Coach Tedford the Playcaller, Part II

by Avinash on May 7, 2009 3:00 AM PDT in Football Comment 15 comments

People might remember about a decade or so ago, Hydro and I started a discussion about playcalling versus USC. I contended that Coach Tedford tries to keep it close and win the game in the 4th quarter rather than going for it early. Hydro disagreed somewhat. Take a look at the link above if you've forgotten what that was all about. The discussion was based off this article from Smart Football.

We continue this discussion, now turning our attention to the run/pass balance.

Hydro: In the 2008 Cal vs. USC game, Cal attempted 31 passes for a 4.5 yard average. Cal rushed the ball 20 times for a 3.0 yard average (excluding negative rush yards from QB sacks on pass plays). In terms of achieving an equilibrium of pass attempt yardage and rush attempt yardage, Cal did pretty well. Perhaps a few more passes would have been statistically beneficial but otherwise I think the run/pass ratio was fairly acceptable. Had Cal's pass attempt average been something like 5.5 yards per attempt, and Cal's rush average been around 2.0 yards per attempt, then yes, I would say Cal should pass more.

Avi: These stats are a little skewed though. In the 4th quarter with the game on the line, Cal passed seven times for 2 yards and rushed twice for 1 yard. Going into the 4th quarter we attempted 24 passes for a nearly 6 yard average and 18 runs for a little over 3 yards per carry, a little more lopsided than the final tally.

So if we look at the original theory, where it states teams play USC to win in the 4th quarter rather than go for the lead early, it appears we decided to opt for the former since we strived for balance in playcalling. I don't think the answer comes from passing or running the ball exclusively, but instead mixing up plays to keep the USC defense on their heels.

via 2.bp.blogspot.com

Hydro: As for mixing up plays to keep USC on their heels, I think Cal attempts to do that. That gets hard when you're facing longer conversion downs like 3rd and 15 and 2nd and 12 or whatever.

So this brings us to playcalling theory. Do you go for run/pass balance? Or go for yards-per-pass/yards-per-rush balance? I feel like we're talking about both in various places here. You say Cal went for run/pass balance. For the most part, it seems so (4:3 pass/rush ratio). But if the team is striving for yards-per-pass/yards-per-rush balance then we should have passed more going into the fourth quarter as since we were averaging 6 yards per pass attempt and 3 yards per rush attempt.

Obviously, run/pass ratio influences how effective passes and rushes are so we can't really say the two theories are totally exclusive.

It sounds like you're advocating a run/pass balance. I think, generally, that's the way to go too.

As for why Cal hasn't been balanced against USC in the past few years, I'm not sure I can endorse the notion that they haven't. Cal seems to have been pretty balanced to be. At least in 2008 they were fairly balanced although Cal passed more than they ran - which is unusual - but understandable considering many of the long conversions Cal faced.

One of my theories as to why Cal seems to have troubles against USC whereas other teams may seem to have easier times against USC is because USC's players bring their A-game against Cal. Our games are rivalry games. They're heated. They're tight. Cal has played USC tighter on a yearly basis than any other team in the nation with mild exception to possibly OSU. USC knows we're a threat. They know we're not chumps. They don't let us catch them off guard like other weaker teams do.

(Finally, I'm not so sure the theory of Smart Football is to beat teams in the 4th Quarter versus getting the lead early on. Is that your theory? Smart Football merely seems to be suggesting that teams might want to pass more when they're out-gunned).

Avi: I'm not exactly sure a run/pass balance is what I'm advocating, but more of an unpredictable flow to the game that the stronger opponent can't expect. Like passing deep on 2nd and 1, running on 3rd and 10 (like on that Forsett TD run in '07); those are the type of plays that catch a team like USC off guard while still maintaining that balance we desire.

One of the ancient strategies of warfare is when you're a weaker opponent, you have to appear strong in order to prevent the other side from trying to crush you from the outset. It's a sign of the respect that Carroll has for Tedford that he and USC's coordinators usually design the most conservative gameplans for our matchups. They know Cal is strong enough to topple them if they make mistakes whereas they have leeway with others. Carroll has no such compunction against other coaches like Bellotti or Erickson.

So I'm not certain if we need totally unconventional plays, like what the Furd did in their upset, because that's totally out of our character; we're not a huge underdog and probably won't be for some time. What we need are plays that are conventional in the style of offense we run but also unconventional in terms when and where we run them. If that makes sense.

What do you guys think?

Poll

Should Cal go for a run/pass balance to beat a superior opponent in USC?

Yes, they should do the same thing they do in every game

10 votes

Yes, but they should be a little bit more deceptive

39 votes

No, they should go with whatever works, running or passing

52 votes

No, they should do something completely ridiculous

13 votes

114 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 15 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I voted for balance with deception

I don’t think you beat USC by being one dimensional. And no matter whom we play, run/pass balance is generally a good idea. Against a team like SC, though, we not only have to execute impeccably, but we prolly have to keep them off balance. Maybe it’s mixing it up contrary to our tendencies, maybe it’s running more on throwing downs or vice versa, or maybe it’s just adding wrinkles to what we’ve got in our arsenal. If that’s “deception,” then fine. It’s what we gotta do.

A play from last year’s game comes to mind that might fall under the “new wrinkle” category. Recall the play where we scored the TD pass to Vereen that got called back by a penalty that some of us haven’t completely figured out to this day. The WR lined up on the right side (Tucker, I think) acted as if it was a bubble screen. The play wasn’t blocked that way, but I suspect that Tucker’s action, combined with our tendency to screen a lot, made the SC safety bite on the screen. Meanwhile, Vereen ran a pattern in the right flat, ran right past the safety who bit on the Tucker screen look, and was wide open for the TD pass from Riley. I thought it was a beautifully designed play. Not being a game film analyst extraordinnaire like Hydro, I don’t remember if we used this wrinkle before that game.

Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.

by Ohio Bear on May 7, 2009 7:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree about that play

Superb call, totally blew everyone out of the water, surprised everyone. Very much the type of play you’d like to reserve for a big game like USC.

Bork bork bork!

by Avinash on May 7, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seconded

Recall how much trouble the Pryor/Boeckmann innovation gave USC that first series? Yeah, well, USC had adjusted for it by their second defensive series. Now, that wasn’t one-dimensional in the sense of majority run or majority pass. But it had the same predictable quality that a preponderance in either of those dimensions would have. Not having any wrinkles beyond that killed OSU, not that they wouldn’t have lost anyway. USC just doesn’t lose those games.

Especially this year, with any kind of consistency at QB, Cal will be able to unleash the big guns from both the backfield and at WR. With Jones, Lagemann, Tucker, Boateng, and that stud JC WR, creative but balanced seems like a surer bet for victory.

by Nashville on May 7, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would absolutely save 5-10 plays for U$C each year

At least until we beat them twice in a row or something. You just have to bring more to the table at this point. I think it’s totally worth the risk of losing big – if we won SOMETIMES. And by occasionally training players for a ‘special’ day against U$C, that helps remind them the discipline they have to have in the rest of their games, where they don’t go nuts – they follow the plan against weaker opponents and don’t make mistakes.

The other thing is if we ran more trick plays early in the season, every Pac-10 coach would hear about, worry about it, and would have to remind their defense to ‘keep an eye out for that s*it’. That tends to open up the run a little – which is exactly what you want.

Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS

by JerrottWillard45 on May 7, 2009 9:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So you're think that there should be more trick plays earlier in the season?

That way it’ll open up new opportunities on the offensive end in our bigger games? I like how this sounds.

Bork bork bork!

by Avinash on May 7, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wish I could remember where I heard this, but it makes sense to me:

If you trust your fake punt, save it until you really need it. If you don’t trust your fake punt, run it on the very first punt attempt of the year, and everyone will have to account for it the rest of the season.

by VandyImport on May 7, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cal does save some plays. I might create a post about this later on during the summer, but I definitely noticed a few new wrinkles to our offense when we played USC.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on May 8, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It has always seemed like execution is our downfall against SC…

CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!

by Spazzy Mcgee on May 7, 2009 12:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps. You don’t think playcalling has anything to do with it?

Bork bork bork!

by Avinash on May 7, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

false starts are not due to playcalling

holding is not due to play calling.

Go Bears Go

by Rocksanddirt on May 7, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel oddly confident about this year’s USC game. They no longer have what may well have been the greatest D in college football history. That means that Jahvid Best may, y’know, get more than 0.1 YPC. It really should have been 10-10 last year. But oh well.

I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.

by rollonubears on May 7, 2009 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by the time we play them

they will have their shit together.

Go Bears Go

by Rocksanddirt on May 7, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh don’t mistake that for me saying the game will be easy. It will definitely go down to the wire. They will have their shit together. But I don’t think they can match last year’s D, which gives us a chance.

I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.

by rollonubears on May 7, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also we probably can’t match our own offensive ineptitude.

Talking about balance seems to be beside the point when neither aspect of our offense actually works. There’s no correct balance when your passing and rushing YPA are both under 5.

I hope Ludwig and Tedford unleash a shitstorm of wrinkles, misdirection, and trickery in October, but really I’d just settle for fewer offsides, holding, and false start penalties.

by AERose on May 7, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This year

When I blow out my candles, I’m going to wish for a Cal victory by greater than a possession. Because of all USC’s stats, the one thing that really blows me away is that in the 9 or so losses they have since 2002, not a single one came by more than a possession, e.g. 7 points. Florida, Georgia, LSU, tOSU, Texas, OU, each of USC’s peers have gotten spanked at least a couple times in that period. But realistically speaking, since 2002, there isn’t a single game that USC hasn’t had a chance to win.

by Nashville on May 7, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs