Should we adjust our offensive system to the QB (or the QB to the system)?

by Rishi on Nov 10, 2009 11:13 AM PST Comment 48 comments

Disclaimer: This is 100% speculation with only anecdotal evidence, not actual stats, to back it up. If the data proves me wrong, that’s fine. If my thesis is wrong, tell me.

As per Avinash's request, here's a cleaned-up version of an earlier post, discussing a potential reason for our lack of QB success.

People have complained that we haven’t had a successful QB since Aaron Rodgers (or maybe since 2006 Longshore), which is odd for a head coach who built his reputation as a groomer of quarterbacks. And I was wondering if Tedford’s insistence on making QBs dropback passers plays some role in this.

Now, Longshore is built to be a prototypical dropback passer, so for this, I’m really looking at two QBs — Ayoob and Riley.

Ayoob was perhaps the most athletic QB we’ve had this decade, perhaps moreso than Boller. He had the ability to scramble (remember the “White Michael Vick” tag?) and make throws on the run. He most definitely was not a drop-back, stand in the pocket, type of passer. Looking at some of his game tape from his JC days, he really looked sharp in a spread offense. I personally am speculating that were he to be in a Florida-esque spread (even a more dumbed-down version), he could have succeded as a quarterback, because his talents were more suited to such a system.

On the flip side, Riley isn’t quite Ayoob, but it seems to me that he excels at the two-minute drill. When he overthinks, he overthrows. When the coach playcalls on the sideline, sends the signal in, Riley conveys it in the huddle, etc, then he doesn’t look too great. But when he runs a hurry-up offense, no-huddle, I personally think he’s actually looked good. Now I’m not a huge fan of Ludwig (I really think running Best up the middle too many times isn’t taking advantage of his talents) and I definitely don’t think he’s putting Riley into the right system.

I think the most clear evidence I can think of regarding Riley's talents have to be Oregon State 2007, on the final drive, or Maryland 2008, when down several touchdowns, Riley led to the team close to winning, or even Arizona State 2009, when Riley had a hot hand on the game-winning drive.

I hope I’m making sense here. The bottom line is something I’ve said for a while — just because it’s used in the NFL does not make a pro-style system better in college than any other system.

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 | Comment 48 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good points

The only big thing is that Tedford’s big draw to QBs has been: “I can make you an NFL quarterback.” They look at his past track record and say, “Wow, this guy’s put six-seven QBs into the NFL!” So then they go to him over UCLA, UW, and all the usual suspects.

Now, if Tedford did exactly what you said and adapted his system to the style of the quarterback, that might very well improve our college team, but it could also hurt future QB recruiting because that draw might no longer be there. Although you could say current quarterback production is hurting us right now.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Nov 10, 2009 11:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Might hurt QB recruiting, but it'd probably help recruiting the defensive side

since prospective players might not, for instance, be attending 42-3 blowouts by competing schools…

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 10, 2009 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think now that we’re seeing more spread QBs drafted into the nfl, this may not be the case anymore.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 7:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I honestly can’t think of one big-time spread offense quarterback who is starting in the NFL. Graham Harrell’s absense leads me to believe the NFL still disregards spread quarterbacks, as does Willie Tuitama’s lack of an invitation to the draft combine.

by chowder on Nov 12, 2009 8:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Starting, no.

Drafted? Yes.

The Patriots in 2007 ran a very spread-style offense (not too disimilar from what a Hawaii ran that year). The Bills are experimenting with a no-huddle offense (okay, so their offense is miserable, but it’s still an NFL team trying a no-huddle).

Not that I’m even suggesting switching to a spread — just taking advantage of a QB’s talents instead of sticking only with a pro-style offense.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And Miami is starting to use Pat White quite a bit. He made the Patriots look bad on a few plays in the first half.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I also strongly believe Dennis Dixon could do something good in the NFL if given the chance.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m 90% sure Pittsburgh ran a zone read in the preseason game against Arizona, but he gave up the ball.

I think he’ll be seeing some playing time within the next couple of seasons. He’s bulked up a bit, and he was starting to really look good in preseason before he dinged one of his arms. He was stepping up into the pocket, and showing he can throw the ball well. I still think he’ll get traded, as his NFL stock value goes up. Unless injury comes to Wrecklessburger, he won’t be seeing much play time in his career at Pittsburgh.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would honestly give him a couple snaps in Wild Steeler formation, just to see what would happen.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t be too surprised. They busted it out once last year.

They are keeping him as third string, but that was only because of his injury he had.

In the NFL, if you put in your third string QB, the starting QB cannot return to the game. I expect him being in second string next year, which will allow them to put him in a Wildcat next year. He has reportedly practiced in the formation already, and has excelled at it.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also…there’s really no reason to put him in as long as their passing game is doing well. If it ain’t broken…

dboneisloose

by HolmoePhobe on Nov 12, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In the NFL, if you put in your third string QB, the starting QB cannot return to the game. I expect him being in second string next year, which will allow them to put him in a Wildcat next year. He has reportedly practiced in the formation already, and has excelled at it.

