Is Cal's Defense Underachieving?
DEFENSE, BEARS...DEFENSE???
Most of the postgame reaction has been focused on Cal's lamentable defensive effort, especially against the pass. It's been discussed everywhere, and I figured I'd throw myself into the fire. Literally, since I figure 80-85% of Cal fans will disagree with my next statement:
Outside of Autzen, Bob Gregory hasn't done that much wrong.
Now before all of you start hollering about Prince and Tuel lighting us up, I understand where you guys are coming from. Like many people, I assumed that the depletion of our linebacking corps would be offset by improvements in the defensive line and the secondary, with everyone having starting experience coming back.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Units don't just revamp at certain areas and expect to get by because the front and the back are supporting them. The linebackers are the core of the defense, especially in a 3-4; take them away and the middle is open to exploitation.
Think of an army with great tanks and experienced soldiers but no aircraft, anti-aircraft or flak. You might have the power and the wherewithal to take out your opponents, but a good enough air attack can blast all that heavy weaponry and veteran savvy out of the park. So it is with the passing defense this season, where the weakness of the linebackers has been felt by the rest of the lineup.
Cal is returning seven but we're missing those four BIG TIME. Let's rank the top players on our defense last year.
1) Zack Follett
2) Syd'Quan Thompson
3) Tyson Alualu
4) Anthony Felder
5) Worrell Williams
6) Mike Mohamed
7) Darian Hagan
8) Rulon Davis (when healthy)
So those four who are gone are in the top 8, and the three linebackers in the top five. Big big losses.
Rulon Davis might never have been as healthy as we'd have liked him to be, but when he was, he was ON. Cameron Jordan is a jolly guy from what I've seen, but at the moment he really hasn't stepped up to replace Davis's raw ability. Don't be deceived by those 6.5 sacks--3.5 came against really bad teams. He's on pace for 2008 numbers, and he's playing probably 50% more than last season after splitting time with Rulon in 2008.
Derrick Hill has performed well, but centers can still battle him one on one, leaving one side to double, triple team Alualu at will. So that means that extra one or two guys blitzing or moving in on the line of scrimmage has to step up, rush in, and hit the quarterback.
Unfortunately...
Cal does not have a pass rushing linebacker. When Cal put that linebacker at the LoS on passing downs last season (usually Follett), it collapsed the pocket, overwhelmed the edge and forced the quarterback into the errant throws, incompletions or sacks. Not this season. Young, Mohamed, Kendricks, Bishop, Holt, none of these guys have been able to fill that mantle. Jarred Price might be the guy to show it, but what he has in pass rush (2 sacks) he lacks in consistency (4 season tackles)
Follett had 10.5 sacks and 4 hurries on his own last season; through seven games, the ENTIRE Bears linebackers corps has combined for 7.5 sacks and 4 hurries.
Note: Interestingly enough (as you probably saw with some of the highlights), Gregory tinkered with a four down linemen set on passing downs to gain extra pass rush, although I'm not sure how much of it had an effect on slowing down Tuel. I'd been pondering a similar idea considering the weakness of our linebackers to add an extra defensive lineman (our strength) for more pass rush, and it seemed Gregory was thinking along the same lines. We'll see how it bears out when Cal plays formidable/weaker offensive lines down the road.
Cal's linebacking corps is still learning the pass defense ropes: Probably the biggest mistake I made in my predictions was asking this question: "is Mike Mohamed capable of becoming Cal's greatest linebacker of the Tedford era?" Whoops. Desmond Bishop, you keep the title.
Don't get me wrong, Mohamed's been good, still the best all-around linebacker for the Bears (he has picks, a forced fumble, a sack, and 61 tackles). Nevertheless, he seems to be suffering from the Rajon Rondo syndrome--he looked like the best linebacker last season because guys were always throwing in his direction to avoid Felder and Williams. Unlike Follett or Desmond, he lacks that game-changing ability. Maybe that'll change, but right now he's merely good when Cal needs great.
Devin Bishop and Eddie Young are okay, but as BWNQ noted, they probably lack proper football instincts, as they've been duped on several important occasions by doing bad things on the field. No matter how good the coaching is, it's REALLY hard to undo instinct.
As for Kendricks and Holt, they have promise, but as sophomores they're still not fully polished. We can probably expect better things from them...in 2010. Right now we can only hope they're given the time to grow and mature so they can come back and smash next season.
Finally, the secondary. This is probably the most mystifying of the three units, even to a guy like me. Last season these guys were ballhawks, and now they're getting pumpfaked, beat at the point of attack. What's going on??
Syd'Quan Thompson has done his job, but the other side, plainly, has not. Darian Hagan got pump-faked out of the starting lineup in Minnesota. Josh Hill got the Oregon start and got picked on, over and over and over. And then both have been taking their turn even though they've been playing more man coverage. Although both are improving, it does leave you a little frustrated, especially with Hagan, who looked so promising last season. The safeties have been competent--Ezeff and Johnson are good at delivering hits, and Cattouse has also shown great promise, but for whatever reason they've been beat a lot.
So why has the secondary regressed? A few possibilities:
1) With the linebackers having trouble defending their zones and tackling afterwards, the secondary has to edge toward the middle of the field to be prepared to support...which in turn opens up the flats and sideline throws. And it doesn't necessarily secure the middle either.
2) The secondary might be more experienced, but given the depth of gamefilm, there is plenty for opposing teams to scout on them. Cal's secondary is not like USC's, whose weaknesses are harder to pinpoint and exploit. Even Syd'Quan might be lockdown one-on-one, but he's still undersized--tall physical receivers can do damage against him if given the proper time. You can only imagine how many more double moves and pump fakes against Hagan and throws to the flats against Hill we'll see this year.
3) PAY ATTENTION. This is the big one...
There are a lot of good quarterbacks in the Pac-10 this season.
Four freshmen have shown great promise--Foles, Luck, Barkley, and, yes, even Tuel (don't forget he also went about 67% against USC too). Add in three guys who've been here before (Masoli, Locker, Canfield) and that's SEVEN Pac-10 quarterbacks who are at the very least competent. That's the most depth the conference has shown at the quarterback stable this decade.
Compare it to the Pac-10 QBs we saw last season: Sanchez was pretty good but still developing, Willie Tuitama had his ups and downs, Masoli was in his first year escaping the shadow of Dixon, Lyle Moevao had his moments although he was carried by the Rodgers brothers, Rudy Carpenter was digesting turf thanks to his awesome offensive line, the Kevin Craft Interception Show missed no stops, Tavita Pritchard was a placeholder, the Washington/Wazzu quarterbacks we faced were bad, bad, bad.
Masoli has quietly worked his way back to a solid 60% completion percentage. Canfield and Foles are horrifyingly good at finding their receivers, hovering at 70% and putting them in the top seven in the conference. Luck isn't as accurate, but he throws touchdowns and not many picks (kind of like Riley-lite). Locker is the most dangerous player in the Pac-10 if he faces a defense that gives him cushion. And Barkley is only going to get better.
They're so good that they're not just beating Cal's zones, they're beating Cal on man. Tuel's two touchdown throws came against man coverage, where he fit that ball in just the right place for the receiver to get it and the defender had no chance to play the ball. Kevin Prince had excellent throws that burned a few guys with excellent man coverage too. Surprisingly, they played pretty well against Barkley after spotting the Trojans ten points. Of course the big fail was Masoli where the Bears played mostly zone, but even when they played man they got beat.
Now the solution would be to be aggressive in the pass rush and send more guys. But who? Cal's linebackers haven't shown they're able to speed their way. Not many of these guys have the ability to stunt or delay the way our group did last year--maybe Alualu, but again he's facing constant double teams. Plus with the quarterbacks being better this season, sending more guys leaves the Bears vulnerable to a precise pass going for six.
So pick your poison. So pick your poison. Do you key in on stopping the run and not allowing big plays and risk giving up easier underneath throws, or gamble with a pass rush or man coverage and take the risk of quarterbacks connecting on long strikes? This is the quandary Gregory is in, and we’ll find out what he comes up with these next few weeks. (HT Hydro for the rephrase)
Is Cal's defense underachieving, overachieving, or performing as expected?
Reactions to defense.
More reactions: AERose has some interesting numbers on 1st/2nd half stats, Rocky63125 wants Gregory to go, royrules had thoughts about Cal's D against UCLA.
Gary Peterson, San Jose Mercury News:
Then came the part no one expected. When Tedford had finished dousing his defenders in lighter fluid, linebacker Steve Fanua set them on fire. "He's a young buck, a redshirt freshman," Jordan said, smiling. "He has fire in his veins. He gave us a nice little talk." And this was received how? "That only amps you up more," Jordan said. "Here's a guy, barely 18 years old, letting us know what this means for him. He's a young kid. He's hungry." So was Cal's defense when it returned to the field. Jordan recorded two of his two-and-a-half sacks, and three of his six tackles in the second half. One sack defused Washington State's first drive after the intermission. Another, coming on fourth-and-10, ended a Cougars drive at the Cal 18.
One of the points emphasized was tackling.
Arguably the most noticeable player guilty of missed tackles was cornerback Darian Hagan. Despite coming off one of his best performances ever last week against UCLA, Hagan struggled to make several key tackles in the open field and gave up a couple big passing plays against WSU.
"He needs to be more consistent, no question about it," Gregory said. "Very poor game today, and we just got to keep working with these kids to grow and mature."
1 recs |
73 comments
|
Comments
So pick your poison. Do you allow gallons of yards with the zone while keying in on stopping the run and not allowing big plays, or gamble with a pass rush or man coverage and take the risk of quarterbacks connecting on long strikes? This is the quandary Gregory is in, and we’ll find out what he comes up with these next few weeks.
When you phrase it like this, I’m sure 100% of Cal fans would pick the latter. I don’t think the above statement is phrased properly. The way it is currently phrased automatically assumes that the former gives up “gallons of yards” whereas the detriment of the latter option is merely a “risk.” A fairer way of stating it would probably be:
So pick your poison. Do you key in on stopping the run and not allowing big plays and risk giving up easier underneath throws, or gamble with a pass rush or man coverage and take the risk of quarterbacks connecting on long strikes? This is the quandary Gregory is in, and we’ll find out what he comes up with these next few weeks.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2009 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good call. Rephrasing it now.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now the solution would be to be aggressive in the pass rush and send more guys.
Is the solution to really send more guys? As I said before, if the solution to having a better defense is simply to send more guys, then why aren’t all football defenses more aggressive? Either Bob Gregory is an idiot (plausible but unlikely), and all other defensive coordinators who don’t send at least 5 or more pass rushers each down are idiots too (plausible but very unlikely), or perhaps there are other legitimate reasons why Gregory doesn’t send more pass rushers.
But I think the real goal here is to get more PRESSURE. Sending more pass rushers is one way of getting more pressure, but it is not the only way. Cal fans see it as the only way though. And when they see it as the only way, and Gregory isn’t doing what they think is the only way, then Gregory sucks and he needs to go.
In my UCLA post-game thoughts I criticized Gregory for not twisting the DEs in on pass rush to get more pressure. Such a solution could get more pressure without sending more pass rushers. Overload pass rushes might be another way to accomplish pressure. Slants might be another way. Having the DL in two point stances and doing pre-snap movements and/or shifts before the snap would be another method.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2009 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree about the pressure idea, but it doesn’t seem like Cal has gotten enough of a rush with 4-5 guys. Hydro, have the Bears been stunting or twisting a lot in these games? I’ve only noticed it a few times and we got sacks.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he's doing NONE of the things you suggest
When I say aggressive, I’m all on board with your variety of ways to generate pressure. I’ve seen almost nothing, and a lot of it was only in the 4th Q. I want to stop the enemy O from getting into rhythm in the first half. I’d rather try something new, perhaps succeed, but perhaps get burned, then continue to get burned with the old. Because the old is getting picked apart more each week as D-coaches get to examine more film. Change now. Should have during the bye with extra time.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Oct 27, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a question about stunting/twisting and such. I would think more explosive d-lineman, on average, would be better suited for line moves like this? The faster they are the better they’ll do with space to run by the offensive lineman and such. Since we run a 3-4, our lineman tend to be a bit bigger and slower…maybe they aren’t as good a fit for line movement? After all, if the lineman can stay in front, by the time they engage the lineman to try to beat them it’s given the QB more time…
Thoughts?
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, bigger and slower guys aren’t perfect for all that twisting and stunting. You’d prefer to have bigger and faster guys.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well you’d prefer bigger and faster guys for everything, the question is, would you prefer smaller and faster or bigger and slower for our pass rush…?
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smaller and faster, I guess.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Watching the highlights over again – I’m not sure what Cal’s trying to accomplish with their schemes on the two plays WSU scored TD’s on. The first play we only rushed 3 guys – I can’t tell, it looks like it might be zone coverage but I don’t get a good enough camera view to really tell. The point is with 8 defenders out and only 4 real receivers from WSU (RB releases out of the backfield late, about when the QB throws the ball so I don’t count him), why do we only have 1 guy back to defend the deep pass? If it’s a Cover 2 or 3 and they have other players running vertically to bring the other deep guy(s) away, that would make sense, but if it’s some sort of man coverage I just don’t understand why we wouldn’t have a safety back there. The coverage was there, though, great play by WSU.
Same thing with the next TD, we get aggressive with a 5 man rush, don’t get to the QB, and we’re in man with 1 guy free (at least it looks like that’s the scheme to me). He’s kind of in no mans land, though – not deep enough to provide middle coverage, not shallow enough to do anything about short crosses/slants (which could be hot routes for the blitz)…it just seems like a weird place for him to be, and he doesn’t end up helping anyone on their coverage. Maybe it was just a good play call to our defense. Either way, the end result is the slot guy running a deep post and easily getting open on Ezeff (it looks like #29 to me). QB has plenty of time to throw despite 5 man rush. Easy play for WSU. A more conservative cover-1 4 man rush would have worked much better…
Also, Ezeff was way off the line. Of course we don’t want to tip man coverage and since he’s a safety that’s where he’s supposed to be, but can we realistically expect him to cover the slot guy in man from where he started out? He might have gotten burned on a corner-post double route – it’s not in the video but the other slot guy ran a post-corner, and given how open he was, I’m guessing Ezeff bit on the double-route (which is understandable to a point since we were blitzing, Ezeff shouldn’t have to cover a vertical double-route when we’re blitzing)…
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I take back the double-route part, upon another watching it really doesn’t look like it at all.
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First one is definitely a zone cover 3 – with 8 defenders we have 5 in the intermediate/short zones and 3 back. Like I said – coverage was there, but it was a great play all around by WSU. I think the middle deep guy made a mistake playing as short as he did (the middle guy in first group should have been dropping back to prevent that throw), but it wouldn’t have made a difference because he would have still had to watch that guy and wouldn’t have been close enough to make a play on the ball or receiver even if he was deeper.
Second one is exactly how I said it went down. Man coverage with one guy in a middle zone, he shades to the right slot and gets caught in no-man’s land accomplishing nothing. Ezeff gets burned bad on a post. Pass rusher doesn’t get much pressure despite rushing 5 guys – their RB effectively blocks our blitzing OLB (would that have happened with Follett? I don’t think so)…Ezeff is just starts out too deep and isn’t even in the play after the WR makes his break, and the zone guy isn’t doing anything. A 4 man rush with a cover-1 (two middle zone guys, one deep one shorter) would have forced the QB to throw to one of the outside hitch WR’s, if he could get it to them, otherwise everything’s covered.
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
deep post strikes again
In that first situation, running the left sideline on the deep post, the offensive coordinator apparently gambled the double underneath routes would pull in the cloud; whomever covered the WR on the deep post would have no help. Perfect post-up and a well thrown pass made it look sharp and difficult to defend.
by crackpipe on Oct 28, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Syd is the guy that appears to be the deep defender and he’s already way out of middle field and doubling the right slot WR. Seems like he or someone else should have been in deep middle.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 31, 2009 3:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The TD that Ezeff gave up was a mismatch. I’d pick a WR/TE to win a ball over Ezeff pretty much any day of the week. Credit the Wazzu QB for exploiting this matchup.
The other TD was given up by Nnbuiafe (or however u spell his last name). Backup CB in a 1 on 1 situation and he lost.
Sometimes you win those, sometimes you don’t.
A great secondary that can provide tight coverage can make an average front 7 look great. A great front 7 that can create chaos and pressure can make an average secondary look great. Cal doesn’t really have either of those and we are seeing the struggle now.
by Cali49a on Oct 27, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d pick a WR/TE to win a ball over Ezeff pretty much any day of the week.
If you really think that, then frankly, Ezeff shouldn’t be playing. Safeties have to be able to cover. He’s responsible for the slot guy, the guy makes one move and is wide open. I don’t expect Ezeff to be a shutdown corner in coverage or anything, but he has to at least be somewhat capable of coverage or he has no business ever trying to cover someone in man. Especially when he’s already playing deep and the guy just runs a deep post, he needs to be there and at least make it a tough throw and catch, if nothing else. If we really thought it was a mismatch the zone middle guy should have shaded over Ezeff’s direction instead of on the other slot guy.
As for the other TD, like I said, it was good coverage. Our corner was in his zone, played his responsibility right, had the guy in pretty tight coverage, and it was just a great play. All you can do is credit WSU. Like you said, it was just one of those times you don’t win…
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get the feeling that our secondary isn’t so great and that’s perhaps why Gregory is being gun-shy and playing zone (aside from this past game). He feels as if Ezeff like you said isn’t capable of covering like say DeCoud but is still better than Johnson and Cattouse.
I feel as if our secondary looked good due to the fact that Follet and co were creating so much havok that most of the passes that went to the secondary weren’t properly thrown
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Oct 27, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I’m not mistaken, Gregory plays zone because he likes zone schemes. I could be miles off base here, but I think Gregory’s always been a zone coordinator.
"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 27, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah - I think it's hard to dispute this
That’s where the armchair coaching comes in – we can’t prove this, but I feel this way. He’s too stubborn – he wants his zone schemes to work better, and form his base defense, and he’s hoping his players will learn it and execute it better. That’s not stupid, but he’s so far from the needed results I think it’s past time to rethink it and bring more change. Just to prevent the enemy D-coaches from knowing too much alone is worth some notable changes.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Oct 27, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
linebackers reaction
Looks better the last two weeks. They looked like deer in the headlights against Oregon and USC slants.
by crackpipe on Oct 28, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CGB
or Novels by Avinash….
you decide =P
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Oct 27, 2009 10:57 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
::wipes sweat off face::
just finished reading… thank you, sir. good job.
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Oct 27, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This may not even be relevant ...
A pet peeve of mine are cornerbacks in man coverage who never look back at the ball even when it is clear that the QB is throwing to their receiver. And, sadly, I seem to see this almost always with our guys. So much so, that I have to believe they are being specifically coached that way.
I think I get the idea behind it: by focusing on their man they won’t get burned by a good move or by the receiver making an adjustment, and will be in a position to make the play. But I hate that. It basically makes the CB a passive defender, needing to hope that either the receiver drops the ball, that the pass is poorly thrown, or that the frantic flailing of arms miraculously bats the ball away at the last second.
Against Ucla that defense ended up being no problem (for the most part) thanks to the Ucla receivers having some unexplainable, irrational fear of the football. Against Minnesota, it burned us.
Okay, I feel better now.
On ATQ I'm known as JSoCal Oski
It's spelled J-etc
by SoCal Oski on Oct 27, 2009 11:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A cornerback need not always look back for the ball. It is a common misconception among Cal fans that CBs are required to look back for the ball. If the cornerback is in good position, and has the footing to look back for the ball then they definitely should. But often times the cornerback is not in good position, or does not have the right footing at the instant he may want to look back for the ball so the cornerback does not look back for the ball.
Keep in mind face guarding is perfectly legal. There is nothing wrong with face guarding or timing a swat to the WR’s hands right as the ball arrives if the cornerback is not in position or does not have the correct footing to turn and look for the ball.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A risk is if a defender runs into the WR as the WR is coming back for the catch. I think that’s PI, no?
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Oct 27, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it’s a risk and it would be a penalty if he did.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I hate that. It basically makes the CB a passive defender, needing to hope that either the receiver drops the ball, that the pass is poorly thrown, or that the frantic flailing of arms miraculously bats the ball away at the last second.
The primary job of a Cornerback is to defend the pass. Turning to look for the ball and attempting to intercept it is the secondary concern for a CB. It doesn’t matter how he breaks the pass up, as long as he does it, it’s gravy.
TV commentators are not doing the viewers any favors by misinforming them. You really never hear a commentator bitch about the CB not turning to look for the ball when PI is not called. They always make it a big deal when PI is called. Sometimes the commentators will complain that the ball could have been intercepted if only the CB turned his head to look for it. Waaaaaaaaaay easier said than done. Perfect example of why turning the head is not always the greatest idea: Against fucla, Embree caught a well thrown, high pass over Hagan. Hagan had great coverage, turned to look for the ball, while Embree created just enough separation and made a good body adjustment, and caught the long pass which set up fucla’s first TD. Had Hagan not turned his head, he would have at the very least had a chance to make a play on the ball.
by Cali49a on Oct 27, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I consider myself put in my place
On ATQ I'm known as JSoCal Oski
It's spelled J-etc
by SoCal Oski on Oct 27, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think there’s a problem with being coached not to look at the ball, but if you are, it would be nice if you had the skills to at least make a play on the ball when it’s about to be caught, be it face-guarding or making a swat at the ball.
Maybe this is asking too much?
by rurata on Oct 27, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah - neither turning, nor face-guarding/swatting at they key moment is unacceptable
So coach them to do one or the other, please.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Oct 27, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tuel’s two touchdown throws came against man coverage, where he fit that ball in just the right place for the receiver to get it and the defender had no chance to play the ball.
This reminds me of a first half throw Prince made in the UCLA game. The tight end went streaking up the middle but DJ Holt was only about a half step behind if not running stride for stride. The pass rush was a fraction of a second from producing a sack, but Prince somehow found a way to throw a perfect strike off the back foot with what could only be described as a whack-ass throw and the tight end made the catch.
Lesson learned? It’s possible to do everything right and still get burned.
"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 27, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As Charles Barkley always says, “Good defense, better offense.”
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rulon (when healthy) was an effin beast. Top 5 (when healthy) for sure.
"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 27, 2009 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah had to dock him down because of his issues. I guess a human body isn’t designed to be as beastly as Rulon’s.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
did he catch on with an NFL p-squad? I hope so.
"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 27, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cut by the Broncos, no one else has shown interest.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coug Center with interesting insight into Cal's defense vs their opponents
Look at the numbers on their site, here are the conclusions.
