Opening Up the Playbook
Am I the only one who was a little upset to see the hook and ladder and double reverses saved for Stanford? Let's be honest, you could count the number of sustained drives where the Cal offense matriculated the ball down the field on a drive of over 70 yards with more than 5 plays this year on one hand. The run game has been spotty and the pass game even spottier. (I for one, am wondering what's happened with Jim Michalczik as offensive line coach since the lines the last two years have stunk ever since he was promoted to assistant offensive coach. Yes, I know injuries but still, Cal has more NFL offensive skill players than any Pac-10 team including SC.)
Tedford has lamented this from the start even against Wazzu, defense and special teams created short fields as they have all year which seems to be the only way that Cal offense scores this year. So why not go balls-out with trickery against the SCs and OSUs? The flea flicker also paid off. I've always wondered what happened to the Tedford that called for the double pass the first offensive play in his tenure. He seems to get more conservative now that Cal is more established which is understandable but I think you've got to fake some punts when you keep going 3 and out, especially given the D this year. He was Chris Petersen (Boise State ballsy trickery to beat Oklahoma) before Chris Petersen. When nothing else is working, why not? I hope the Stanford game is a sign of things to come.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are not necessarily those of the California Golden Blogs or any of its authors. However, they are just as important as the opinions of any of the authors. And doubly so as compared to TwistNHook!
0 recs |
17
comments
| Add comment
Comments
Re. Trick plays: He’s ran reverses (and double reverses) to Ross all season long. It seems to me that Cignetti runs a true trick play maybe once a game. I can recall the fleaflicker against UCLA, the WR pass against OSU and the hook and ladder against the furd. We probably didn’t run one against WSU because of the blowout and against Oregon because of the rain and against USC because they’re really good and wouldn’t get fooled?
So I don’t think that lack of trick plays is really an issue. They seemed to be called enough that they have a very high success percentage without getting predictable in any way.
As for your O-line criticism, I couldn’t disagree more. We’ve had two 1,000 yard rushers the last two years despite tons of injuries. I think any offensive struggles in 07 would be blamed on poor injured Longshore, and in ’08 there have been plenty of other issues such as QB switcheroos and WR inexperience. Cal always seems to have an o line guy or two drafted each year.
by norcalnick on
Nov 29, 2008 9:20 PM PST
reply
0 recs
I really think we should fire him
Because, you know, bringing in our fifth offensive coordinator in in five years would make all the difference.
Ever heard of something called continuity?
by BearsNecessity on
Nov 29, 2008 10:20 PM PST
reply
0 recs
No. Do tell!
Please disregard the above ramblings as those of a clearly delusional fan.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Nov 29, 2008 10:29 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
Whoever's there next year...
His play-calling for the Oregon State game next year should look like this:
1) Line up in Spread formation…
2) Watch OSU fall flat on its face
3) Repeat
...Scuzzlin fo a Jack in Da Box
by Thoroughbred on
Nov 29, 2008 10:42 PM PST
reply
0 recs
I think the problem with our O-line was that it lacked experienced depth. When at full strength, it was punishing (Michigan St. game). And, the inexperienced players definitely started to improve. Thiswill be good for the next 2 years of linemen, I’m thinking.
...Scuzzlin fo a Jack in Da Box
by Thoroughbred on
Nov 29, 2008 10:48 PM PST
reply
0 recs
The one good thing about injured starters is that the backups get tons of playing time.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Nov 29, 2008 11:31 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
Also, we get to watch a lot of Tepper playing grab ass on the sideline!
Please disregard the above ramblings as those of a clearly delusional fan.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Nov 30, 2008 7:54 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
i really don't
think the play calls were all that different. Sure there were 3 or 4 trick plays. But everything else Cignitti’s called all year (end arounds, reverses, screens, running backs out to the slot or wide out position) – have been run all year. We just executed much better. (and even then, do you really think 1 complete pass to a wide out is “opening up the playbook”? really?)
by LeonPowe on
Nov 30, 2008 7:00 AM PST
reply
0 recs
Cignetti and the poor offense
I don’t know that this year’s stumbling offense is the fault of the OC as much as it is a patchwork OL, new receivers-QB, and growing pains. Plus, this is the first year of the Cignetti system. I doubt the offense would have performed any better regardless of who was calling plays.
At some point the responsibility has to fall on the players to execute on the field. The OL not opening holes for the running backs; the receivers running the wrong routes; the running backs choosing the wrong holes; the QB overthrowing passes; the receivers dropping passes; the OL unable to stop a rush; the QB throwing too early or in coverage, etc etc etc is not the coaches fault.
But the most important factor for me is that Cignetti seems to have the same sort of offensive philosophy as JT. Give the coaches and the kids a couple of years to get used to the system before pulling the plug.
Go Bears!
by SoCal Oski on
Nov 30, 2008 9:11 AM PST
reply
0 recs
I’d agree for the most part, especially that everyone needs time to progress as a team. I think that were the coaches’ performance should be evaluated is as the players progress over the year. As of now I am really concerned about the WRs, little to no improvement in their game all season. I kept seeing flashes but I can’t point to a game and say that they were consistently good in that game.
As for the poll I’d still like JT to be calling the plays, but I think he has grown as a coach and realized that to maintain a successful program he has to cover all aspects of the game and fill in the gaps when needed. If play calling is taken off his plate and is as effective as he feels he would have been, all the better for the rest of the team.
by CountDuku on
Nov 30, 2008 9:07 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
heh, Oregon
Sheriff of the Welcome Team.
Welcome.
But Stop Arguing Nate vs. Kevin.
by Spazzy Mcgee on
Nov 30, 2008 10:27 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
I would like to see more option
out of the spread, traditional, and speed varieties. Not several times a game…but once or twice just to throw a new wrinkle at the D and to probe their capabilities. If the option works (like the spread did for Oregon) then keep running it.
The Maryland I formation might be interesting given our running backs that will have over the next few years. Cal’s O is all about throwing new wrinkles to the D.
Oregon and Georgia Tech won big yesterday on the road against higher ranked teams…
The Maharg makes me look like an idiot.
by carp on
Nov 30, 2008 9:30 AM PST
reply
0 recs
We tried running Wild Best against USC and we ran a WR double-pass against OSU… I’m not sure how many more tick plays we can run…
by Rishi on
Dec 1, 2008 9:38 AM PST
reply
0 recs
Best/Vereen lined up in the spread option. Dual threat, Vereen might even be a threat to throw a pass?
by turkey on
Dec 1, 2008 12:35 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs


