How does Philly get away with Vick?

Alternately, couldn’t you get around this problem by just listing him as a WR?

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I just found this in some discussion board – so… take it with a grain of salt… I’m too lazy to read through the NFL bylaws.

“Teams will be permitted an Active List of 45 players and an Inactive List of eight players for each regular-season and postseason game. Provided that a club has two quarterbacks on its 45-player Active List, a third quarterback from its Inactive List is permitted to dress for the game, but if he enters the game during the first three quarters, the other two quarterbacks are thereafter prohibited from playing.”

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

WildSteel sounds like a face from Zoolander.

President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Nov 12, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We should recruit QB's who fit the system. The problem is with the high

turnover in OC’s, we dont know exactly what our system is going to be year in year out.

by 33SwisherSweet on Nov 10, 2009 12:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

That's also a good point

The Bears have had five OCs the past five years: Cortez, Dunbar, Tedford, Cignetti, Ludwig. Hopefully we can settle down with our guy here.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Nov 10, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This. Changing the system often has a negative effect on the team – you have to learn new plays/schemes and what not and it starts the learning process over as opposed to getting more familiar with one system. We need to recruit guys that fit into what we expect to run. Losing our OC every year definitely makes it tougher to keep the system as similar as possible from year to year.

by Missing Barry on Nov 10, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Recruit QB’s that fit the system so we don’t have to adjust.

The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 10, 2009 12:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think you need to have the overarching system, and you need to recruit a quarterback that can play within that system. Then, within the system make minor modifications to take advantage or mask some your quarterback’s specific talents or flaws. If the quarterback is good at throwing on the run, install more bootlegs or move the pocket. If the is immobile, stick to the standard 3, 5, and 7 step drops. We should not be running a spread one year, wishbone the next, followed by a pro-style offense.

by chowder on Nov 10, 2009 1:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sold on the “Riley is better in a two minute drill” contention. The supposed reason is that Riley has less time to think, but that’s just less time between whistle and snap. The two minute drill doesn’t change how long he has to throw after the snap, which is probably the most relevant to how he actually throws.

Throw in the fact that while Riley did end the game very well at Arizona State, it’s only one game and moreover a game that Riley started as well or better than he ended.

I think it’s probably more likely that there’s no special explanation as to why Riley finished so well in Tempe, just that he was facing a bad pass D made worse by Cal’s tempo and happened to slip into the zone when he needed to.

I mean, it might be worth it to put Riley in more no-huddle situations at this point on the offchance that he really is better working quickly, but then you run the risk of Cal’s offense getting off the field more quickly and opposing offenses getting more cracks at our porous defense. Ultimately it comes down to cost/benefit.

"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 Nov 10, 2009 1:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Could it just be that Riley and our receivers work well against the type of defense opponents tend to field during those two-minute drills? I know very little about football.

by Yes We Cannon on Nov 10, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

An efficient no huddle offense has an inherent advantage over pretty much any defense. Less time to rest between snaps, no time to substitute. I don’t see any reason why our offense would have any more advantage than that, but I’m in favor of experimenting in order to find 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 Nov 10, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not going to isolate this only to ASU — as I said, it’s happened on multiple occasions.

That said, I really think Riley overthinks when he’s in the huddle and has tendencies not to act on instinct. Speculation, sure, but that’s what it seems like.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 7:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I need to play QB.

“Fuck it, we’re going long.”

"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 Nov 10, 2009 3:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Here’s my take. I haven’t bought into this whole “Riley is an ultra-mobile QB” thing. And honestly, I think we are comparing him to Nate, who is perhaps the only guy ever to make Bernie Kosar look fleet of foot.

Yes, Riley can move about a bit, but I’ve never seen super elusive moves or much speed from him. As far as I can tell, he’s no more mobile than Matt Barkley or Sean Canfield. He’s definitely not in the same class as Locker or Masoli.

Which leads me to believe that the system Cal has in place (a more or less drop back QB) is just about right for him. And, it seems Riley’s trouble is a combination of not just playing the position but thinking about footwork, release point, making the right choice, etc and an OL that may as well be a collection of tackling dummies out there.

Ayoob is/was another story.

On ATQ I'm known as JSoCal Oski

It's spelled J-etc

by SoCal Oski on Nov 10, 2009 3:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think Rodgers is a good comparison for Riley. He has enough speed to make plays with his legs if it’s open, but if the defense knows to expect a run he’s not fast enough to do much. Our zone option keepers haven’t worked too well so far…

by Missing Barry on Nov 10, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think we’ve actually used the zone read in a few games, or if we did I don’t remember it. I think most of our QB runs have been draws.

"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 Nov 10, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m pretty sure I remember it on a couple of separate occasions. I could be wrong. Maybe not a zone read, but an option run out of the shotgun at least. Anyone else confirm/deny this?

by Missing Barry on Nov 10, 2009 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Missing Barry is correct. We have run a few designed zone reads/ option plays

for Riley. Nice wrinkle, but Riley aint got the wheels to make the defense pay.

by 33SwisherSweet on Nov 11, 2009 8:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can think of two times (though I’m not 100% sure they count as actual zone reads — they may be more option-based):

1) Ayoob against Tennessee 2006 when he scored on a run.

