Passionate readers of my blog may remember some promises I made over Memorial Day weekend on this blog regarding plans for the summer.  Always being one to make sure I deliver on my promises, let’s take a look:

1. Re-review of each game last season with an emphasis on what it means for this season.
2. Coverage of the “Tree Hugger Trial” (date not yet known).
3. Predictions for every Pac-10 game, including non-conference matchups in 2007.
4. Improved online stat comparison tool (expansion of last years stats I provided).
5. A Pac-10 prediction game (similar to a “pick’em” league but with more ways to compare participants).
6. Re-design of visual layout of blog with a lot more data/info.

And how did I deliver?:

1. Done… and it was pretty good if you don’t mind me saying
2. Well since the trial was push back it was kinda hard… but I did post on the few announcements we had over the summer including the Sept. 19th trial date.
3. Not done yet.  But I’ve still got 3 weeks before the seasons starts.
4. Nope.
5. Nope.
6. Nope.

But WAIT!  Could it be that I’ve been hiding all the work I’ve done on numbers 4 through 6?  Could it be there is a new website out there waiting for all of you to discover!?!

http://excusemeformyvoice.com

Yes!  It’s true.  Not only does it have my new Pick’Em league for you to sign up for, it’s got a podcast section, an in-progress stats section, a Cal archive section, a 25th Anniversary The Play T-Shirt for sale and of course a new blog.  To make it even better, I’ve teamed up with the guys from Sturdy Golden Blogs to form an awesome megablog team.  So check it out and remember that the new home of the best Cal Football blogging is:

http://excusemeformyvoice.com

(For those reading this from the “main” blog section (without the cal. prefix), the new Cal site will free this site up to be about Catholic and family/personal blogging… for those lamenting the infrequency of that content, this is good news for you as well.  Expect to see more focused blogging there in the next couple weeks.)

But for you Cal blogging fans, the new site is the place to be.  Don’t forget to update your bookmarks and blogrolls to point to the new site!

http://excusemeformyvoice.com

(Note to readers: Today we wrap-up our look back at the games in the 2006 season with the Holiday Bowl pretty much on the planned schedule of 2 a week between 6 weeks ago and today, the start of fall practice.  Did these help you last through the dry period?  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington, UCLA, Arizona, USC and the Big Game).

The storyline:
In a game with lots of question marks before it started, Cal quickly answered on the field, routing an overmatched Texas A&M team 45-10.  Texas A&M was unable to move the ball after their first possession as Cal was able to decipher Texas A&M’s complex running scheme.  Cal also re-discovered its prolific offense that had been missing late in the season.

The reality:
The key to victory in this game was Cal’s ability to dominate the line of scrimmage.  On both sides of the ball it was Cal’s line that was able to control the flow.  Interestingly it was exactly the opposite on the first set of possessions.  But once Cal settled down, the game was all Bears.  This was particularly true in the 2nd half when Cal went up 21-10 as Texas A&M was forced to resort to its passing game, failing miserably.  In the end, it was not Cal’s 45 points on offense (really 38 minus garbage TD at end) that was impressive but Cal’s defense that not only held Texas A&M to 10 points, but held them scoreless in the 2nd half (and only 3 points after the first possession).

The forgotten:
Forgotten was how Texas A&M was able to shorten the first half and keep the game close.  Cal was only up 14-10 at the half because despite having multiple ineffectual drives, they were able to chew up lots of clock time.  Also forgotten was that Texas A&M had a horrible punt, netting zero yards, in their attempt to punt away from DeSean Jackson.  The resulting touchdown on the short field put the Bears up 21-10 and sent Texas A&M to desperation strategies.

The 2006 learnings:
With the season over, there was nothing more to learn.  Looking back, having such a dominating victory was a sign of just how good the Cal team was when it was playing at its peak.  Between the stout defenses of both Arizona and USC and the difficult conditions of the Big Game, it was easy to forget just how talented the team was.

The 2007 learnings:
Other than Forsett having another great game in relief of Lynch, most of the play makers in this game were the seniors.  If anything, this game showed just how much talent the Bears will need to replace in 2007.  Desmond Bishop had a monster game and it is going to take a team effort with Follett’s leadership to anchor the team.

