Before you get too insanely down on the defense

by Jeff Nusser on Oct 26, 2009 10:37 AM PDT

It's real tempting to get super down on the defense after what happened on Saturday. But I want to point something out. These are Cal's offensive performances this year:

Date	Opponent	Result	Rush Yards	Pass Yards	Plays	Total Yards	Yards/Play
9/5/2009	Maryland	W 52-13	244	298	64	542	8.5
9/12/2009	Eastern Wash.	W 59-7	342	165	67	507	7.6
9/19/2009	@ Minnesota	W 35-21	163	252	69	415	6.0
9/26/2009	@ 10 Oregon	L 3-42	77	130	68	207	3.0
10/3/2009	4 USC	L 3-30	86	199	65	285	4.4
10/17/2009	@ UCLA	W 45-26	289	205	64	494	7.7
10/24/2009	Washington St.	W 49-17	309	250	60	559	9.3

Stats courtesy cfbstats.com

Was it bad? Absolutely. Should it have been better? No question -- 9.3 yards per play is simply inexcusable. (EDIT, 11:40 a.m.: It's really, really inexcusable when you see the lack of execution on the highlights above.) But with the exception of games against Oregon and USC (pretty clearly the two best teams in the conference), Cal has done some variation of this to everyone they've played, including that much ballyhooed UCLA defense.

This doesn't let them off the hook. But realistically, this defense is simply not to the point of hoping to keep teams from doing what they're used to doing, and having a little perspective can go a long way. The best we can hope for, really, is holding a team to an average performance. We more or less did that against Stanford, USC and Arizona State -- unfortunately, the offense wasn't where it needed to be in those contests.

Doing that again while continuing to generate turnovers (which we didn't do on Saturday) will hopefully allow an improving offense to keep us in a game at some point (made more of a challenge, of course, by the losses of Daniel Simmons and Louis Bland).

What we really need? A team with a bad offense and average defense. Problem is, that ain't happening for a few weeks -- in the next two games, we play offenses ranked No. 12 and No. 15 in total yards. Despite both Notre Dame possessing a mediocre defense and Arizona showing it can be had at times, there's just no way our offense is going to be able to keep up with that.

UCLA, though? Maybe. Washington? Maybe -- more than Husky fans want to acknowledge if this team, especially in terms of offense, keeps growing.

Be patient, folks -- that game where we're in it at or past halftime is coming.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You talking about the UCLA game right, when we will be in it at the end?

Ok. Let me get this straight, you throw out the defensive numbers and say hey, our play was pretty comparable to other teams, yet you then put up a post that says our tackling was horrendous.
I was personally at both the Stanford and ASU. ASU simply sucked offensively. Our D play had everything to do with them and little or nothing to do with us. After that game, I thought ASU was the 9th worst team in the Pac, that is how poorly they played.
Stanford we did play well defensively for the majority of the game, but I hate 1st games of the season because similar to last yr, if we would have Ok St. about mid-season they would have blown our doors off. That is why I think everyone should get 1 exhibition game, there are too many first game gitters/kinks to get out.
Now, I didn’t see the SC game, but the D obviously played better, but from SC fans who saw the game, they stated they played bad and some of our good D play was against their 2nd string.
Maybe I am more pessimistic because that is how I am oriented, but I can tell you the big dollar donors I speak with are at their wits end. I agree we have some good young talent, but so did Paul Graham. Marcus Moore put up some crazy stats, and we still got beat by everybody.
I am just not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I want to, but individual statistics mean little to me if not in the context of a competitive football game.
Any words of encouragement?

by ptowncoug3012 on Oct 26, 2009 1:13 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah, our tackling was horrendous, and I noted as much in the post.

What I was trying to get at was that this wasn’t exactly like Hawaii, where we allowed a team that had no business putting up enormous numbers to put up enormous numbers. To be sure, it was bad, but it wasn’t like Cal was incapable of putting up those kinds of stats — they’ve done it to just about every other mediocre to bad team they’ve played. I just was trying to calm people down a little bit. There were problems, but they’re correctable problems.

And OH MY GOD YOU DID NOT JUST COMPARE PAUL WULFF TO HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED. Marcus Moore was an OK player, and the rest of the team was absolutely terrible. No Pac-10 talent whatsoever, except for Thomas Kelati, who was only any good once Dick Bennett got a hold of him.

I guess I would just say what I said on another thread: Even Husky fans are starting to question whether Holt and Sark are good “game coaches.” Players can make you look great … or not so much. The light at the end of the tunnel is far away. But it’s closer than it was a year ago.

So, here are my words of encouragement: JEFF TUEL, GINO SIMONE, TRAVIS LONG, JOHNNY FORZANI, LOUIS BLAND, BERNARD WOLFGRAMM. All Paul Wulff recruits, all have outplayed upperclassmen recruited by the previous regime. There’s talent, but it’s young. Give it some time to develop.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Oct 26, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions

I will give it time because I have no decision in Sterk's decision-making,

but I don’t think PW has that kind of time. At best through the end of next year.

BTW: I loved Marcus Moore. He had talent, but was lazy and wasn’t pushed by his coach. He did make Pac-10 all-frosh team. PG actually did ok with getting some guys, however when he came to centers he completely struck out. Believe I couldn’t stand the guy, but
wasn’t J. Locklier his recruit? I really liked the guy. A great competitor. Milton Riley comes to mind. Another guy I liked.

by ptowncoug3012 on Oct 26, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions