California Golden Blogs: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: MLB Trade Deadline: Astros' fans react to Oswalt trade

Roll On: What Will Cal's Offense Look Like Without Jahvid Best?

I wish I could come up with something optimistic to write, but the fact is Cal's offense was pretty screwed up even with Jahvid Best back there. At this point it all boils down to blocking. The run blocking and pass protection stink. It's been stinking all year, it hasn't improved from week-to-week, and it's wishful thinking to expect anything to change during these last three weeks. Coming up? Arizona, 23rd in sacks, 11th in rushing defense, 37th in passing defense. Oh yeah, I'm totally hot for this. Dipping myself in cocoa butter right now.

If Cal's going to beat Arizona, the offensive line is going to have to play way better than they've been showing through conference play. Steve Marshall's going to have to coach these guys up, really make them play this game for Jahvid, and try to finally open holes for Shane Vereen and Covaughn Deboskie-Johnson. If these guys aren't talented enough to execute the sets they're given, adjust accordingly. What's been the most frustrating thing about this season has been the lack of adjustments on both the offensive and defensive side of the ball. I understand losing these games, but to get blown out in each game? It's just hard to sit there and take the same plays being called when they haven't been working not just for one game, but ONE MONTH.

Well, the Bears are going to have to adjust now; without Jahvid Best this is a drastically different team. Find out more about what Cal might look like after the jump, and why the Wildcat might be used quite a bit.

Star-divide

The rushing burden is on Shane Vereen. I doubt Tedford and Ludwig feel Deboskie is ready to handle anything more than 15% of the snaps at this point, so a lot of the burden will be put on Vereen to play a Forsett 2007-type role. Vereen did a manageable job against Arizona State last season, and the same thing will be needed (probably more) from him to pull off a victory against Arizona. Unfortunately, he's not going to have any more leverage getting through no holes as Best did.

Less inside zone please? Hey Coach Ludwig. Everytime you run inside zone between the tackles just so our poor running backs can get levelled for a one yard gain, you're taking days off my life. Arizona has a running defense that is very good, on the rise, confident in themselves, and is certainly going to play Cal the same way every defense has played Cal since the start of the season. Please try something somewhere.

The Bears can no longer run two running backs in a multitude of ways. That kind of eliminates the double threat of having one of either Best and Vereen line out as a receiver. So now Cal loses some of the unconventionality they were showing the previous three weeks (and who knows how the Oregon State game turns out if Best doesn't get injured) and they probably return to the conventional sets typical of a pro-style offense, since Deboskie or Sofele aren't going to be lining out wide or forcing defenses to stack the box.

Without the great receiving threats our running backs offered...

This will put more pressure on the receiving corps. Outside of Jones, no receiver has really played two good games in a row. Lagemann has shown promise, Tucker has vacillated between brilliant and bad, Ross can leap a lot, Calvin hasn't really been heard from, nor has Boateng. These guys are going to have to start playing well to help Kevin Riley out by getting separation from their defenders, not quitting on their routes, anything to adapt to the bad O-line play.

Anthony Miller is also sorely missed here--he'd become Riley's go to option in bad spots. With Jarrett Sparks or Skylar Curran you just don't know what you're getting.

More rollout options for Riley? Given how bad the pass protection has been, you'd have expected more of this even before Best's injury. But Kevin does seem to be more effective out of the pocket than in it--it might be worth considering just getting him going with play action fake bootlegs. Or something of the sort.

Best's absence doesn't diminish the Wildcat option. Many people think that the Wildcat is used primarily to put another blocker on the field, but in this case I feel that the Wildcat hasn't been used this season just because the blocking has been so porous, no matter how many guys you put out there to block. It's also to get the ball into the hands of the runner more quickly.

Why is that? When you direct snap to your running back and quarterback, that gives them an extra few seconds that would've been otherwise used to hand off the ball. This time allows your blockers to get in place and open up the holes for the running back to cut through. But the blocking has been so bad this season though that you're often seeing defenders penetrating the line of scrimmage at the time it takes the Bears to handoff the ball (the Bears have allowed 78 tackles for loss this season, and that number's probably greater if you add in 0-2 yard gains). Hence you put it in the running back's hands quicker to just let him take off before defenders can anticipate it coming.

(Notice that the quarterback draw has also been used in previous weeks to surprising success. It's a pretty damning indictment of your offensive line if your best running plays are quarterback keepers and direct running back snaps.)

Is it time to go back to the book of tricks? Around this time last year the Bears were totally flummoxed by the passing ineptitude that they had to resort to flea-flickers, hook-and-ladders, running back lateral/wide receiver passes. Although I've seen signs of unconventional plays, they've been for the most part snuffed out or failed due to execution errors. This next two weeks are the difference between a 6-6 disaster and an alright 8-4/9-3 season. Might as well try and throw everything out of the playbook.

In the end though, unless Riley has a monstrous game, this one's probably coming down to blocking again. The fact is the Bears still have to run the ball. Going straight to the pass and expecting the receivers to make good catches is a recipe of quick 3 and outs, and leaving one of the worst passing defenses in the country out there for Foles to pick apart. Sounds reallly enticing.

If no one blocks well, the offense is going to throw up another turd sandwich. And we could see something we've never seen at the end of a Tedford-era Cal football game--an empty Memorial in the 4th quarter.

(For those wondering why I didn't write anything about the defense...they are what they are this point. Smarter people than me said we'd miss our senior linebackers, and they're right. Plus I haven't watched enough defensive gametape this season to know how much of this is on Gregory for putting them in the wrong positions to make plays on the ball, so all I can do right now is hope they play better.)

Poll
Cal's offense will be __________ without Jahvid Best.
clicking even
11 votes
surprisingly pleasing
36 votes
making me groan a lot
80 votes
unbelievably bad
31 votes
forcing me to drink more
65 votes

223 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 35 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Well-played my friend, well-played.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Nov 13, 2009 3:37 AM PST up reply actions  

The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 13, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions  

LINK

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Nov 13, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions  

If we win, I say we tear down the goalposts


WHO’S WITH ME?*

*Actually, no…don’t tear down the goalposts. Our program can’t afford replacements. Just rush the field and hug a yellow coat.

"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 13, 2009 7:45 AM PST reply actions  

We rush the field when we beat Stanford, beat a top five team, or beat an SEC team.

And the last one isn’t a strong reason.

7

by Rishi on Nov 13, 2009 8:38 AM PST up reply actions  

what if we pwn them?

"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 13, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Arizona will win toss, defer, Cal goes three and out (while losing a few yards) and punt. 4+ minutes off the clock, 10 plays, and three 11 yard completions on 3rd and 7s later, a TD pass by Foles and …

by bluehenbear on Nov 13, 2009 8:28 AM PST reply actions  

Somehow… I like this post!

STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS

by Thoroughbred on Nov 13, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions  

rec’d!

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Nov 13, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions  

I like it, except that BBDB isn’t a real strategy!

by Missing Barry on Nov 13, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Well, the defense does allow them to “pass easily.”

The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 13, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

And there are lots of floaters over the middle.

by sec119 on Nov 13, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions  

With a high degree of regularity…

The Lack of Mack's Imposition Attacks My Disposition.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 13, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions  

See, this is the type of language I strongly object to. It might describe our play, sure (though we’ve probably had a little too much “break” in there as opposed to “not break”), but it’s not like it’s our objective. The strategy is to stop the offense…it just isn’t working.

by Missing Barry on Nov 13, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions  

good enough for government work.

"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 13, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not sure I understand the poll question

See, here’s my take. I don’t think the offense will look one bit different without Jahvid in there. Going three and out while losing three yards is going to happen with or without him.

The current conundrum is bigger than one player. Bigger, I say! It’s like a rash, or maybe one of those little vermin who multiply rapidly and are transmittted by casual contact. Kind of like crabs. Yeah, that’s it. The Cal offense has crabs. Our guys are too busy trying to control their crotch fire to manage to block, catch, throw, run, or do any of those other things.

Go Crabs!

On ATQ I'm known as JSoCal Oski

It's spelled J-etc

by SoCal Oski on Nov 13, 2009 9:14 AM PST reply actions  

Avi, baby, such a great write-up as usual.

One question for you though. Why the focus on the offense when the defense has got straight owned against any team with 1/2 an offense. Hell, even against teams with crap offenses (fUCLA) and dog-shit offenses (WSU) put forth their best offensive days against our squad.

After AZ hangs another 30 spot on our D can we get an in depth analysis as to why BBDB is no bueno (apologies in advance to Barry).

by 33SwisherSweet on Nov 13, 2009 10:29 AM PST reply actions  

I think the problem is that people tend to characterize zone defenses as BBDB, when, really, it’s just zone. It’s not like they mean to give up yards underneath (well, I guess maybe they don’t mind as much), but calling our defense BBDB is like calling the Tampa 2 BBDB.

Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team soon to be owned by a Russian oligarch.

by yellow fever on Nov 13, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions  

So what’s your suggestion at “fixing” the defense in the short term (i.e. no FIRE GREGORY).

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Nov 13, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Attempting to pressure the QB. Zero 3 man rush sets. Rush 4 at minimum.