The Conclusion:
The 2006 season was one with so much potential that it is easy to look back and think of what might have been.  The expectations at the beginning of the season was predicated on USC having somewhat of a rebuilding year, giving Cal a one-year window to get to the Rose Bowl.  In retrospect, it turned out that USC didn’t rebuild, it just reloaded.  At the same time, Cal was very competitive with USC and could easily have beat USC with some better bounces or if the game had been in Berkeley.  With both teams returning similar percentages of talent, there is no reason to doubt that Cal has a realistic shot at winning the Pac-10 outright in 2007.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with the Big Game.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington, UCLA, Arizona and USC).

The storyline:
In a game that was predicted to be a blowout, an uninspired Cal squeaked out a 26-17 win over the normally hapless Stanford. 

The reality:
While the game was far closer than it should have been, it was not nearly as close as the final score indicated.  Cal never trailed in the game.  Whether Cal played uninspired or they were merely out of their rhythm, perhaps because of the difficult wind conditions, is difficult to say.   What can be said is that, outside of some unlikely Stanford heroics that never came, the outcome of the game was never in doubt.  Additionally, Stanford scored far more points than their play deserved.  Outside of Stanford’s first drive that resulted in a field-goal, Stanford was never able to sustain a drive.  Stanford’s first TD was sparked by a kickoff return late in the 2nd quarter that gave the Cardinal a very short field (25-yards).  Their second TD, and the last of their scoring, was off of a deep pass where an offensive pass interference call should have been thrown for pushing off.  Otherwise, Cal’s defense stifled Stanford’s offense.  On the other side, while Cal was able to sustain a number of long drives, too often they stalled resulting in field-goals (they scored 4 and Schneider shanked a 5th), keeping the score far closer than it should have been.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was the nasty wind that blew throughout, although less so in the 2nd half.  This allowed both teams to emphasize slowing the run game without too much fear of getting beat deep.  Also forgotten was that Stanford’s first drive used fully half of the first quarter and that two additional Stanford possessions, although not very successful in moving the ball down the field, did take significant time off the clock, significantly shortening the 1st half and keeping the ball out of Cal’s hands.

The 2006 learnings:
By this point in the season, there was not much to be learned about the team.  About the only learning was a question: where was Cal’s prolific offense?  Now that we know the results of the Holiday bowl, the question has faded, but at the time, after both the Arizona and USC games, many were starting to ask questions after the Big Game.

The 2007 learnings:
Schneider didn’t have many field-goal attempts in 2006 because of the prolific Cal offense.  This was one of his few games to shine, including a 55 yard field-goal.  With him coming back in 2007, the kicking game continues to look in very good shape.  At this point, it wasn’t much of a learning but Zack Follett and Syd’Quan Thompson both had a great game.

The Conclusion:
In many ways this game was reminiscent of the Arizona game in that all that could go right for Cal’s opponent did.  Despite that fact, Cal was able to not only win, but also to never leave the outcome in doubt.  After 5 consecutive victories, many Cal fans have forgotten that the Big Game always defies expectations.  There have been more Big Game upsets of unbeatable teams than one can count on their fingers and toes.  In the Big Game, a win is a win.  Style points do not matter.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with USC.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington, UCLA and Arizona).

The storyline:
A superior USC team ended Cal’s bid at their first Rose Bowl in nearly 50 years in a dominating performance.  USC’s physical defense prevented Cal from getting their offense rolling while the USC offense continued in their successful ways.

The reality:
This was a VERY close game until the 4th quarter and just about every pundit who thinks that USC won this game convincingly either didn’t see the game or has forgotten the game they watched.  The story of this game was three-fold.  One, turnovers killed a couple of sustained drives early for Cal.  Two, USC showed both patience and aggressiveness in their 4th quarter play calling.  Three, Cal got desperate when USC went ahead 16-9 in the early 4th quarter.  What was most surprising in contrast to the popular opinion of this game was just how effective both Cal’s running game and Cal’s middle depth passing game were in the first 3 quarters of the game.  Unfortunately for Cal, everything turned on them when they were unable to convert on a crucial 2nd/3rd and 1 late in the 3rd quarter that forced them to punt on a 3 and out.  The defense was clearly tired on the ensuing possession, allowing USC their first TD of the game setup by a long run play that should have been stopped far earlier.  On the ensuing Cal possession, it was clear despite the fact that Cal was only down by 7 with 13 minutes left in the game, that panic had set in.  Despite having success running the ball on their proceeding possessions, Cal threw the ball on their next 7 non-punting downs, spanning 3 possessions including 2, 3 and outs.  Showing their effectiveness in the running game, on the 8th play, Lynch ran for 9 yards.  In the end, it was the over-predictability of Cal’s offense in the 4th quarter, both by always running in obvious running situations and passing when trailing, that sunk them.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was that there was that on USC’s 1st possession of the game, Cal ran back a would-be fumble for a touchdown.  The would-be fumble was ruled an incomplete pass that was not over-turned by the replay booth despite some evidence that Dwayne Jarrett had cradled the ball for a full two steps.  While the call was marginal and could have gone either way, it would have proven to be a big boost for Cal and would have completely changed the tempo and momentum of the game.  Also forgotten was the two turnovers by Cal in USC territory on back-to-back possession in the 1st quarter.  These put the brakes on a Cal offense that was moving the ball.  Considering that the USC defense always gets better as the game wears on, these lost early opportunities were similarly crucial.  Finally, although Bear fans will remember this, pundits seem to have forgotten that the Bears led at halftime 9-6 and the game was tied going into the 4th quarter.  Even with all of Cal’s mistakes, the game hinged on a very precise TD pass by Booty and a gutsy 4th and 2 call by USC that went for a TD, both in the 4th quarter.  Otherwise the game was very evenly played.

The 2006 learnings:
This was the first game that Offensive Coordinator Dunbar was put on the hot-seat.  To some degree, the criticism was built up from the shaky Washington game and the Arizona loss and therefore the criticism reflected the frustrations from that game.  In many ways that criticism was misplaced in this game.  Cal was able to effectively run the ball, something lost in the criticism of the hybrid spread.  If anything, it was Cal’s reliance on the run that was problematic.  The lone touchdown was the result of a drive that emphasized getting the ball to the WR’s in the middle passing game.  (As a side note, it seemed the USC safeties played soft and the corners played tight, an unusual combination that made both short and long passes troubling, but opened a number of 15-20 yard passing opportunities.)  The point at which criticism of the game plan was valid was not until the 4th quarter when the Bears trailed, when it did seem that Dunbar’s play-calling relied too heavily on passing the ball.  The learning for this game would be that Cal is vulnerable to panic based play-calling when trailing.

The 2007 learnings:
This was yet another game when Syd’Quan Thompson shined.  In many ways, although Hughes showed a great ability to sniff out interception opportunities, he also was prone to taking unnecessary risks.  It should be noted that the corner who got burned on the 4th and 2 TD play was Hughes, not Thompson.  Watching the play carefully, Hughes was clearly following his instinct to stop a run play and didn’t properly cover his receiver until it was too late to not get caught in traffic by a crossing receiver and covering linebacker.  Syd, on the other hand, had a solid game all the way around.  While he’s not the interception magnet that Hughes is, he is a solid corner.  On the other side, this is a game that should make Forsett fans nervous.  Lynch did a great job making 5-8 yard gains dragging defenders with him.  Had we had the more nimble, yet more easily tackled Forsett in his place, the run game may have been far worse.  Additionally, this game should be the prototype in 2007 for teams looking to punt away from DeSean.  USC was able to both contain DeSean with directional punting and also keep a fairly good punting average.  Finally, looking forward to the USC game in Berkeley this fall, there is no reason to doubt that Cal can win this game, particularly late in the season when the defensive replacements for Hughes, Bishop and Mebane will all have the majority of a season under their belt.

The Conclusion:
In many ways, the 4th quarter of this game was a mini-replay of the Tennessee game.  Cal’s opponent was able to score and the wheels fell off of Cal’s bus for a while.  By the time they had regained their composure, the game was sewn up.  In the end this game should be viewed as both an example of how good the 2006 Bears were (USC was the consensus number 2 team in the country after all) and as a missed opportunity to get to the Rose Bowl.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with Arizona.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington and UCLA).

The storyline:
8th ranked Cal went to a rising in respect Arizona flat-footed, looking forward to their matchup with USC the following week, and was caught off guard in a 20-24 upset.  The Arizona defense was the story of the day, holding the Cal offense to 20 points, their lowest score since the opening week loss to Tennessee.

The reality:
The only contradiction to the storyline is that Cal overlooked Arizona.  Cal was ready for this game.  The only player who really looked off the mark was Longshore, but he looked similarly weak in the Washington game.  Arizona’s defense deserves a lot of credit for their aggressive play, particularly the goal-line stand in the 4th quarter with Cal trailing by 7.  Although Cal should have scored, Arizona played incredibly well.  The key to this game was that everything that could go wrong for Cal did.  The clock worked against them.  The bounces went against them.  The referees definitely worked against them.  While we’re on the subject, I hate blaming games on the referees and I want to make it clear that Cal could and should have won the game despite the calls, but the referees in this game were atrocious.  Here’s the list I saw:

• Bad block in the back penalty on Marshawn Lynch TD run cost Cal 4 points (TD turned to FG).
• Pass after crossing line of scrimmage was obviously not the case and had to be reviewed to be overturned.
• Didn’t call block in back on Cal player on punt (helped Cal, but not much)
• Out of bounds on AZ WR not called.  Had to be reviewed and review didn’t catch where he stepped out at 19 yard line.  Cost Cal another 4 points.
• Marginal holding penalty cost Cal an interception.
• Bogus pass interference call on Hughes cost Cal another interception on same drive.  Cost Cal another 4 points.
• Missed out of bounds on DeSean that review had to overturn (correctly) Cal TD.

Cal still should have won this game but the officiating cost Cal 12 points and was bad even when it was in Cal’s favor.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was that Cal was up 17-3 at halftime.  This is particularly forgotten by those who say Cal overlooked Arizona.  Additionally forgotten in this game was how well Larson and Schneider kicked.  Just about every kick off was out of the endzone and Schneider nailed both his field-goals, one 46 yarder and one highly angled 20 yarder.  Also forgotten was just how poorly Longshore played.  He overthrew Jackson on a easy TD.  The interception that put Arizona up by 7 was probably Longshore’s worst decision of the year throwing into triple coverage on an out play where the corner had an easy read on the out.  In fact, that was one of many poor throwing decisions he made.  In addition there were many poorly thrown balls, one of which led to a second interception.  That said, the final interception was just bad luck on a lucky tip at the line.  The final forgotten item, at least to some, was that DeSean Jackson was sick.  It’s amazing he played as well as he did but he didn’t return punts for all of the 1st half minus the first one that he ran back for a TD.

The 2006 learnings:
Arizona was the first team to successfully slow Cal’s offense with an aggressive defense.  Washington State, Washington and to a lesser degree UCLA all slowed Cal by playing soft on Cal’s receivers.  While it was somewhat successful, it didn’t give many opportunities for interceptions or stopping Cal in the redzone.  Arizona used its hard-hitting yet fast defense to both slow Cal and force mistakes that would result in Arizona points, something none of the previous opponents had managed.  This was definitely important since interception resulted in 10 of Arizona’s 24 points and the goal-line stand stopped Cal from tying the game.  They would not have won the game without their aggressive play.  Although most focused on Cal’s offensive mistakes and miscues, the successful strategy was definitely a bad omen for the upcoming USC game.  At the same time, the Cal defense also stepped up big in this game.  Had Arizona had any offensive rhythm, Arizona could have blown out Cal starting in the first half but the Cal defense stepped up every time it was asked to.  After a weak performance against UCLA, there was reason to hope that they were back on their game heading into USC.

The 2007 learnings:
SydQuan Thompson had another incredible game.  It was Hughes who struggled.  Syd tackled well and covered well.  He’s going to be great in ’07.  As for Arizona, so much went wrong for Cal in this game that there is no reason to believe they’ll be able to repeat the performance in ’07 back in Berkeley particularly considering that despite the fact that Arizona has most of their starters back in ’07, the key contributors to the upset have graduated.

The Conclusion:
This game is EXTREMELY painful to watch.  The refereeing.  The trip by Hawkins.  The foot barely on the line for DeSean.  The foot clearly on the line for Arizona… but not called.  The poor play by Longshore.  The inability to score with a 1st and goal from the 1 yard-line.  The fake punt that should have easily been sniffed out by Cal.  The tipped ball the ended Cal’s final drive and comeback attempt.  All of it was just a disaster of the worst order.  Amongst all of that it’s easy to overlook the quality of the Arizona’s defensive play, which was the reason that all of those painful plays mattered.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with UCLA.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State and Washington).

