This is my first non-Cal Bears post in a while.  I’ve been in a rut blogging wise since most of my blog readers are Bear fans.  I’ve got some plans in place to change how things are organized and better split out the two sets of blogging.

But yesterday there was an article in the Chronicle about a man who forgot to take his 11 month old son to daycare and left him in the car while he worked.  He wasn’t discovered until 7 hours later when he was dead.

Obviously this is a tragic situation.  Many have asked how it is possible to forget a child in the car.  In many ways I can understand both sides of that.  On the one hand, I can’t imagine doing it.  On the other hand, I know how life can be and how it is easy to get in auto-pilot.  Along those lines there was an interesting comment in one of the articles about the incident:

But the number of deaths began a steady climb in the mid-1990s as campaigns began encouraging parents to put car seats in the backseat because of airbag-related child deaths — which since have been nearly eliminated.

It always amazes me how often we as a society forget how tightly inter-related things can be.  We move all kids into the back seat for safety reasons, and then more kids die because they’re forgotten in the back seat.  In this case it is safe to assume that more kids were dying from airbag injuries so it was probably still the right decision to put kids in the back seat.  That said, it amazes me how often we forget that new laws have unintended consequences.

The other thing I wanted to note was the large number of individuals who assert some eugenic solution to bad parenting, either in general or in this particular case.  It’s amazing just how prevalent the “people need to take a test to be a parent” ideology comes out.  Occasionally those comments are people exagerating, but I’ve found more and more, as can be seen by the very specific implementation ideas they put forth, the proponent is all too serious.  When one adds in those who think this father’s punishment should be sterilization… it just sickens me how many people have not learned from our past about the dangers of Eugunics.

(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.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with Oregon State.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State and Arizona State.  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:
In a game between a shaky 2-1 Oregon St., who’s only test and loss came in a 14-42 beat down courtesy of Boise St., and a re-energized and confident Cal squad, the highly favored Cal team dismantled Oregon St. in a 41-13 victory.  The game was further proof that the Cal squad was on their way to great things, although those conclusions were tempered by what appeared to be a weak Oregon State team.

The reality:
While at the time it didn’t seem that this game was very meaningful, in retrospect this was a very impressive win for Cal.  Oregon State went on to win 8 of their last 10 games including beating USC, placing 3rd in the Pac-10 behind Cal and USC and winning the Sun Bowl.  Considering that the Oregon State defense led the way for the remainder of the season, Cal’s ability to score on all 5 of their first half possessions, all from sustained drives starting in Cal territory, and 50% of their 2nd half possessions showed just how potent Cal’s offense was.  Only Boise St., who ended up 13-0 including beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl, was able to score more points (42) on Oregon State in 2006.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was that after Cal drove the length of the field on their opening possession to score their first touchdown, Oregon State responded with their own drive that, luckily for Cal, ended with a fumble on the Cal 5 yard line.  That was a huge psychological blow for the Beavers and may have made all the difference in Cal’s domination throughout the game, particularly considering the team that Oregon State proved to be. 

The 2006 learnings:
By the time this game was in the books, it was finally clear just how potent Cal’s deep passing threat was.  Through most of the early season, defenses had been focusing on containing the running game of Lynch and the short passing game which was expected from a hybrid west-coast/spread offense.  This game proved that it was no fluke.

The 2007 learnings:
It’s harder to derive conclusions for 2007 from this game because it was not televised and much of what one could garner from talent evaluation is not so easy over other media.  Perhaps one learning for the Athletic Office was just how much the Cal faithful were coming to expect Cal games to be televised.  This would be the last game for which dedicated fans in northern California didn’t have a televised option (albeit for WSU the only option was to go to Memorial Stadium to watch on the JumboTron).  Returning to the game, this game is the prototype for how Cal can stretch the field in 2007 and I’m sure Tedford and staff have analyzed this game over and over to see how they can continue to take advantage of the deep passing threat.  Finally, with Oregon State returning most of their team sans their QB, there is both reason to be hopeful that Cal can handle OSU in 2007 (based on 2006’s result) and that this is a team to worry about (based on OSU’s later performance).

The Conclusion:
What struck me about this game was how every concern the coaching staff had mentioned in previous games was addressed.  Scoring in the 2nd half: done.  Controlling the game with the running game: check.  Keeping the running game of OSU in check: with authority.  Win on the road: double check.  In every aspect of the game Cal dominated and considering the team OSU proved to be and that this was Cal’s first trip back onto the road after Tennessee, this makes OSU the most impressive win of the 2006 season as far as I’m concerned.

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

The storyline:
In a game where it is anyone’s guess just how the two teams will match up, Cal having been blown out by Tennessee but rebounding strongly and ASU having demolished 3 weak teams and remaining unproven, Cal was able to work it’s offensive mojo again.  The Bears were able to score at will in the first half and took a unassailable 42-14 halftime lead.  They were able to continue to slow the ASU team in the second half for a 49-21 smackdown.