It’s been proven time and again that the 3 man rush doesn’t work with this personel.

by 33SwisherSweet on Nov 13, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions  

For the past three weeks, we’ve been rushing 4, sometimes 5 on every passing down. We’ve put 4 down linemen on 2nd and long and 3rd down situations in an attempt to put more pressure on the quarterback. It hasn’t worked yet.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Nov 13, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions  

REWATCH THE GAME......

we rushed 3 over 50% of the time and completion percentage is significantly higher when we rush 3. In all your analysis you have yet to break down the % of times we rushed three as opposed to 4-5. You are basing all this “we rushed more than 3” stuff on your gameday observations.

by 33SwisherSweet on Nov 13, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree here that the 3 man sets should be kept to a minimum (on 3rd and excessively long, it’s still cool in my book)

All this said, Minnesota and Maryland must’ve had the worst OLs in the country because our 3-3-5 personnel absolutely crushed those teams (with LOTS of sacks)

it’s disheartening that we haven’t been able to get those coverage sacks like last year. i feel your pain. i wonder if Pac-10 OLs really took a step up this year… hard to say

STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS

by Thoroughbred on Nov 13, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions  

it could be that the OCs in the Pac-10 really adjusted over the offseason to the 3-4 and 3-3 schemes. I BLAME DANZIG’S GOLD RUSH POST!!!!!!

STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS

by Thoroughbred on Nov 13, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions  

See, stuff like this I can get on board with. I do not like rushing 3, either. Though I’m not a huge fan of rushing 5+ too often, either, given that we struggle to get to the QB then, too…

by Missing Barry on Nov 13, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Agree with you here Barry. I'm not a huge fan of sending 5 all that often,but occassionally you have to do it.

Rushing 3, on the other hand, should be limited to third and more than 10 yards to go situations. Unfortunately, our primary set is a 3 man rush.

by 33SwisherSweet on Nov 13, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Rec’d for a Voltron reference.

by suessbear on Nov 13, 2009 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Is anyone else...

…panicking about recruiting? Look, I don’t put tons of stock into stars, Top this or That…however, it seems like there are more than a few high school heroes who are eliminating the Bears from consideration. What do you guys think?

by BlackandOldGold on Nov 13, 2009 1:41 PM PST reply actions  

I don’t panic about anything until signing day.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Nov 13, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions  

A lot changes between now and signing day. That said, until the facilities are complete, we’re still going to get negative recruiting on that front. The UCLAs and Furds have a lot of points to make when dissuading someone from Cal

STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS

by Thoroughbred on Nov 13, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Interesting Comments On Gregory From BWNQ

In answering a question to a fan who says our D always lacks tenacity:

“A recurring theme, with the exception of 2008 and certain times in 2006, is that Cal lacks the proper mindset defensively. They go into games expecting to shut down the run, and they do it, because they believe in it. But they go into games ready to concede certain pass plays, and it shows. Gregory’s mantra is stop the run and the big play and give up the dink and dunk. That is telling your players something remarkable: “Let certain plays succeed.” As a defense, that should be anathema.

This puts tremendous pressure on the offense (which as I said annually lacks the QB to deal with that pressure). Defensive thinking has to be religion, not talk. It has to be a core belief that everything will be contested. Stopping the pass has to be given equal dignity to stopping the run.

And if it is, two things will happen. (1) You will force yourself to recruit better athletes on defense who can execute that objective. (2) Your game plan, practice, and play will reflect it."

I have to agree.

by KikiRevenge on Nov 13, 2009 2:16 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The California Sports Website that's .....different from all the rest.

GoldenBlogs' FAQ
Start posting about the Golden Bears »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Childish Fun With The Stanford Band

Recent FanPosts

Chowder2_small
DBD 7.30.10: Pac-12 Basketball: Round Robin or Tournament?
1262541127_small
DBD 7.29.10 USA! USA!
Small
DBD 7.28.10: Least favorite job
Tedford_avatar_small
DBD 7.27.10. An embarrassment to Cal, I am?
Small
DBD 07.26.2010: Youtube!
Calflag_small
DBD 7.23.10 Funny People
1262541127_small
DBD 7.22.10 We Write Like Chuck Norris
Small
The Fish Report: Aliotti Better Than Carroll?
Small
DBD 7.21.10: Favorite Job

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Photo +14 updates

QB Jeremiah Masoli Headed To Ole Miss After Being Dismissed From Oregon

Photo

With Apologies To Randy Edsall, The Big East Remains Mostly Harmless

FILE -- This is an Oct. 18, 2008 file photo showing Connecticut corner back Jasper Howard (6) trying to get the crowd into the game during the fourth quarter of an NCAA college football game against Rutgers, in Piscataway, N.J.   Jasper Howard had his little sisters' names tatooed on his chest. His friends say it was a constant reminder of why he was at U Conn _ to provide his family with a better life than the one he had in Miami's Little Haiti. (AP Photo/Mel Evans, File) link

In Defense Of Big East Football

More from SBNation.com >


Marshawnthusiasts!

Bear_small ragnarok

Script_cal_small HydroTech

Cal_football_2005_09_16_roll_07_012_small CBKWit

P1_marshawn_small TwistNHook

1262541127_small yellow fever

Calflag_small Avinash

Jahvidtician

Giorgiorope_small Berkelium97

Members Of The Follettariat

Bear__small norcalnick

Jones_1_squared_small solarise

The Hit Squad

Tedford_avatar_small Ohio Bear

1129748640_small LeonPowe

Small atomsareenough

Basketball_desktop_small CALumbus Bear

Ajoceywcalhatpic_small Kodiak