The storyline:
A reeling UCLA came to Berkeley as a huge underdog to the rolling Cal Bears.  Cal easily handled UCLA in a 38-24 walkover.

The reality:
This game seemed to be the inverse of the Tennessee game in that while the game was a lot closer than the score, it was because neither defense was able to step up.  Like the Tennessee game, outside of a short stretch in the 3rd quarter, the game was more evenly matched than most remember.  In losing UCLA was able to put up 516 yards.  They were able to drive within the Cal 30 on all 4 of their first half possessions.  The primary factor in Cal’s dominating score was their ability to convert drives into points.  Ignoring UCLA’s final TD that came when the outcome was no longer in doubt, UCLA managed only 10 points the 6 times they reached the Cal 30.  While it seemed that the Cal defense did stiffen towards the end of these drives, UCLA also missed a number of opportunities including 2 hooked field-goals and two ill-advised passes that resulted in interceptions while on Cal’s side of the field.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was just how bad Cal’s pass coverage was.  Cowan, a fairly inexperienced QB, was able to pick apart the Cal defense even though the defensive line was able to get reasonable pressure.  Also forgotten was the high number of penalties, particularly on UCLA in the first half.

The 2006 learnings:
By this point in the season, much was known about Cal and not a lot was learned in this game.  DeSean Jackson was still an incredible punt returner.  Cal still had great offensive balance and a deep passing threat if defenses didn’t play soft.  Not to jump ahead, but it seemed with this game that the Cal passing attach was back in stride after two mediocre weeks.  Alas it was soon to be discovered that Cal’s worst offensive woes were still in front of them.

The 2007 learnings:
It SHOULD be a learning from this game that UCLA is no team to take lightly.  This was not the blowout that everyone remembered.  While I’ve heard many a UCLA fan over-emphasize how close this game was, there is no doubt that a more polished UCLA with the benefit of playing at home in the Rose Bowl could prove dangerous to Cal, particularly if the team remembers this game as an easy blowout.  For particular player learnings, this was another game where Forsett shined in his time on the field.  He had a number of good plays.  Also, SydQuan Thompson had a great game, arguably better than Hughes who despite getting an interception and two critical knock-downs was burned a few times as well.  Syd’s side of the field was surprisingly quiet on the reception front.

The Conclusion:
I was genuinely surprised how evenly matched this game was.  UCLA definitely could have made this a close game with a little better execution particularly with Cal’s defensive struggles.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with Washington.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon and Washington State).

The storyline:
A seemingly unbeatable Cal faced a down and out Washington that lost their star QB in the preceding week.  Cal stumbled in the first half, trailing 10-3 at halftime but manages to take a 24-17 lead on the back of Marshawn Lynch’s dominating 2nd half performance right up to the end of the game where a Hail Mary pass for Washington sends the game into overtime.  In overtime Cal quickly scores on their 2nd play with another awesome run by Lynch and then picks off Washington in their OT possession to end the game.

The reality:
There were more momentum changes in this game that just about any I’ve ever seen.  In the first half it looked as though Cal had managed to weather the storm of a very weak performance by both Longshore and the offensive line when Washington was able to go up 10-0 on a busted defensive play where Syd’Quan Thompson was expecting safety help on his receiver.  To start off the 2nd half, Cal quickly got the ball back and drove the length of the field to tie the game and then go up 13-10 on the subsequent drive.  But then a redzone stand for UW on the next drive completely turned the momentum back in the Husky’s favor and they used that momentum to drive the field and take the lead back.  It then took two drives for Cal to put up a field-goal and a TD with a two-point conversion to take a 7 point lead 24-17.  It seemed as though the game was over as the Cal defense held well on the final drive attempt for the Huskies when their final Hail Mary pass was successful.  It was only when everything went the Bears way in overtime that Bear’s fans could finally celebrate.

The forgotten:
Perhaps forgotten by some was that there were 5 interceptions in this game that had a huge impact in keeping the Bears in the game.  Also forgotten was the Washington QB did a lot of the work for the team with his legs.  After Stanback was injured, the Cal game-plan was no longer focused on containing a mobile QB, but Bonnel made the Bears pay for the change in plans.  Another forgotten sequence was the 3 failed attempts to get 1 yard at the UW 13 yard line.  Starting with 2nd down, the Bears ran inside and were stuffed including a 4th and 1 that didn’t stand a chance.

