The Novel: Big Game 2018

The coroner’s report just got in, and it looks somewhat familiar. Almost a pattern.

Different culprit, sure — this time, a missed field goal instead of a Ross Bowers interception that allowed Stanford to ice the game — but it was the same time of death, and the same victim: Cal’s Big Game hopes were once again murdered at 7:25 in the 4th quarter.

In fact, squint hard enough, and you got a glimpse at a sequel nobody wanted, the reboot which released in 2017 — a feisty Cal team plays well enough to earn a handful of opportunities that they cannot quite convert, but finds itself in a one possession game late anyway.

Then, a critical mistake, a final Cardinal drive where the Bears can do nothing but watch helplessly, until the time ticks out and the Axe remains unliberated, captive and kept just a tantalizing 40 miles away for another year.

_______

Losing the Big Game in the way the team did is immensely frustrating, and particularly so for any long distance visitors on Saturday…but not having the Axe shouldn’t make this an unsuccessful season by any stretch.

For one, they beat USC, a thorn that hadn’t been removed from their side for 14 years.

For two, they earned a bowl berth to get those much needed off-season practices — how useful they’ll be on offense isn’t clear, but as preparation for the next generation of Cal defenders, they should prove invaluable, regardless of that result.

I get that not beating our biggest rival is upsetting. That they get to extend their record-setting dominance over the Axe, while boasting a fanbase not giving one iota of a shit about football, is doubly upsetting.

But keeping the longer view in line, we shouldn’t forget that Vegas had this team pegged as unlikely for postseason play at all, and this group -- scrappy and as outmanned as they’ve been the last two years -- still gets one more game together. That’s pretty great.

_______

It’s not so much losing the Axe that’s bothersome, as much as what lies ahead. Stop reading now if you hate Analyst Nam.

Did you stop reading yet?

Okay, well, don’t say I warned you.

At the moment, it’s hard to see this team doing that much better than 7 wins next year, although they probably position well for the 2020 Bears.

Consider:

- UW, Stanford, Oregon, UCLA games are all on the road. Do you have them going better than 1-3 here, as we did in 2018?

- Although we’ve traditionally performed pretty well against Air Raid to date, Ole Miss could be droppable on the road as well, and North Texas is actually somewhat feisty as a team already, having dusted Arkansas and Sonny’s SMU team in 2018. meaning 3-0 non-con is not a lock

-While the majority of the offensive line players will be known -- Jake Curhan, Will Craig, Mike Saffell for sure, and probably Ryan Gibson and Valentino Daltoso -- the projected depth chart next year on offense after that is a lot of question marks. Jordan Duncan performed acceptably before injury and was quiet after, Noa was an enigma all year, Jeremiah Hawkins needs to be safer with the ball when he’s actually catching it, Mac Castles made only a token appearance, no backup running back really got carries, wide receiver recruiting is generally nonexistent overall…which means that you’re counting on progression and development from no sure things at the moment.

- And that’s before you factor in that they might need to reset with a new scheme. More on that in a moment.

- The best players on this year’s defense are fairly likely not to be returning, either. Kunaszyk’s already out, with a handful of NFL departures still to be announced. Finding a pass rusher and more impact players in the front 3 are vital.

Can they overcome all of that to make a bowl? Probably. Early win matrix probably breaks down as follows.

MUST: UNT, UCDavis

SHOULD: ASU, Oregon State, WSU (lost barely on road and they’ll be breaking in a QB less good than Minshew next year), Ole Miss

CAN: Stanford, USC (assuming Helton is still there, why would I ever downgrade this?), UW (?), Utah

UNLIKELY: UCLA (I expect a big jump in year 2 for Kelly)

There’s probably six in here with any regular amount of improvement on offense.

Can they overcome all of that and improve? Less likely.

________

A lot of young men left the program today who came closer and closer to the Axe than ever before. It sucks that they move on emptyhanded, and it’s reading and seeing all of their goodbyes over the last few days that reminds us what’s really important.

Take, for example, Ray Hudson, who arrived in the darkness of 1-11 and stayed through it all, then fought his way back from two season ending injuries to see time. For the pure love of the game, and of this program.

Or Addison Ooms, who wasn’t even a scholarship player, and started four years worth of games. He’ll be graduating with a bunch of his high school teammates.

It’s about the kids. And it’s about who we’ve raised here, in our way, and what they end up going into the world to do after their shoulder pads are put away. Winning any trophy can’t be more important than that.

______________________________________________

There were rumors going around that CMU interviewed Beau Baldwin as part of their search this week, before settling on Jim McIlwain. That he still (allegedly) got an interview after this year is nothing short of remarkable.

Even after acknowledging that he hasn’t had all the personnel he hoped for, there’s nothing to say his performance has been acceptable -- or sustainable for a program hoping to move to the next level.

I’d be stunned if Wilcox kept the offense intact, save for Greatwood (who came with Wilcox and has no plans to keep working after here, he’s said.)

________________________________________

Now, the more interesting question is what happens with offensive assistants moving forward.

Let’s frame this question more in the terms of whose performance is at a sustainable level right now, either as a coach or recruiter, or both:

Baldwin - neither, as discussed.

Tui - Technically, neither. I don’t really think we can afford to make a move with him, though, and for all of the lack of development Garbers showed down the stretch -- skittish, late on RPOs, never pulling on zone read or attempting bootleg, unable to push the ball accurately down the field -- he’s still reeled in Ben Gulbranson for 2020, which isn’t nothing. (Spencer Brasch has also put up some excellent numbers as a senior)

Edwards - neither. WR recruiting is noticeably down all year, with nobody really improving despite a lot of returning personnel. We did get Nikko Remigio last class, though. He looks like he’ll be a contributor.

Ragle - Both. Monster recruiter for Arizona, and the ST group has played really well this year in all phases.

Burl - Incomplete. Laird looked a shadow of himself, which I can’t chalk up to Burl alone, while we never got enough of a look at any other guy behind him. We’ll see what Johnny and Chris can do going forward. High on one, don’t mind the other. Also, it helps to have someone on staff who went here, so I’m somewhat more amenable to retaining him if we’re on the fence at all.

And then on defense, you have pretty much everyone performing up to the level you’d hope. My only nitpick is that a) they all deserve raises, especially Alexander, and b) I was hoping that Sirmon’s hire would result in a higher level of recruiting than it has at the moment. But the defensive guys will come. Or they’ll be created. Of that much, I’m sure.

Would love to run it back with the same guys on this side of the ball, but it wouldn’t surprise me if we lost one to another job, just because that seems to be natural attrition. I’m not basing this off of anything I’m hearing.

_______________________________________

Another game in which the less is said about the offense, the better.

Earlier in the year, when the point was made that they might be worse than the Dykes era defenses were, I fought vehemently against this notion, but such a fight might not be able to be made any longer.

As far as some thoughts generally:

The offense passed the GPA test thanks to Laird’s 60 yard run, but came up short where it counted: one touchdown on four RZ trips, when Against Stanford, maximizing possessions is so, incredibly crucial, so when you kick on 4th and 4 from the Stanford 23, 4th and 5 from the Stanford 7, fumble away a drive before halftime that gives the Cardinal an extra field goal, throw an interception on a miscommunication to end another scoring drive, then miss a field goal from inside the Stanford 20...well…

Personnel or not, you’d hope that having two weeks to plan for Stanford would have resulted in more than just “Garbers on draw” as your best play.

A few times, I found myself really hoping for more creative options from the stands -- we had a Pistol look with McMorris as the running back instead of the upback that we checked out of, another trips set right with the tight end in the middle, which could have been a nice screen for either the slot or outside receiver...but we got a lot of RPOs for slants, which were late or missed. We got some late throws for Garbers, who was rattled and skittish. Laird had to create a lot of space on his own at line of scrimmage.

At this point, Garbers hasn’t given any hope he’s a long term solution for Cal, but he’s also still got some upside as a runner and for having a lot of time left to develop. The skills situation makes it really hard to evaluate him further. (Boy, I bet y’all miss 2017 Ross Bowers now, eh? If healthy, he shoulda been the guy. But if he did get hurt, then, I don’t blame him for leaving or for the program deciding to move on. Not knowing the exact timeline makes it tricky, even if it does explain him being pulled so early against UNC.)

So, to compound the issue, you finally had the defense come up short when it mattered, and for more than just Tevin Paul’s targeting penalty. They just couldn’t get the last stop they needed, after having produced all game. After Arcega-Whiteside’s bobbling catch took them into the red zone, it was over. (It was arguably over after the missed field goal, but then it was really over.)

It was enough to spoil a great game from Paul -- before the penalty -- another workmanlike effort from Funches, Jaylinn Hawkins’ hit of the century, and the usual excellence by Evan Weaver and Jordan Kunaszyk. The team rallied to the ball against Love and Scarlett, while Costello played comfortably in the pocket a lot, but about average (18 of 29 for 237). They allowed only 17 points. They did their job. Period.

As far as Bynum versus Arcega-Whiteside went, he won some and he lost some. The team even did the rare move of manning him up against Arcega-Whiteside a few times in the slot, pushing the other DB outside. He tends to struggle some against more physical receivers, which would be a point of emphasis if he returns in 2019.

If you really want to see the Cal football experience of 2018, look no further than the sequence of interception -- forced fumble -- missed field goal late in the 4th quarter. You have an offense that’s clearly disoriented, but then benefits from it (fumble), only to screw it all up again (FG).

Should they have gone for it on 4th and 6? Maybe. Not being closer probably forced their hand, even though I didn’t agree with the conservatism here.

____________________

Haven’t done too much bowl research or lookup yet, but TCU and Cal are fairly similar from what I’ve gathered throughout the season. Defensive minded programs plagued by all sorts of turnovers this year, meaning winnable if the offense is even average.

I don’t place a lot of stock into winning the bowl game. It’d be nice to, though.

See y’all in Phoenix. Me and Trace will be there.