The reality:
In reality this game was less about the offensive power of Cal than it was about the defensive turnovers and special teams play.  21 of the 49 points, including the only Cal points in the 2nd half, came directly from defense and special teams play.  In addition, two of the offensive TD’s were setup by turnovers giving the Bears a short field to work with.  Although in both cases the offense was able to strike quickly, it was the defense who setup the scores.  In reality, Cal was only able to drive the length of the field twice.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was the difficulty Cal had stopping the running game of ASU.  ASU rushed for 228 yards, 185 of that from their bruising tailback Ryan Torian.  ASU was able to march down the field on their first possesion and score a touchdown mostly because of their running game.  Because Cal was able to score so frequently in the 1st half, it kept the power running game of ASU out of the equation as ASU tried to play catch up.  The game may have been very different if ASU had kept the score close.  The other forgotten factor in this game was the slow start for Cal.  ASU was able to march down the field for a TD on their first possession and Cal responded with a 3-and-out.  After that, both the Cal defense and offense were able to get back in gear and the blowout ensued.

The 2006 learnings:
This was the 4rd consecutive game with a slow start for the offense and the concern had in some ways grown into a panic.  What will this do to the team next time they face a tough opponent?  Other learnings from this game was that DeSean Jackson was going to be a heck of a punt returner.  His return for a TD was a thing of beauty, finding a surprisingly small seam and using his speed and agillity to quickly navigate it en route to blowing by the last couple defenders.  Also, this was the coming out party for Damien Hughes amazing senior season.  His 2 interceptions, including one for a TD on a spectacular runback that including incidently stepping on the ASU quarterback on his way to the endzone, as well as numerous knock downs and overall strong play, re-enforced that Hughes side of the field was going to be well defended.

The 2007 learnings:
ASU was a soft team for the last few years with Koetter as head coach.  If he was still coach, I think we could say with confidence that the 2006 game would be a good indicator of success in the desert in 2007.  But with Erickson leading the charge in 2007, I don’t think we can make that conclusion.  On the contrary, I expect them to be strong in 2007.  Most worrisome about ASU is whether they can repeat their strong running performance against Cal.  With Torain back as well as most of their offensive line combined with the need for replacements on Cal’s defense, it’s definitely something to be worried about.  If ASU can avoid turnovers and mistakes, while keeping their effective run game, this will be a tough game for Cal in 2007.  The upside of course is that Cal was able to have their way with ASU offensively when it mattered in 2006 and there’s nothing to suggest 2007 will be any different.  Perhaps the key to the game will be similar to 2006: Can Cal build enough of a lead early to take ASU’s running game out of the mix?

The Conclusion:
This was a game that I expected to be a blowout and so I was not and am still not that impressed with the Cal victory.  Many saw it as the moment it was clear Cal was going to be a formidable opponent to USC.  For me, that game was still a couple weeks away particularly as ASU faultered through Oregon and the rest of their lackluster season.

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

The storyline:
Cal avoids any trip-up from Portland State, a I-AA team, albeit it a highly esteemed one, but a I-AA team nonetheless, by taking care of business in an easy and expected blowout, 42-16.

The reality:
The reality was not much different than the storyline.  It was a blowout and Cal didn’t struggle much.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was the turnovers and penalties.  Cal turned the ball over 3 times including an interception on the first possession of the game.  Cal also had 9 penalties for 103 yards.  Luckily for Cal, their talent so outclassed Portland State that they were easily able to overcome those mistakes.  Some may also remember Tedford being critical of the fact that Cal didn’t score in the 2nd half.  While that was true, there were 2nd and 3rd string players at every position at one point or another in the 2nd half and this definitely affected the play of the Bears.

The 2006 learnings:
This was the 3rd consecutive game with a slow start for the offense.  It was definitely a concern after this game that the offense was taking its time to find its rhythm.  Also re-enforced in this game was Longshore’s firm grip on the starting position.  Both Ayoob and Levy got significant playing time in the 2nd half and neither had near the effectiveness of Longshore.  Finally, with so many backup offensive line and defensive players getting time, and those units mostly not missing a beat, it showed just how much depth Cal had in 2006.

The 2007 learnings:
It’s hard to apply too much from this game to 2007.  One point, and a minor one since team emotions are such a dynamic thing, is that it was clear that Cal came to play even though the game was against a I-AA team.  That suggests that Cal will come to play for their lesser non-conference games against Louisiana Tech and Colorado State in 2007.  Also, A number of the backups that got significant playing time in this game will be the players who replace those lost to graduation and the NFL.  The fact that they mostly did a good job, gives Cal fans reason to be hopeful.

The Conclusion:
Not much can be taken from this game because it was a I-AA team.  It didn’t really validate that Cal was back on track for 2006 because the opposition was so weak.  For 2007, particularly with no I-AA teams on the schedule, not much can be garnered besides talent evaluation of backup players.