The 2006 learnings:
This was the 2nd game in a row where Cal didn’t have its offensive mojo.  Washington definitely learned from Washington State’s discovery regarding Longshore’s difficult with defenses dropping 8 men into coverage.  Unlike the WSU game, Cal was able, particularly in the 2nd half, to run the ball effectively in those situations.  However, on downs where running wasn’t an option, particularly 3rd and long, it was an effective strategy and it had a lot to do with Cal’s poor 3rd down conversion rate in the game.  Also learned in this game was that Lynch was still his incredible self when injured.  Towards the end of the game he had enough tape on his legs to look like the Michelin man but he still was able to win the game for the Bears.

The 2007 learnings:
Zack Follett had an incredible game including a 2 play sequence where he sequentially dropped UW running back Rankin for a 5 yard loss and then intercepted a pass thrown to the sideline.  He had a number of other impact plays that should make Cal fans excited about him playing as a starter in 2007.  In another hopeful play, Forsett ran a draw play up the middle for the 2-point conversion to go up by 7.  Despite getting tackled at the 2 yard line, he was able to drag the defender into the end zone.  Forsett shows some potential to play some power football.  Finally, the offensive line play in this game was atrocious.  If Cal is going to be successful in 2007, the offensive line will have to play better than they did in this game.

The Conclusion:
I waver on whether I consider this victory a pathetic instance of the Huskies pulling defeat from the jaws of victory or whether it showed Cal’s heart in the tough games.  In the end, one can’t question Lynch’s determination and it shows hope that Cal knows how to get down and dirty when the chips are down.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with Washington State.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State and Oregon.  Also note that because this game was not televised and that I couldn’t find a feed to review the radio broadcast, this review is based entirely on a textual play-by-play review.)

The storyline:
Cal headed to Pullman, WA to face a Washington St. team they hadn’t beaten on the road since 1979.  Cal was able to overcome history and avoid being tripped up in a low scoring 21-3 victory, Cal’s first score lower than 40 points since their opening game at Tennessee.  The low score was to be expected in a game against a stout defense on the road where Cal traditionally didn’t play well.

The reality:
The ‘jinx’ of WSU’s winning streak was highly overstated particularly considering that a Tedford coached Cal team had never played WSU on the road.  Tedford’s record was 1-1 including a 2005 victory (the loss was in Tedford’s first year against a much stronger WSU team).  Cal’s offense started off the game well sans a first drive interception, scoring touchdowns on 3 of their next 4 first half possessions.  There only other 1st half drive was a 3 and out shortly before the end of the half where it appears Cal was trying to run out the clock and get into the locker room.  However, the failed drive in the middle of the half was a sign of things to come in the 2nd half.  WSU was able to drop 8 men into coverage and forced Longshore into throwing a number of ill-advised passes.  While the Cal running game remained somewhat effective, without balance, Cal was unable to score in the 2nd half.  Luckily for Cal, the defense had arguably it’s best performance of the season.  They were able to 4 times stop WSU on 4th down and only allowed 3 points in 4 drives inside the Cal 30 including a remarkable goal-line stand with a first and goal from the 5 that kept WSU scoreless.  One almost doesn’t even need to mention that WSU was 0 for 11 on 3rd down conversions.  Nevertheless, that goal-line stand late in the 3rd quarter was the pivotal moment in keeping WSU’s hopes low as the Cal offense faltered.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was the 2 interceptions that Longshore threw as well as the 4 fumbles (only one was lost).  Two of the three turnovers were inside the WSU 30 after sustained drives and were significant contributors to Cal’s inability to run up the score as in previous weeks.

The 2006 learnings:
WSU was the first team to stop the potent Cal deep passing threat and showed that Longshore had difficulty picking apart the coverage when WSU dropped 8 men into coverage.  What was additionally surprising is that WSU was able to drop 8 into coverage without giving up huge rushing gains.  In effect, the WSU game film became the prototype that all future Pac-10 defenses used to slow Cal down.  Cal never scored in the 40’s again in Pac-10 play and only twice in the 30’s.

The 2007 learnings:
The learings for 2007 are similar to 2006, albeit in reverse.  Tedford and Longshore will have to find a way to punish defenses that take a soft coverage approach to slowing Cal.  Without it, Cal fans may be surprised just how long of a season it could be.

The Conclusion:
Cal’s earlier 2006 opponents had been preparing defenses determined not to be beat by Marshawn Lynch.  By the time that WSU had their shot at Cal, the gig was up on what Cal’s most dangerous threat was the deep passing game.  WSU showed that if the passing game could be contained, Cal’s running game, although still potent, was much more manageable.  A few good bounces might prove all the difference needed for an upset.  For WSU those bounces never came,  but they were not the last who hoped to put their fate in the ball’s odd shaped hands.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with Oregon.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State and Oregon State.)

The storyline:
Undefeated and 11th ranked Oregon came into Berkeley in what would be the first real test for a quickly rising in the polls 16th ranked Cal team.  Cal took control from the opening kickoff beating Oregon in all 3 phases of the game, with the offense leading the way, to win by a lopsided 45-24 in a game that was effectively over by halftime.

The reality:
Cal really did dominate this game from beginning to end.  In many ways it was really the defense that led the way.  In the first half Cal started drives in Oregon territory 3 times, giving the offense an easy scoring opportunity.  Add to that the multiple 3 and outs that the Cal defense forced on the Ducks and there is a stronger case for the defense being the story of the day instead of the offense.  Perhaps not stated in the storyline was the mistakes that Oregon made.  From the 4 turnovers, the first an interception on the first play from scrimmage to the frequently dropped passes, Oregon shot their selves in the foot numerous times.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was that Forsett, who took over for Lynch after he was injured in the 2nd quarter, ran for 163 yards and 1 TD in what was really his only game where he took the lead RB spot.  Also forgotten is that the offense put the game out of the reach of a miracle Oregon comeback, something the Ducks are known for, with three grind it out drives that spanned the mid-3rd quarter to the end of the  game.  The first two went for touchdowns and the third likely would have had the clock not expired.  Finally for the forgotten list, Cal went for it on 3 different times on 4th and 1, making it all three times.

The 2006 learnings:
Traditionally Cal had struggled on defense against spread teams.  This was the first game where the defense figured it out and it was a very hopeful sign that Cal would be successful against the upcoming spread or spread-like opponents.  Also re-enforced was just how good Cal’s deep passing threat was.  Since this was the last of the 5 consecutive 40+ point games for Cal, one gets the feeling that defensive coordinators finally got the message after this game to protect against the speed for Jackson, Jordon and Hawkins.

The 2007 learnings:
The big learning for 2007 is that it looks hopeful that Forsett has both the durability and strength to be Cal’s primary running back.  He seems, more so than Lynch, to wear down defenses.  Clearly he doesn’t do it with size and a bruising running style but perhaps his speed wears on the defense because there is no question that when he has gotten extended running opportunities, he gets better as the game wears on.  As for Oregon specifically, they’ve replaced their offensive coordinator in 2007 so it is hard to judge if Cal’s defense will have Oregon figured out come the October match up in Eugene.  I can say this with confidence: If Oregon brings the same offensive strategy in ’06, they’ll lose in ’07.  Even with the miscues and mistakes, the Bears were very effective at containing the spread passing game while shutting down the running game both of the running back and of Dixon.  On the other side of the coin, the number of mistakes for Oregon in ’06 suggests that they’re capable of giving Cal a much better game in ’07.

The Conclusion:
What impressed me about this game when watching it was just how early in the game Oregon looked frustrated and overwhelmed.  They were not ready for the speed of Cal nor the hard-hitting defense, nor the crowd noise.  They got demoralized early.  This game was a turning point for the Oregon team.  Coming into the game they were undefeated.  After the game they went 3-5.  Did Cal just expose them for the team they were or was this defeat so demoralizing they couldn’t recover?  It’s hard to know for sure, but what is clear is that Cal took it to Oregon and left no doubt not only who was the better team but that Cal was in a different class in ’06.

I don’t know if it was because the Desean Jackson Heisman website went online recently (see www.the1towatch.com) or because ESPN released their pre-season article on the Bears (see here) but just about every Cal blog I read had an update yesterday.

Unfortunately, small news aside, I just gave you all the news I found elsewhere.