Bob Gregory is done as Defensive Coordinator at Cal
by Rocky63215 on Oct 25, 2009 1:45 PM PDT
53 comments
After the end of the 2009 college football season the California Golden Bears must fire defensive coordinator Bob Gregory. Gregory has been the defensive coordinator for the Bears since 2002.
Yet, California must not fall into the same trap as some schools by basing the decision on keeping Gregory around based on past performances of the team's defense. What counts is what is going on right now and in the future.
As a Bear fan I'm getting tired of high expectations specifically on the defensive side and then have the defense not show up at all. Specifically against ranked opponents. The offense may not have helped in certain cases but when it become a pattern against those teams then there is a problem and it starts at the top with Gregory.
There comes a point in time where you stop blaming the players and start blaming the coaches. Right now it's time to blame the coach it's gone on for far too long and the defense has too much talent to look this pathetic this deep into a season.
In 2002 you could give Gregory a pass because he was just getting acclimated to coaching at Cal and using another coordinators key players, but after a year or two then it goes on Gregory.
Against ranked teams in '02 the Bears were 0-2 and the team gave up a total of 78 points in those games.
2003: Bears went 1-2 against ranked opponents giving up a total of 62 points.
2004: Bears went 1-1 against ranked opponents giving up a total of 17 points.
2005: Bears went 0-3 against ranked opponents giving up a total of 109 points.
2006: Bears went 2-2 against ranked opponents giving up a total of 103 points.
2007: Bears went 2-2 against ranked opponents giving up a total of 110 points.
2008: Bears went 1-2 against ranked opponents giving up a total of 67 points.
2009: Bears so far are 0-1 against ranked opponents giving up 30 points.
Looking at the numbers it's easy to tell why the Bears have a record of seven wins and 13 losses against ranked teams. The average loss for the Bears in terms of points given up in the 13 games is 29 points per game.
As mentioned before the Bears have had some talented individual defenders come through during Gregory's time. Such as Zach Follett, Worrell Williams, Brandon Mebane, Dante Hughes, Nnamdi Asomugha, Tully-Banta Cain, Ryan Riddle, Matt Giordano, Desmond Bishop, and Thomas Decoud.
Each one of those players were drafted by NFL teams. The Bears have had talented defensive players so it's really a wonder why they cannot perform consistently game in and game out.
I could say look at USC! I know bad example because they get another talented player after another. But, there's one thing that USC does that California hasn't done and that's have a defense that comes out every game and play hard.
Most assuredly though is the fact that USC does not play the defense that Gregory likes and that is bend but don't break. USC is aggressive they get after the quarterback, they have very athletic linebackers, and a solid secondary.
Let's think this through a little bit more. California has also had talented defensive linemen when given the chance get get after the quarterback, the Bears have had athletic linebackers, and Cal has definitely had some pretty talented secondaries.
So, that excuse goes nowhere. It's Gregory's sytem that doesn't work. I believe the icing on the cake for his firing came today against Washington State. Giving up 440 yards of offense to the worst team in the Pac-10 is unacceptable furthermore 6.3 yards per play is even more pathetic!
Look at the University of Oregon as well their defense isn't anything near what California runs and they do not have nearly the talent that USC has and they still produce better than what Gregory defenses have done recently.
It's time to get rid of Gregory and to insert a more aggressive defense!
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
0 recs |
53 comments
Email
Print
Comments
But, there’s one thing that USC does that California hasn’t done and that’s have a defense that comes out every game and play hard.
Nah. Question talent if you want. Question schemes if you want. Question coaching if you want. But don’t tell me our players haven’t played hard. That’s silly.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Oct 25, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Giving fUCLA and WSU career QB days is totally unacceptable….SMU held WSU to less yards in Pullman then BG can muster at home…..I’ve been a detractor for years…
by Cal_Fan2 on Oct 25, 2009 2:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is the way to complain
Although I’m nowhere near as frustrated as this guy, I appreciate that he’s criticizing in an intelligent manner. I can’t stand the… “F*** GREGORY THAT FAGGOT MOTHER F***ER!!” type rants…. helps no one.