Cal fans, who we have learned are similar to Coug fans in their expectations, have made sure to point out that their defense is not great and we should temper our enthusiasm a bit. They are right, we should temper our enthusiasm, it was just one game and we know all too well what happens when we look too much into the statistics from a single contest. They are also right that the Golden Bear defense is far from stout. They are at best, average. Hovering right around the middle in yards per play, giving up 5.4
Out of conference play, Cal was able to make some bad offenses look even worse. In conference play, it has been a different story. Oregon, UCLA, and WSU all exceeded their season yards per play averages. Interestingly enough, it appears that Cal’s defense had its best performance against a dominant USC offense.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 12:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A few responses to the original post
The secondary has regressed in part because of Hagan’s injury. This gets overlooked most of the time. He hurt his knee back in fall camp and has been playing with pain in it until recently. I’m not sure he is 100% yet and it may very well be one of those nagging injuries. It’s hard to come back from an injury, miss so much practice time, and play with consistency. Just ask Nate Longshore ;) But this doesn’t excuse Hagan from some pretty spotty tackling vs Wazzu.
The tinkering with 4 DL for the pass rush. I was thinking BG might try this and he did against the doormat of the Pac10 and at home. IMO, this is a for sure sign that he is aware that our pass rush has sucked balls this year relative to last year and is doing what he can do to create more pressure without giving any more leverage to other teams.
by Cali49a on Oct 27, 2009 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Man if Cal was in the ACC or the Big East I feel as if we’d be winning it right now. Despite what many say the Pac-10 is tough
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Oct 27, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think for once the Pac-10 actually has to be in the argument as the best top to bottom conference this year
by Kai on Oct 27, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think for once
Sounds like you’ve been listening to ESPN with their love affair of the SEC a little too much (and their tv contract with the SEC)…
In any given year figuring out which conference is strongest is a pretty….pointless endevor at best, for sample size reasons. All I know is over this decade (at least before this season started), the Pac-10 has a winning record against every other BCS conference, and the highest winning % against the other BCS conferences. I think it’s fair to say being the strongest conference in a given year isn’t some really rare “for once” event…
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pac-10 definitely has the best middle-tier of any conference, and we have dangerous lower-tier teams in UCLA and Washington.
by chowder on Oct 27, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure about the ACC
VT can be very good (BC had 6 yards at halftime), Miami and GT are no slouches. I don’t think it is as deep as the Pac-10, but not sure that we’d be leading the ACC…
by tmoran3020 on Oct 27, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think pretty much every league brings the minimum requirement of wood this year. I mean, there’s really no guarantee that we’d finish better than 2nd or 3rd in the Big East; Cincy and Pitt are good teams and aside from Syracuse (the Washington State of the Eastern time zones) the league’s solid top to bottom. I like to think Cal could do pretty well if it were in the Big Ten, though.
I had a crazy idea a while back that there should be conference exchange programs, where conferences swap schools for a season. USC in the SEC! Florida in the Pac 10! It is the pipiest of pipe dreams, but we are nothing without our dreams.
"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 27, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d love to look back at the games and come up with a long fanpost with detailed answers, but I can’t. Basically, I think we should play man and blitz a little more. Not a lot more, but a little more.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 27, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would have loved to see the game on this new thing called “Television”
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Oct 27, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah - I'm not calling for a blitz or 5-man rush every down
But spice it up please. Show 5 and and sometimes rush 3/4/5. QB and OL shouldn’t know for sure – they worry = D succeeds more.
Go count the number of 3-man rushes in the first 3 quarters of the last 4 games. That’s stats enough to justify my arguments.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Oct 27, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show 5 and and sometimes rush 3/4/5.
The thing is… he does this. So are you saying it’s ineffective or have you just missed this?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Oct 27, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um...
I hope I’m not missing it too much, but I think mostly he shows 3-5 and rushes 3. The rush 4 and 5 out of the Show 5 is very rare. AND, the same 3 always come. I see us show 5, I know which 3 are rushing, and so does the opposing O. Oregon and ASU sometimes showed 5/6 and some very different 3/4/5 came. Sometimes delayed. Sometimes LBs or safeties or corners. That’s what I want.
If you’re saying he rushes more than 3 more than 30% of the time, I need stats b/c I believe it’s less 30% when it should be 60%.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 4, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, and sometimes very unbalanced works
Our main 3 almost always line up in the same spots, or close to it. Easy to know what’s coming for the O line.
In the Oregon over USC win, sometimes Oregon would wildly overbalance one side – like put 5 on the left, and 2 on the right, and 3 of the 5 from the left actually rushed, and then 2-3 U$C O-lineman were left doing nothing useful (b/c it was a pass play, so they couldn’t go downfield). Obviously, you can’t run that D all the time, but it’s a great problem to throw sometimes at the O line. I don’t see ANYTHING like that from Gregory. Where’s the college creativity?
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Nov 4, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very nice article....
I still blame Gregory (I can’t get passed the 2007 season).
by MBT91_78 on Oct 27, 2009 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What happened in 2007 to the defense? They actually played pretty well most of the year.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I don’t quite agree with MBT91, come on the defense in 2007 was one of our biggest failures. Or does UW 2007 not ring a bell. Or how about letting Chauncey Washington rush for about 200 on us?
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Oct 27, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aside from UW, they played fairly well. USC only scored 24 points and it was a fairly winnable game.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My wife put 100% of the blame for 2007 on the QB. I think there was enough blame to go around. However, in terms of BG, I am just not a fan of his school of thought around bending. Something bends too much it will eventually break.
by MBT91_78 on Oct 27, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I don’t think Gregory promotes “bending” at all. I think every defensive coach understands giving up yards is bad…
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true. I think Cal fans are under the impression that BG in some way promotes ‘bending but not breaking’ himself… when I’ve heard in the few interviews of him that he outright denies that is his philosophy
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Oct 27, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Poorly researched opinions! On a sports forum!? GET OUT.
"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 27, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW Avinash – very impressive response. 3 minutes after my reply.
by MBT91_78 on Oct 27, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least statistically…Cal’s passing D was great in 07, run D was and opponent PPG were terrible.
dboneisloose
by HolmoePhobe on Oct 27, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I’ve analyzed this before. Oregon State was really 18 points (Fumble by Forsett deep in the red zone, Riley pick returned to the red zone, Best kickoff fumble) UCLA they only gave up 23 points (pick six), ASU they gave up 24 (7 points came after a Longshore INT returned close to the red zone), USC 24, Furd 13 points (Longshore fumble close to their red zone). So the defense looked better than those numbers (EXCEPT for UW, which was horrible).
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 27, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember them allowing far too many 3rd and longs, but that was a while ago and I am probably confused.
by chowder on Oct 27, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Commonly used statistics like opponent ppg are misleading, but it seems to me they should be consistently misleading. It would be nice if someone instituted a points allowed by defense category in football stats.
"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 27, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm…and were there significantly less points off turnovers in past seasons?
dboneisloose
by HolmoePhobe on Oct 27, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly; we had more turnovers in 2007 than in any other season except 2005 (tied with 27 each).
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash on Oct 28, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t finished the article yet, but major REC for slighting Rajon Rondo!
by chowder on Oct 27, 2009 4:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I can’t say I much care that the defensive woes yet. The coug’s 440 yards to our 559 might seem like a shootout but the fact is we blew them out. The excessive pass yards stemmed from the coug’s playing catchup. Our run D should help out immensely against oregon state and our D is way faster than stanfurd’s so zona won’t score more than 30.
Anybody else pissed off about the pro life “exhibit” on campus?
by JrBear on Oct 27, 2009 5:03 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs




















