Coach Tedford the Playcaller, Part I

I just get the sense that against USC there’s an atmosphere where their reputation is too much for the Bears to get past. It seems everything is done with the attitude of ’don’t mess up and get embarrassed’ rather than ‘take it to them an make plays’.

It’s not hard to understand why, but if you’re going into the game with that mentality you’re already at a disadvantage.

This might affect play calling, as you don’t want to get blown out early on, leading to conservative calls.

At the same time, execute on a few plays early on, gain some confidence, start opening the playbook. I think we saw that during Riley’s first drive until the penalty called back the TD and ruined that.

and in this case I think both of you are right.

I don’t think the 2008 team needed to be more aggressive, because its defense was good enough to keep the team in the game. Ditto for the 2004 team. However, for every other team, I would have liked JT to be more aggressive and to pull out all the trick plays he could reasonably have pulled out. 2004 and 2008 losses were not because of the lack of the trick play or being aggressive but because the offense could not come through in the clutch. Rodgers was great all the 2004 game, but once he got to the goal line, he (or the playcalling) fell apart. One completion and 2004 is a much different year. 2008 did not boil down to one play, but the QBs did not have a good game. If the QBs even have a decent game, the end result could have been different.

Honestly, as well as the defense played in 2008, I thought Gregory did a crappy job of adjusting to USC’s predictable playcalling: rollout bootleg from Sanchez on on every 3rd down, resulting in a first down. Cal never did stop this play resulting in 1st down after 1st down. It’s hard to blame the defense for that game, but they didn’t manage to get the ball back too often in these situations. Equally at fault was the offense though, for which I blame mostly the QB play (if I recall both Riley and Longshore played that game).

If you call a game too aggressively you can get blown the fuck out like Texas Tech v. OU last year. and nobody wants that.

Yet another post Hydro. Rec’d.

I think, in part, Smart Football’s strategy/mindset is correct: Punch ‘em in the mouth early and keep your foot on their neck (aka, the 2008 Sugar Bowl). That should be the strategy against any opponent, no? I’m not sure “playcalling on offense” is the entirety of it. It certainly helps, yes, but it’s an entire team-wide philosophy involving all players and coaches. This includes 4th and shorts, blitzing a CB from Sanchez’s left side (to avoid that QB bootleg left!) aggressive special teams play. Perhaps Cal did that to the best of their abilities. Or perhaps they were thinking “let’s stay in this and try and win it late.” I’m not sure.

What is “conservative” play-calling?

Is it running the ball, in general? Is it the lack of elaborate trick/gimmick plays? Is it synonymous with “predictable”, as in run the ball in short-yardage situations, throw the ball in long-yardage situations, and employ a 50:50 mix on first and ten? Is it synonymous with an alternative definition of “predictable”?

I ask these questions somewhat rhetorically, because I think fans questioning play calling is more often than not a red herring. Good execution always trumps good play calling. And I agree with SoCal above: our Bears perennially lose to USC (and to UCLA in Los Angeles) because of overall team psychology—the old “monkey on the back”—rather than game planning, play calling, etc..

Both teams know what’s coming, and whichever unit straight up beats its counterpart wins the play. It ain’t rocket science! BEAT YO MAN!

I’d also just like to say that all this criticism and talk is sort of taking place in a vacuum. It’s easy to say we should run/pass more or be more/less conservative but we’re viewing this stuff completely out of context. We’re not taking into account the flow of the game, the defense’s reactions to certain plays and/or formations, etc.

The one constant with all of our games against USC since 2003 has been our defense. There is perhaps something to the idea that the myth of USC’s dominance might get into the heads of Cal’s offense. I don’t believe that for a second regarding the defense – they always come out fired up ready to hit someone. I’ll propose that the one blowout was much more due to turnovers (Ayoob!) than a defensive break down. In every other USC game we’re right in it in the 4th quarter. I think the defense has been incredible.

Two of those games were clearly our best performances: 2003 and 2004. In both of those games our offense was very successful – we won with 34 points (24 in regulation) and we lost with only 17, but played an incredibly effective ball control offense and arguably lost because of special teams (USC punt returns, missed FGs, etc.)

So…did we play more unconventionally on offense in either of those games? Absolutely not. In 2003 Adimchinobe Echemandu ran 34 times for 147 yards. In 2004 Aaron Rodgers had the game of his life, throwing short completion after short completion. I can’t recall him going long for the entire game (partly out of necessity because of Chase Lyman’s injury).

The Bears won in ’03 and arguably should have won in ’04 because they were more talented/executed better than the offenses that faced USC in 2005-2008. Our QBs since then have been: Joe Ayoob, OK Nate Longshore, Broken Nate Longshore and QB cyclotron 2008.

So no, I think the playcalling against USC has been mostly great, and at the very least adequate. The problem is that USC has not had a down defense in the Pete Carroll era. To beat that defense, you need to have all of the pieces put together, and even then it might not be enough. Cal hasn’t had all of the pieces together since 2004, and Pete Alamar managed to ruin that one.

With that said, Cal could have all of the pieces together this year. Kevin Riley will almost certainly have his chance to pull of the win that only Reggie Robertson has managed to accomplish.

Thank you, HydroTech.

I wish I had more time right now, but my thinking is I want one notch more aggressive for the U$C game. I agree we are only a bit below U$C talent-wise, not a massive underdog, so we don’t need to go crazy, but we have to step it up. U$C should be the game with the most trick plays in it all season, for example.

Furthermore, my issue with Tedford is definitely about predictability. He plays that predictable-baiting game that CaliforniaPete brings up, but I feel like he pays it too long – if you’re not making progress by the middle of the 2nd quarter, early 3rd quarter at the latest, you must change strategies, and I feel like I’ve seen him struggle to just ‘control the football and establish the running game’ well into the start of the 4th quarter, even when down by 2 touchdowns. Sorry, that’s too late to spring your ‘unpredictable’ side on U$C.

At least try some really crazy stuff 1 year out of 3 with U$C. I mean you want to keep them guessing at least a little bit. I think Tedford has earned the right to lose against U$C via some risk-taking without worrying about being fired. Never reaching your potential is the route to being fired slowly as a head coach. Boring….

This fan wants to see you try. And I think it would give us a better chance of winning more games, rather than being closer in average score every year while still losing each and every time.

In the end it just comes down to offensive execution and minimizing mistakes; I think Tedford’s playcalling easily gives Cal the ability to win given the team executes. That just hasn’t happened against USC.

That absolutely no one voted that Tedford was being too aggressive in his play calls. Personally I feel like the playcalling in general hasn’t been to blame for the team’s losses to USC, but a lack of execution and having inferior personnel. After all, my second-most memorable play of the Tedford era (with the flea-flicker Tedford called for his very first play being number one) was Ayoob’s QB draw on 3rd and 12 in the first drive of USC 2005. You play the hand you’re dealt, and often it isn’t enough no matter how aggressive you want to be.