Not that I’m a Gregory apologist, but I should remind everyone that giving up lots of yards, but minimizing points (and winning), is by design. I can’t really defend his record vs ranked teams tho. No excuse there.
I’m not ready to give up yet because of all the great talent we’re bringing in at LB and DL. Tosh just spooling up and we now have the facilities to attract the best. At the very least, Gregory won’t be horrible in the coming years.
Gregory is less blitz happy this season, but I imagine he’ll loosen up as our LB core matures.
But yes, the fact that we give up so many yards to inferior teams is frickn frustrating as hell.
by danzig on Oct 25, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Lack of pressure on the QB + wide open receivers = a lot of yards. With the exception of SC and Oregon we are fortunate we have not given up a ton of points (relative to the yards we are giving up).
by MBT91_78 on Oct 26, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most assuredly though is the fact that USC does not play the defense that Gregory likes and that is bend but don’t break. USC is aggressive they get after the quarterback, they have very athletic linebackers, and a solid secondary.
OK, everybody agrees that USC is the gold standard for defense in recent years, right? And you’re arguing that USC’s defensive coaching plan is more aggressive than Bob Gregory’s coaching. Fine. But is that really the case?
It’s hard to quantify “aggression.” But for the sake of argument I think we can agree that sacks and turnovers would be the hallmark of an aggressive defense. So, does USC beat Cal in those categories?
USC Sacks Vs. Cal sacks: 2005 through 2009
2009: USC – 29 vs. Cal – 23
2008: USC – 29 vs. Cal – 35
2007: USC – 45 vs. Cal – 22
2006: USC – 35 vs. Cal – 26
2005: USC – 32 vs. Cal – 32
TOTAL: USC – 170 vs. Cal – 138
USC turnovers vs. Cal turnovers, 2005-2009
2009: USC – 9 vs. Cal – 13
2008: USC – 29 vs. Cal – 34
2007: USC – 28 vs. Cal – 24
2006: USC – 22 vs. Cal – 28
2005: USC – 38 vs. Cal – 21
TOTAL: USC – 126 vs. Cal – 120
And if you take out Cal’s awful defensive performance in 2007 then the two teams are practically tied in both categories. In defensive statistics that may somehow measure the difficult-to-define aggression that everybody wants, Cal and USC are very comparable.
It’s Gregory’s sytem that doesn’t work.
Please understand – Cal and USC run a very similar defensive scheme. And yet, surprise surprise, the team that gets 6 players drafted on the 1st day of the NFL draft and gets 5 star recruits every year continually has a better defense.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Oct 25, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Using the team’s record against ranked opponents as reason for Gregory’s firing is extremely poor logic. That stat shouldn’t even be used because its the team’s record – which includes offense and defense – rather than just defense. Some of those wins and losses can be attributed to the offense but you’re just attributing it all on the defense. That’s unfair and inaccurate.
There are very sound and logical arguments to justify firing Gregory, but using the team’s record against ranked opponents just isn’t one of them.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 25, 2009 3:35 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Right, and selecting the game you are most likely to lose and using that as evidence that you are losing too many games simplifies things far too much.
Other than true top teams (USC, Florida, Texas, maybe Oklahoma, Ohio State, LSU), over the same time period, even good teams will have a similar record against against Top 25 programs. I can think of many games in which our defense played well enough to win, but our offense didn’t – think USC 2006, 2007, 2008 for starters. Hell even in 2005 they played well enough, but were sunk by Ayoob’s INTs keeping them on the field the entire first half.
I do not mean to say that there isn’t plenty of room to criticize Gregory. Without offering evidence, I do feel that this year’s team has been less “aggressive” than last year’s team.
by Tedfordisgod on Oct 26, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without offering evidence, I do feel that this year’s team has been less "aggressive" than last year’s team.
