Dec 24th, 2009
Cal’s puzzling season appropriately concluded with a perplexing performance in the Poinsettia Bowl that paralleled its strange season. The 37-27 loss to Utah on Wednesday leaves the Bears’ future and the Pac-10 in an unsettled situation.
The Pac-10 is 0-2 in bowl games, losing decisively to Mountain West teams in games in which the Pac-10 team was favored. Five more bowls featuring Pac-10 teams remain, so it’s too soon to draw conclusions about the conference yet. But the chest-pounding that accompanied last year’s 5-0 bowl record has stopped, and if USC loses to Boston College in Saturday’s Emerald Bowl at AT&T Park, Pac-10 defenders will be in full retreat.
That’s of no concern to Cal, which finished its season 8-5 and defied expectations nearly every week. The Bears looked like a top-10 team in their first three games to reach No. 6 in the rankings, then were terrible in the next two games while losing to Oregon and USC by a combined score of 72-6, suggesting the Bears would slide into oblivion. But they made a remarkable turnaround, and won five of their next six games, finishing with wins over two ranked teams, Arizona and Stanford, the latter being the Bears’ best game of the season. Cal followed that peak performance against the Cardinal by collapsing to losses in their final two games and not playing well in either.
The Poinsettia bowl followed the pattern of the season. The Bears started off strong, gaining a 14-0 lead, then collapsed before showing signs of life in the third quarter, then falling apart again.
And the peaks and valleys were just part of the enigma. Perhaps no team in the history of college football had such a stark contrast between its offensive performances in victories and its offensive production in losses.
In its eight wins, Cal averaged 41.4 points; in its five losses it averaged 9.4 points. And the production in losses is actually scewed higher than it should be, because one Cal touchdown in a defeat came on an interception return and two others touchdowns came in the final two minutes when the games were out of reach. So in those five losses, the Bears offense produced just four meaningful touchdown drives. They had four critical touchdown drives of 72 yards or more against Stanford alone.
It would make sense if the losses came against the top defensive teams, but USC, Oregon State and Washington rank fifth, sixth and eighth in the conference in total defense, while Arizona State and Arizona, two teams Cal beat, rank first and second.
Home? Road? No pattern. Two of the losses came at home, two on the road and one on a neutral field.
The one constant was quarterback Kevin Riley. Or rather he is the one non-constant. What we are trying to say is that the Bears’ offensive production corresponded directly to Riley’s performances. This is not to say Riley was bad, because he had some very good games, but he also struggled, and when he struggled, Cal lost.
Check out this comparison:
Riley’s numbers in Cal’s eight wins: 61.7 completion percentage, 237.4 yards, 15 TDs, 4 interceptions, 13 sacks (1.6 per game).
Riley’s numbers in Cal’s five losses: 46.2 completion percentage, 190.2 yards, 3 TDs, 4 interceptions, 18 sacks (3.6 per game).
As much as coaches like to say quarterbacks don’t win or lose games, in the Pac-10, quarterbacks win or lose games. If the quarterback plays poorly, your team loses. It’s as simple as that.
As good as Toby Gerhart was this season, the difference between Stanford’s 5-7 season in 2008 and its 8-4 2009 season was the addition of Andrew Luck at quarterback. When he struggled, as he did in the first half against Oregon State and the entire game against Cal, Stanford lost.
When Oregon quarterback Jeremiah Masoli had trouble against Boise State (14-for-27, 121 yards), Oregon’s offense was feeble. When he got it going, the Ducks were close to unstoppable.
Much of USC’s unexpected decline this season resulted from shortcomings at quarterback.
It is assumed Riley will remain Cal’s starting quarterback next season, but Jeff Tedford may take a hard look at Beau Sweeney during the spring, and if he shows marked improvement, he could get a shot.
Although Jahvid Best probably will turn pro, Shane Vereen, who averaged 141.5 rushing yards per game in his four starts and finished just 48 yards shy of a 1,000-yard season, will give the Bears a reliable running back whether Best returns or not. And the offensive line returns most of its key components, so the Bears’ offense in 2010 will again depend on the play of its quarterback.
Defensively, the Bears will return a lot of starters, but will lose two of its three defensive stars – cornerback Syd’Quan Thompson and defensive end Tyson Alualu – with linebacker Mike Mohamed back in 2010. It’s hard to imagine that a Cal defense that struggled so much against the pass will get better without its best coverage man and best pass-rusher.
4 Comments
TrackBacks / PingBacks
-
[...] http://www.jakestakeonsports.com/index.php/featured/cal-football-2009-aka-the-enigma/Cal’s puzzling season appropriately concluded with a perplexing performance in the Poinsettia Bowl that paralleled its strange season. The 37-27. [...]
-
[...] http://www.jakestakeonsports.com/index.php/featured/cal-football-2009-aka-the-enigma/Cal’s puzzling season appropriately concluded with a perplexing performance in the Poinsettia Bowl that paralleled its strange season. The 37-27. [...]
-
[...] posted here: Cal football 2009 aka the Enigma | Jake's Take On Sports addthis_url = [...]
His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace – Isaiah 9:6