand. Cal has never once this season ever really earned a win. We always luck ourselves into a win. This is not a “I hate our team” comment. This is a “I love our team” and wish they were more confident in their execution.
It’s the same old bears under Wilcox. Bad teams find more ways to lose
that was quite a mugging on that final 2pt attempt
Absolutely.
But even if you convert, there’s tons of time for SC to get into FG range. At least make them HAVE to kick it.
It’s a no-brainer after you of course have to blow a timeout…with a minute left? Kick the XP. Stupid.
Thanks Rick.
Finding new ways to cough up games grows tiresome.
But we are losing for new reasons, Jimmy! That’s progress right???? (Kidding!)
Well, that's true. ;-)
Hey, I make no bones about my serious, serious doubts over Wilcox, but I do probably have more confidence in the guy to figure out the defensive issues to be a passable unit, especially as we transition over to the ACC, which on paper is not as strong. That seems an easier fix in '24 than the 5-6 year offensive malaise we had.
The ceiling is, what, 7-8 wins next year, but it's a start. And despite initial misgivings over Mendoza, I really like the kid. He can absolutely win you some football games.
Our inaugural Sun Bowl bid will be as a member of the ACC!! I'm going to reserve a book of rooms in El Paso for New Year's Eve Day, 2024...who's in?
Mendoza was a stud. Extended two or three drives with his legs. Threw some bullets into traffic. Our receivers are actually catching the ball.
Now, if we can just hang on to our young'ns and vets. The next few years are more promising and Wilcox more tolerable.
Wow. You are so positive. Our team is primarily composed of underclassmen which makes me feel like the future looks good. yesterday our team out gained SC and lost because of turnovers, NOT coaching.
Heartbreaking. Nonetheless, Go Bears, always.
Heartbreaker! Why am I a loyal Cal fan? It's very psingil
You're a loyal Cal fan because you went there.
KJ: You aren't kidding! Why do we abuse ourselves like this? I guess it is because we are eternal optimists at heart and hope that SOMEDAY, we can pull off some meaningful wins and not always come up short. GO BEARS FOREVER!!!!!!!
How about "The :Play"? I was there and it'll always be imbedded n my memory. There has been many memorable wins in my memory of Cal football .
Wish I could remember that far bsvk