I have to say, I am curious as to how “aggressive” we’ve been this year compared to last. How often are we rushing various numbers of players (3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 guys)? How often are we using man vs. zone? I have no idea what the answer to these questions are. I do suspect, however, that a lot of the perception of how aggressive we’ve been is built on how successful we’ve been at applying pressure. We haven’t been able to consistently get pressure the last few weeks (though we do have 22 sacks on the year, T-11 in the country), but that doesn’t mean we aren’t being aggressive. One of WSU’s TD’s, the one that went to the open receiver, came against a blitz – it was plenty aggressive, the offense just picked it up and our coverage got beat because of it. Last year I think we were more effective with Alualu, Davis and Follett, without even having to blitz as often as you’d think…
by Missing Barry on Oct 26, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking that an analysis that looked at how many pass rushers Cal has sent at the QB per game would be revealing. Doing a comparison with last year would be even more revealing. Thus, this would require someone to watch all the defensive plays of every game this year, and count how many pass rushers there were. An average would be calculated for each game. Thus, we can compare averages between games and over the entire season.
Of course, simply sending more pass rushers at the QB isn’t the sole measurement of “aggressiveness.” One can also look at man vs. zone coverage, as you suggest. Also zone blitzes might be counted as “aggressive” plays even though the actual number of pass rushers may only be three or four.
This is something I may consider doing if time allows it.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 26, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The key point here will be to separate correlation from causality. How would you separate the strategy of increasing the number of people in coverage because we give up too many yards via the air, from the strategy of decreasing the number of rushers just because we’d like to be less “aggressive?” And if the defense is successful on a certain type of play, i.e., zone vs man, how much of it will be due to the scheme vs other factors?
by sec119 on Oct 26, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this is really hard. I don’t have a lot of answers. I’m not sure the study I proposed would demonstrate the effectiveness of sending more pass rushers, but it would merely show the trend of whether Gregory was sending more or less.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 26, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’d definitely be interesting, even if it didn’t answer the ultimate question of “how aggressive should we be”. Seeing as how it’s your time and not mine, I say go for it!
by Missing Barry on Oct 26, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And on the same point – even if we are/aren’t aggressive in our playcalling, at a certain point you just need to make plays.
I was never a huge Follett fan, especially not prior to the 2008 season, but he did have a knack for making big plays. Get one or two of those plays a game, and suddenly we are “aggressive.” Ultimately, aggressiveness, at least as most fans talk about it, is about execution and not playcalling.
by Tedfordisgod on Oct 26, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
So true. Sooooooooooo true.
Ultimately, aggressiveness, at least as most fans talk about it, is about execution and not playcalling.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 26, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This post also seems to suggest that there is a correlation between between being aggressive and winning. If there is, then I would think more teams would be very aggressive. However, this is not the case. Perhaps the defensive coordinators who are not aggressive are all idiots. Or perhaps something else is giving them reason to not send 5 to 8 man blitzes every down.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 25, 2009 3:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
on the flipside tho, teams that play with the “prevent” mentality on defense, aren’t really playng “agressiviely,” right? It kind of sets the whole tone.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Oct 25, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we playing with the “prevent” mentality on defense?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 25, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
carp’s $0.02: It’s more prevent-mentality than Pain Train-mentality and that’s not how I roll.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Oct 26, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we don’t have Pain Train anymore?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 26, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the difference between chasing a running back to the sideline and making an bone-crushing open field tackle. Both stop the opposition from scoring, but the former leads to more yardage.
by paleodan on Oct 26, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny you should ask if we are playing prevent on “D”. I ask my wife the same question each game. It is amazing how wide open the receivers are each game.
by MBT91_78 on Oct 26, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would also like to see some actual analysis on how Gregory was not aggressive enough this game, and how he could have been more aggressive. Right now, there is an accusation that he wasn’t aggressive enough based purely on the results of the opposing offense’s statistics. However, the opposing offense can still have great statistics against aggressive defenses. Therefore, in regards to the issue of whether Gregory was aggressiveness enough or not against WSU, proof needs to be put forth. Right now there is no proof. Unless proof can be provided, I think the plaintiff has not sustained his burden of proof and a directed verdict is in order for the defendant.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 25, 2009 3:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What are they teaching you at culinary school?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 25, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In fairness, Twist, they taught us tortes in law school.
by CalBear81 on Oct 25, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can’t believe I laughed at that!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 25, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This one cracked me up:
Look at the University of Oregon as well their defense isn’t anything near what California runs and they do not have nearly the talent that USC has and they still produce better than what Gregory defenses have done recently.
Now, if by recently you mean this year, then yes, Oregon’s defense has been better. But there are a number of Oregon fans who have called for Nick Aliotti’s head over the years. And in 2008? Cal’s defense was better:
Cal: 20 points per game, 315 yards per game, and 4.4 yards per play.
Oregon: 28 points per game, 390 yards per game, and 4.9 yards per play.
Did you do any stat research for your post? You make a number of assertions with no real proof. Just empty platitudes about aggression and systems without any explanation of what those things are.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Oct 25, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I do agree with Hydro, tho. The fact that many yards was given up, to me, does not mean the D was not aggressive. Maybe many yards were given up, because the blitzers failed and there wasn’t anybody to make the stops at the second and third level. Really aggressive defenses are more likely to give up huge amounts of yards in giant chunks, while less aggressive defenses would give up huge amounts of yards in smaller chunks. So, it’s not the yards, per se that I think are relevant.
What about yards per play? And instead of average, we might want to look at median. Or is it mean? I forget.
PS Even though your title is abrasively strong, I do appreciate that you took the time, Rocky, to reasonably spell out your points here. Welcome to CGB, we always look forward to reasonable discussion. GO BEARS!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 25, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Isolating the defense from the rest of the team is problematic, to truly understand a problem you must understand its context. You have not conviced me you understand the problem nor its context.
Furthermore, you say:
Yet, California must not fall into the same trap as some schools by basing the decision on keeping Gregory around based on past performances of the team’s defense. What counts is what is going on right now and in the future.yet you then cite historical data to prove your point, this is problematic.
If you believe in the ‘what have you done for me lately’ concept, last year’s season long data would be the most relevant, yet it disproves your point as the two eventual top ten teams Cal faced ended up with 17 and 16 points respectively. This is in spite of being a minus two in turnovers.
To cite the 08 Oregon State game as an example of bad defense, is proving a lack of understanding the context of the problem.
Regarding this season, I feel the vast amounts of yardage allowed over the season is problematic, but also a direct sympton of the inexperience at linebacker. Without linebackers able to defend the middle of the field, a greater burden is being placed on our secondary and d-line. Thusfar, they have struggled to overcome the additional burden. Is this Gregory’s fault? I think it is partially his fault. Thusfar, most of the talent working within our current system was recruited under the assumption Cal would be operating in a 4-3 scheme. We are not. Therefore, the specific talent we have does not match the specific needs. In changing to a 3-4 last year, Cal was fortunate to have both talent, and talent that fit the needs of a 3-4 to ease the adjustment. This year, we are constantly shifting our linebackers to find who can fit the specific needs required in a 3-4, in part proving we do not have the talent with the specific skill set to succeed in our current defensive system. This a problem, but the underlying logic of being able to recruit linebackers more successfully than d-lineman is sound, and once the younger talent recruited for specific roles within a 3-4 matures, the Cal defense should regain the excellent status they achieved last year.
PS I’m too busy calling for Alamar’s head right now, than to worry about Gregory.
by chowder on Oct 25, 2009 4:27 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Do you believe that this means we should switch to the 4-3? I think it would be imprudent to switch back and forth consistently. I do think we have better LB depth right now than DLine depth. So, maybe the 3-4 is the way to go.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 25, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I think the 3-4 will work in years to come. Unfortunately, this year Cal is stuck in a transitional period as we utilize either the older players recruited for a 4-3 in a 3-4, or we play the younger players recruited for the 3-4, but who have little or no experience. Switching amongst the two would result in misused and wasted talent for years to come, instead we have to suffer and understand the defense is changing. It will cause short-term problems, but hopefully provide long-term gains. We all saw Gregory’s scheme work effectively last year, when he had the talent to fit the scheme. We need to allow him to develop that talent once more.
by chowder on Oct 25, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cal used four defensive linemen on a number of 2nd and 3rd and long situations, so there might be such a shift occurring in future weeks.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 25, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’ll stick with the 3-4 on the whole, but last year, we got the classic ‘first year seeing a new scheme’ boost + we had a lot of good vets on defense. Even more, I think the Pac-10 offenses we’ve faced this year have all improved markedly. But the main thing is the opposing coaches have had a lot more time and film to adjust to Cal’s 3-4, as evidenced by the attacks we’ve seen through the air.
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Oct 25, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is interesting is right now the Yesses are beating the Nos. But most of the comments are from Nos. Do some of the Yesses want to speak up?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 25, 2009 5:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No.
They do not, LoL, I don’t think any Yes wants to, all the No people have posted some good analysis.
I just always pick the top choice.
by CaliforniaCMB on Oct 26, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have always been of the school that a coach should not be fired unless someone superior is lined up to take their place. If Cal has the inside lead on a better coach with a proven track record, I would not exactly be sad to see Gregory though. If that isn’t the case I think we could do better keeping Gregory than a shot in the dark.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 25, 2009 5:59 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
*Gregory go. (don’t know why I wrote “though”).
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 25, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A subconscious desire to have a dinner date with Bob Gregory?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 25, 2009 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh there’s nothing subconscious about it
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 25, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few things. First, we’re given stats for what Cal does against ranked teams, but with no context. The ranked teams we’ve played are going to represent much better competition than the non-ranked teams, so we actually expect the stats to be worse against them. Is the decline greater than it should be? I have no idea, that’s where context comes in.
Second, it’s always back to “be more aggressive!”, like that’s a good strategy. I did not watch the game this last weekend, but I did see the highlights on CGB. Something I noticed – WSU scored two touchdowns against Cal. One of them came against a 3 man rush. The coverage was very good, and the QB threw a perfect ball that hit the receiver in stride. Our DB still almost deflected it. My question would be…if we’re only rushing 3 guys, and they’re throwing deep, we really only have one guy even close to the receiver? I can’t see the whole field so maybe that’s just the way the coverage was. Anyways the more important point is that was a great play by WSU, and they scored because of it. The 2nd TD, however, was not a great play by WSU. They caught Cal blitzing and picked it up. We didn’t get to the QB, and he had an easy window to hit a wide open receiver for a TD. Ezeff looked to be in zone coverage and wasn’t even close to getting there to stop it. This was a direct result of “being aggressive”. It’s not always a good thing.
As for giving up yards in general, it’s a fair point – I do believe good defenses prevent the other team from gaining yards (and YPA for both passing/rushing is probably the best way to look at it). “Bend but don’t break” is generally crap – the goal is to get the ball back, if the other team is consistently gaining yards they’re going to score, that’s bad defense. I do not believe Gregory actually believes in this – his goal is to get the ball back without giving up points.
Ultimately I voted no because while I have been disappointed in the D of late, we have to remember we’re still transitioning to a 3-4. Unless there’s some 3-4 guru coordinator out there (which there isn’t, because if they were that well thought of they wouldn’t be a college coordinator now, would they?), we might as well give Gregory a chance to finish the transition he started instead of bringing someone new in and having to start over.
I think it’d be interesting to see how all the Pac-10 teams have performed over Gregory’s tenure. USC is definitely way ahead of Cal, but the NFL draft shows they should be. Cal does get a decent amount of NFL talent, but not even comparable to USC….but I’d bet we’re up there with anyone else in the conference defensively in both NFL talent and actual results.
by Missing Barry on Oct 25, 2009 6:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Think about it like this. We had our best Linebacking corps last year in quite some time. And the highest anybody from there got drafted was what? The 7th round?
USC’s entire LB corps was drafted last year, too, some of which went, I believe, as high as the 1st round. The gulf there is quite unbelievable.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 25, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you, umm, actually have a good point.
Someone flag me.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Oct 26, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I abstain. Purely on my own bias-filled sense of things with no data whatsoever, I am more bothered by the offense than defense. However, I think the poster makes a good argument. We aspire to something more than 4th place every year and that means beating the ranked teams in our own conference(and OOC), therefore limiting the data to these opponents is perfectly reasonable to me.
by YleeXOtee on Oct 25, 2009 7:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
well, data on ranked opponents fluctuates too. a team can be ranked when we play them but unranked by the end of the season and vice versa. and there’s the whole problem of human biases (oregon state never getting respect until recently, as an example) in the polls. i’d rather see data on teams that have, say, winning records or a certain benchmark of wins in a given season.
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Oct 25, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The offense should get just as much credit as the defense for these games, which is another point not addressed above.
by sec119 on Oct 25, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Noted, but then there is us giving up 400 yards a game to the Good(OUSC), the Bad(Minn), AND the Ugly (you know who they are). Anyway, I still blame the offense but my resolve on that is bending (not breaking) and I couldn’t vote.
by YleeXOtee on Oct 25, 2009 8:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey guys! Statistics that may or may not provide a more nuanced understanding of how our defense has worked this year!
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2009/10/25/1100942/holy-perspective-batman-first-half all daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn son.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Oct 25, 2009 11:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Statistics? That provide a more nuanced understanding of how our D works? What do you think this is? Bleacher Report??
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 26, 2009 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure Gregory should be fired, but he should be worried. I thought the shift to 3-4 was a good one last year, but this year it seems very predictable in terms of zone/man coverage, blitzes, etc. The linebackers just don’t move at all. Gregory used to disguise blitzes, used to use a lot of pre-snap movement to confuse offenses.
This year, though, it seems our linebackers merely watch the linemen—if it’s a run, they attack, if it’s a pass, they stand in place like statues while receivers run wild behind them or in front of them. What’s with the flat-footedness? You can still play BBDB D and move at the same time.
by slaphancock on Oct 26, 2009 9:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Aggressive vs. Non-aggressive
in a world where statistics mean nothing, we do have some direct evidence in terms of aggressive defense absolutely having zero effect on W-L record, if we fail to control for the putridness of the team’s offense – and that would be the Cal football team from about 1995 through 1999/2000 – the Upshaw/Clemons teams giving way to the Carter/Banta-Cain led teams – with a lot of decent linebackers in-between.
In 1995 in particular – and I believe for years afterwards (I don’t know because I was listening to Starkey on broadcast.com from 1997 through 2000) the defensive pattern would be sack Upshaw. sack Clemons sack . .. then give up 25 yard 3rd down pass (or delayed run or screen) for first down.
and we sacked our way to a 3-8 season.
by LeonPowe on Oct 26, 2009 8:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just to give some more facts…
In the NFL (not sure how directly this applies to CFB, but oh well), if you look at the stats, teams do best when they rush 4 guys (in terms of YPA). Surprising? Nope, not at all – that’s why base defense involves a 4 man rush. Coaches figured this out long ago, somehow in the process either they figured out a 4 man rush works best or the most successful coaches that stuck around were the ones that used primarily a 4 man rush, but that’s been the base for a long time now, as it should be. That isn’t to say a 4 man rush should be used 100% of the time, like different pitches in baseball there’s merit to mixing it up to keep the offense/batter off balance, but in general, that should be the primary strategy because it’s the most effective.
Now, I don’t know if the 4 man rush is always the most effective in CFB. Schemes vary more widely in college football, players aren’t as good/big/fast…there are a lot of differences, but I suspect that like the NFL, college football naturally found it’s equilibrium without the need for someone to step in and tell coaches they were doing it wrong. I suspect Gregory, like other college coaches, has a good feel for what level of “aggression” is most effective, and as others have pointed out, fans are simply reacting to whether or not we execute. If we got a sack, we were being aggressive enough, if we didn’t we were not, regardless of how many rushers or what defense was called….
by Missing Barry on Oct 26, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