2) Riley against Oregon State 2007 when he scored on an option keeper.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 7:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m confused, isn’t a zone read option-based?

by Kai on Nov 12, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think so, but I’m wondering if there are some more specifics for a play to be a “zone read”.

Time to google it.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Zone read is an option play from the shotgun. What makes it a “zone read” is when a defensive player on the end (Usually a DE, but sometimes an OLB or a CB that shows blitz) is left unblocked. The QB reads if he is crashing in to make a play on the RB, if so, the QB keeps it and runs with it to where the DE left the area unblocked.

That’s the simplest description of what makes a zone read. There are variations and combinations of inside runs, outside runs, and various ways to include a third and fourth option.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 9:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So if it’s an option keeper out of the standard position, how is that classified?

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends. Is it just a draw, or is he reading something?

If he takes the snap and immediately starts to run to one side with the back as a pitch option, that is a speed option (Which can be done in most formations).

If he has the option to hand it to the FB (For a dive), keep it (Off tackle), or pitch it (Outside) – that’s a standard triple option.

A standard option is similar to the triple, only the FB moves outside to pick up a block outside the Tackle or Tight End

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And, a major difference in a zone read and other options is the blocking.

One person is always intentionally left unblocked, as the tackle pulls back and blocks on the other side of the line, which creates a bigger running lane for the RB pending the unblocked defender keeps the QB in containment.

So with the zone read, the QB either has an open running lane from a spot a defender vacated – OR – the Running Back has an extra blocker on his side of the center. That’s why it’s been so effective.

Also, the blocking scheme of the OL is zone blocking, not man. Though this is not ALWAYS the case.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for clearing that up J*

by Kai on Nov 12, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm, need to watch film (or ask Hydro). Will get back to you.

Thanks for the clarification. I really need to learn more about options.

by Rishi on Nov 12, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Air Force and Georgia Tech use the old wishbone option offense.

Frank Solich (Of Nebraska/Eric Crouch fame) uses the triple option at Ohio.

Oregon, Michigan, West Virginia, and Florida (And several others) use the spread option, with the zone read as their bread and butter play.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Kyle Reed answered this question.

Tedford likes classic dropback passers – like Mansion, Sweeney, Bridgeford. By the way, we don’t win the QB recruiting battles – we’ve lost better prospects from the elite 11 not just to the Notre Dames and USCs but to UCLAs, Stanfords, BYUs. Tedford’s QB rep. is definitely suffering of late and making us realize how special Rodgers was.

At least Al Davis isn't running my team's drafts.

by bringbackbuddytrees on Nov 11, 2009 1:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I actually would like to see increased tempo. In fact, we did use increased tempo against USC early on.

West Virginia, I believe, has three different tempos (I read an article about them a long time ago). They basically have the regular slow huddle offense. They have an increased tempo where I guess the players hurry back to the LOS and call off another play pretty quickly. And then they have like a lightening fast tempo where they just run play after play after play as quickly as possible attempting to disallow the defense to substitute and figure out what’s going on.

I’m not sure that they still do this, but if my memory serves me correctly, I thought that this was what Rich Rodriguez did back at WVU.

I like increased tempo for the following reasons: (1) it tires out the defense faster; (2) it makes it harder for the defense to substitute; (3) it disallows, or makes it harder for the defense to disguise their defense pre-snap; (4) it catches the defense off-guard.

I personally would not mind seeing an increased tempo offense (whether it be a complete hurry-up or merely an increased tempo).

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Nov 11, 2009 6:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The downside is that you stand a chance of just going 3 and out at high speed, which is bad news for the defense. And considering the kind of boom-and-bust nature of Cal’s offense this year and the not-actually-good-at-anything nature of the defense, that could lead to things getting real ugly, real quick.

But yeah, still in favor of experimenting.

"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 Nov 11, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your entire team would need to go through a lot of conditioning in the off season. Oregon’s TOP has consistently been one of the lowest in the country for the last 3 years, and their defense arguably has been on the field for more plays than any other team in the country – and it is because of the fast tempo, no huddle offense.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 12, 2009 6:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wholeheartedly endorse increased tempo. The Cal offense already 3s and outs at a ridiculous rate. I think we have to look at Oregon and wonder how the gap in offensive playcalling has gotten so wide (given all our offensive minds came from there) – they are dynamic and unpredictable.

At least Al Davis isn't running my team's drafts.

by bringbackbuddytrees on Nov 14, 2009 7:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

More than that where are high percentage, catch and run plays that build a QB’s rhythm, put less strain on the protection, and let athletic skill playmakers make plays? I’d much rather see more bubble screens and circle routes to our RBs than “Wildbear.”

At least Al Davis isn't running my team's drafts.

by bringbackbuddytrees on Nov 14, 2009 7:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs