Oregon Roundtable
by TwistNHook on Aug 19, 2009 2:00 PM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
Print
via www.uoregon.edu
TwistNHook: Every game the last few years in Autzen has been tight.
2007-Last second miracle touchback
2005-Last second missed regulation field goal leads to terrible OT
2003-Blackout gives Oregon momentum in 4th quarter
Cal is 1-2 in those games and could just as easily be 0-3 or 3-0. Odd things always seem to happen up there. Given that USC will be the next weekend at home, some Cal players might be peeking ahead. Who knows?
Avinash: How do people think Chip Kelly will fare as the new leading man at Oregon? He seemed rather quippy during Media Day.
There's no doubt he is an offensive master of the spread offense, especially the spread run, and you'd figure that their excellence will continue into this season. But as we've seen before, being both head coach and offensive coordinator can easily bog you down once you hit a rut (Tedford 2007 anyone?). Will he be able to handle both duties at once?
Do you feel that Oregon will be a better team?
TwistNHook: If I were an Oregon fan, my biggest concern would be about the O-Line. Don't they have large amounts of inexperience there?
Avinash: Maybe, although that inexperience might be deceptive.
"Oregon's no huddle-spread offense forces their offensive linemen to run much more than traditional units. Oregon not only relies on an exceptional conditioning program, but also uses frequent substitutions to keep their linemen fresh.
Last year the Ducks rotated nine players in and out of the lineup. While the one constant on the field, Max Unger, is now playing up I-5 for the Seahawks, the Ducks do return four players with significant game experience"
HydroTech: Doesn't sound like their OL will be as green as we thought. I'm concerned about LeGarette Blount, their runningback. This guy is apparently a first round draft pick in the waiting. He's 240 pounds! Almost as big as former Wisconsin runningback and Heisman winner Ron Dayne (250 pounds). I'm hoping Blount's career is the opposite of Dayne's - sucky in college and good in the NFL. This guy, along with Oregon's athletic offensive line, will definitely give Cal's defense a HUGE test. Frankly, just thinking about playing in Autzen and having to deal with Blount makes me feel like we're going to lose and I haven't even mentioned Masoli. So about Jeremiah Masoli. That guy can run and is another threat for the defense. His passing could use some work. He puts up some pretty inconsistent games. Last year he had a game where he threw only 33.3% completions, and another game where he threw 80.8% completions. Overall, he's about 57% passer which leaves a lot to desire stastically.
So, just thinking about Blount, Masoli, their OL, and their home field advantage makes me think this is going to be the second toughest team Cal will face in 2009. I would put this game at perhaps a coin-flip for who wins or perhaps a 60/40 in favor of Oregon.
Ragnarok: In spite of that fearsome rushing attack, I would argue that the key to the Ducks' fortunes vs. Cal lies with Masoli's arm. Let's run some numbers:
Last year, Cal's defense gave up more than 125 yards total rushing five times. They lost four of those games (accounting for all four of their losses), but only gave up more than 200 yards on the ground once, yielding 206 yards on the ground to Oregon in a 26-16 victory. Deplorable field conditions and inopportune turnovers aside, I believe that the Ducks' biggest weakness was their inability to pass the ball when they needed to.
Oregon's option offense hummed along just nicely on the ground, chewing up big chunks of yardage on first and second downs, but when the Ducks *had* to pass, especially on third down, they were abysmal. Discounting Oregon's final, desperate drive (under 2 minutes left, down 2 scores), the Ducks faced 14 3rd downs that day. How'd they do? When they dropped back to pass, they were 0/6, getting sacked once for -3 yards and throwing one interception. That...is pathetic. (They weren't much better rushing. Yes, they converted 3 of 7 times, but only once longer than 3 yards, and they gained a total of 16 yards on 3rd down. Total.)
That final drive? Masoli didn't even play. Although I don't *know* why he was benched, I feel confident in guessing that Justin Roper (who has since transferred) came in because Oregon *had* to pass, and Masoli just didn't provide enough of a downfield threat. If Masoli learns to throw, then I'll be really worried, but as it is, I don't see the Ducks getting through their schedule with fewer than three losses.
TwistNHook: Well, I agree that Masoli being able to throw is key. But I guess I'm higher on him that you are. Did you see him in the Civil War? He was killing it out there. I even said right before that game that Masoli would be key. And when he was killing it out there, the double pronged attack was murderous.
In many ways, this Oregon offense is similar to ours. Great rushing attack with a suspect passing attack. And if the passing attack CAN step it up and become consistent and productive, then they could have something special. That said, I like our talent almost across the board. This is not to denigrate the Oregon talent, including Blount Force Trauma (even though he had something like 5 rushes for 7 yards against us last year). But instead just to look positively upon our talent.
Avinash: I'm not sure even how to count last year's game. They were playing in the mud. Neither Longshore nor Masoli could do much damage when they couldn't see two feet in front of them.
Also, even though the Bears have won four of the last five from Oregon, three of those wins have been incredibly fluky. Two involved the Ducks committing a hundred turnovers in the red zone, the other involved that receiver catching a ball near the end zone that would've set up a game winning field goal, and then casually letting it drop to the ground. Rose Bowl 2004 hopes would've ended that day.
We talk about the Bears failing to execute offensively, but do you guys feel the Ducks have a similar execution problem when they're expected to succeed with their offense?
Avinash: *bold that last question, Twist.
TwistNHook: DON'T TELL WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT BOLD!
Why you always bolding so much stuff? Regular font not good enough for you? Why you gotta hat?
Is Jairus Byrd still around? That guy has been around forever. It's like every year they have tons of hype around the secondary and we still pass well against them. If CBKWit wasn't enjoying his relaxing tour of downtown Pyongyang of indeterminate length (somebody call Big Daddy Clinton!), I'm sure he'd agree with my assessment. Those Oregon DBs always seemed to be overhyped.
Ragnarok: I'm not sure what game you were watching, Avi, but there was no mud (Memorial Stadium has turf), and visibility was fine (it was just a little wet, that's all - it's still good, it's still good!).
TwistNHook: Also, I thought Longshore passed the ball decently well, given all the conditions.
Avinash: It was hyperbole! Hyperbole, damnit!
Ragnarok: I guess you just weren't ridiculous enough. Perhaps you could take hyperbole lessons from rollonubears?
TwistNHook: Here is the box score from last year's game.
Longshore went 13 for 27 for 136 yards with an average of 5 yards per reception. In a vacuum, those are not great numbers. When you look at the other side (where the Oregon QBs were averaging 2.1 and 3.6 yards per reception) and given the weather, I thought that that was not halfway bad. Riley actually played better, but was knocked out fairly early in the game.
I am concerned about the fact that Oregon had murderized our QB the last 2 years. If that happens again this year and Sweeney is starting against USC, it could be a LONG game slash season slash off-season slash rest of our lives.
Avinash: Here is Addicted to Quack's perspective.
I do agree that if there is any Pac-10 defense that will slow down, even stifle Best this season, it will be Oregon. Their back seven is one of the fastest in the country, and they can definitely make sure Best doesn't find the holes.
TwistNHook: This story angers me greatly:
EUGENE — Receiver Diante Jackson was one happy camper Friday as the Oregon football team kicked off practices.
Jackson was cleared for academic entry into Oregon, after taking a sociology class and finishing a history class this summer. The NCAA Clearinghouse, which rules on eligibility for players, approved him Thursday.
Damn you, Diante! Why must you succeed and be happy for the other people???????
Of course, the biggest question is new coach Chip Kelly. And everybody is focusing on the offense. But what of the D? How is it going to look?
"[Last year] Oregon finished seventh in scoring defense (28 points), eighth in total defense (390 yards) and last in pass defense (270 yards). The loss of defensive end Nick Reed and rover Patrick Chung, both consummate leaders, made this season's rebuilding job that much tougher.
So the Ducks tweaked their philosophy. Like many teams, they sought to add a little speed to the edges, and the results this spring were encouraging.
Kelly's first move was to bring in feisty defensive line coach Jerry Azzinaro, who inherits a line of senior Will Tukuafu and question marks at the three other spots. Brandon Bair, 6-foot-7 and 250 pounds, figures to start at one tackle along with either Blake Ferras or Simi Toeaina. Pass rusher Kenny Rowe or stockier Terrell Turner will start at the other end.
The Ducks haven't ruled out the athletic Josh Kaddu at end as they try to add speed wherever possible and stand up one or two defensive ends to help cover the field. That leaves the middle more open, putting pressure on the steadily improving Casey Matthews at middle linebacker. At his side will be the undersized but fast Eddie Pleasant and Spencer Paysinger, who was second on the team with 95 tackles last season.
Newcomer Bryson Littlejohn was perhaps the biggest eye-opener on defense this spring, showing an eagerness to hit.
Behind them, the secondary is again a strength -- although Oregon ranked last in the league in pass defense in 2008. Hard-hitting T.J. Ward is back at safety, along with Thurmond, who was the team's best player in the spring.
Willie Glasper and Kenjon Barner will battle for the other corner, and Chung's replacement at rover will be either the athletic Talmadge Jackson or the physical Marvin Johnson -- improving juniors with complementary skills."
To me, that bodes fairly well. There is a lot of turn over. On a D that wasn't very good. A lot of camp battles for spots. Maybe some of these guys will take that next step and I'll be eating crow. But reading that leaves me feeling fairly confident (even though I think there's a good chance we lose this game).
Avinash: The last five years we've played them, I have never uttered the phrase, "Oh shit, we have to face the Oregon defense".
HydroTech: I think the key is to slow down and stop Oregon's offense. Oregon's offense is so high octane and fast, that it can quickly build up a multiple touchdown lead forcing the opposing team to play "catch-up." In other words, the Oregon offense will put their team ahead enough to the point where the opponent has to start playing risky and getting aggressive to reduce that score differential before there is too little time left in the game. I think Oregon's offenses have been really carrying the team and it's the offense, not the defense, that the Cal Football team needs to really stop.
TwistNHook: How do you guys see this one ending up? I really don't know. I feel like Cal has more talent on paper, but Oregon has such a strong home field advantage. It will be close, no matter how you cut it. I think Cal wins 4-2.
Avinash: I think Oski could put the Duck in a headlock and suplex him.
Yellow Fever: 5-4. I feel a last-second safety deciding this one.
TwistNHook: I see Cal fumbling right at Oregon's 1 yard line down 4-3. Then, Oregon takes over and we get the safety FOR THE WIN!
HydroTech: I'm really hesitant to do too much predicting of how our team will perform when we have such huge questions about our passing game. If our passing game sucks, we could lose big time. If our passing game is decent, we can win a close one. If our passing game is great, then we can crush the life out of them. I could see this being a 20 point loss, I could see a 3 point win, and I could also see a 21 point win. To me, it just all depends on how well our passing game is, and that's something we won't know until the season starts.
90 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is it possible...
…that we will be favored at home against USC, but Oregon would be favored when we visit Eugene?
I could see that.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Aug 19, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
If Riley is as improved as Tedford says he is, we should be able to eke out a win. Best alone can’t defeat Oregon by himself and Best and 2008-era Riley won’t be enough to defeat Oregon unless Oregon gives up some wildly helpful turnovers, kind of like they did the past 3 years against Cal.
Like Hydro said, a prediction against Oregon is tough until we see how Riley and the receivers play in the first three games.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
I’m really confused by all the hype Masoli’s been getting. You guys did a good job of looking at his accomplishments objectively, but based on what I’ve read elsewhere, it seems a lot of people think he’s going to have a monster season. Maybe he will, but as of right now, it looks to me like he’s proved exactly as much as Kevin Riley going into 2008 had. Maybe he’ll be good, maybe he’ll be shaky and inconsistent, I could definitely see it going both ways…
One more note, I like the 3-4 matchup against their offense better than the 4-3 we used to play.
I would say that through the air, Masoli has proved as much as Riley. The difference would be his ability to make plays on the ground that puts him above Riley.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
It all comes down to whether he can effectively pass against good defenses, though, much like Riley for us last year (and he couldn’t, so we didn’t do as well as we could have). If a defense can focus solely on the rush like Cal was able to last year, if they’re good enough they can definitely shut down Oregon’s O. We’ll see how Masoli does, as BTown says he’s definitely the key. One more note, if he’s not able to pass much and just a running QB, all of a sudden the injury risk goes up…
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Masoli is the key
The news from Oregon (I live in Portland) is that Masoli is still nursing his sore shoulder from off-season surgery. What makes their offense hum is the triple option………..option. If he is not a threat to throw then you can focus on him and whichever running back he’s MAYBE handing the ball to. The backup is more of a straight drop passer (as mentioned in their efforts to throw the ball in last year’s game). LBlount is much easier to focus on if you don’t have the threat of the QB running for 7-10 yards.
If Masoli’s in and healthy, it’s a tough offense to defend.
Chip Kelly seems fine. More personality than Belotti, although a few players have recently left the program for “personal” reasons. Hmmmmmmm……..
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I agree, if Masoli’s passing isn’t going Cal’s D is good enough to shut down the run. If Oregon’s able to do everything (pass, option running) it’s a tough offense to defend, even for a good D like Cal’s.
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The biggest key for any defense is to stop the passing game. Get good coverage, and good containment while not giving Masoli time.
The backup is more of a straight drop passer (as mentioned in their efforts to throw the ball in last year’s game)
The guy that came in for Masoli, Roper, transferred. The second string guy now, is by most accounts, a better passer, and still a good runner – though 3 ACL surgeries do make me wonder how long his knee can hold up.
Chip Kelly seems fine. More personality than Belotti, although a few players have recently left the program for "personal" reasons. Hmmmmmmm……..
Don’t look too far into that. At all.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
The news from Oregon (I live in Portland) is that Masoli is still nursing his sore shoulder from off-season surgery.
At least get your facts straight. The QB that had off-season surgery was OSU’s QB, Lyle Moevao.
Furthermore, there were transfers, but none cited the coaching change as the reason for leaving, and all were offensive players that had been under Kelly for 2 years. Non "personal" reasons were cited.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Get YOUR fact’s straight. I’m a man. I’m 40!
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 19, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Even after reading the pessimistic outlook, I’m not that worried about this game.
If Cal holds Oregon to under 28 we probably win this game, and I don’t think we’ll need an incredible amount of luck to pull that off. First of all Oregon’s inexperienced receivers are going to be at an overwhelming disadvantage to Cal’s secondary, so even if Masoli comes as advertised as a passer he’ll still throw a number of incompletions/picks. Worth noting that while Masoli’s passing stats over the last 3 games were great, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any Cal fan that a great quarterback in a small sample size can turn out to be a mediocre quarterback overall.
Meanwhile accepting the premise that Oregon’s offensive line is deceptively experienced, Cal’s defensive line has the advantage of being better. Not a very empirical argument, but there simply aren’t any real questions about Cal’s front 3. At best the Oregon o-line will avoid being dominated.
On defense Oregon just doesn’t have the talent in the trenches, unless one of the three new DL starters is a miracle player. Holes for Vereen and Best to run through and time for Riley to throw will not be hard to come by.
I also get the strong impression, albeit culled from one of them there small sample size-type things, that Cal has a big game defense. Oregon and USC were corralled to 17 points or less in back to back weeks last year, Oregon State would have been set back to a similar number if it weren’t for two Alamar Specials and a meaningless pick six, USC and Oregon were held to 24 in 2007, and USC was held to 23 in 2006. That could mean that Cal is lucky to avoid bigger beatings in big games, or it could mean that Cal’s defense is motivated by the chance to take high-scoring offenses down a peg. Being the cheery, optimistic sort, I’ll go with the second choice.
“Meanwhile accepting the premise that Oregon’s offensive line is deceptively experienced”
Also, based on the reasoning that their o-line is experienced because they rotate their backups in a lot…well that means their backups to their starters this year, who aren’t experienced, will also play a lot.
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions
The other question that I think you guys should have address is Oregon’s state of mind. Here’s their schedule to that point:
Thu, Sep 3 @Boise State
Sat, Sep 12 Purdue
Sat, Sep 19 Utah
Sat, Sep 26 California
They have a lot of question marks so I could easily see them being 1-2 going into the Cal game. If that occurs, they could basically be crushed before we set foot in the state of Oregon and this game could go fairly well.
On the other hand, if they are 3-0 with that schedule then we’ve got a whole lotta problems.
Looking at the poll results, either Cal fans are more pessimistic than I thought or else there are a lot of Oregon fans coming here.
ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
But in all fairness – Reading that preview made me more excited about the game, than the AtQ preview, which depressed me.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
We try to inspire, to raise up. Unlike ATQ, which crushes the spirits of all.
ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Aug 19, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec’d for ATQ tagline
Addicted to Quack: Crushes the Spirits of All
by CalBandGreat on Aug 19, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
until their defense shows it can stop
a man blocking power running game, our offense has a decided advantage.
They practice against a smooth fast zone blocking running game all day, everyday. then they play us, $c, and standford who don’t do that….but run right at them.
Go Bears Go
I’m use to seeing Oregon fans rag on the defensive showing the last two weeks, and I see it here often too.
I’ve got to ask though, but what metric are people really going by to base the success of a defense?
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
For a “bend-don’t-break” defense, it’d have to be scoring defense, wouldn’t it? We were 78th last year.
Devil's advocate
More points scored on shorter drives → more possessions → more opportunities for opponents to score against a more heavily taxed defense.
Ah… interesting perspective, but even then – I don’t agree.
Yes, we were 78th in points allowed/game with 28.2 points – but Oregon’s defense also played 1033 snaps.
With teams like Oregon, or Missouri where they run a no-huddle offense, and play 30%+ faster, stats that can be “padded” from repetition are incomparable. Even more so if they are a quick strike.
Colt Brennan’s passing stats were astronomical in Hawaii, but it was not only against a rather pathetic conference, but passing was nearly the only thing they did.
Jacquizz Rodgers had an impressive 1253 yards last year. He also had 45 more attempts than anyone else, and still missed two games. The result was a slightly above average 4.84 yards/carry (Not to say he wasn’t impressive, he was very good). Best had a godly 8.14 yards/carry, almost DOUBLE.
Oregon’s defense was on the field for 1033 plays. Cal’s defense was on the field for 927 plays: However, Cal was only slightly better in yards/play, with 4.4 ypp, while Oregon (4th in conference) with 4.9 ypp.
Now, Oregon did have struggles defensively, but I think those struggles are exaggerated, overstated, and usually poorly researched. They were average. Good enough to keep them in a game with anyone, but not good enough to rely on them to win with decent teams.
I’m pretty certain that rags is going to be doing a write up here about some advanced metrics, (PPP, Success Rate, S&P), so I don’t want to steel his glory about that. So in the meantime, I think some pretty good stats to keep track of are Yards Per Play, Red Zone Scoring %, and 3rd Down Success.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
exaggerated, overstated, and usually poorly researched.
you rang??
ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
CGB: Exaggerated, overstated, and usually poorly researched.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 19, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought about YPP and Red Zone Scoring. But consider the nature of Aliotti defenses. Theoretically, it’s okay for them to give up big chunks of yardage (higher YPP), because that fits into the bend-don’t-break philosophy. And that naturally affects Red Zone Scoring, because opponents are just as likely to score from outside the red zone as inside it. 3rd down success as a measure is moot because if your bend-don’t-break D is working, you’re okay with giving up a bunch of 3rd downs.
You and AERose’s point about number of D plays is fair, but what do you do with it besides using it as an excuse for higher standard metrics?
In any case, I have one simple measurement for Oregon’s defense: How much my ulcer is aggravated.
but what do you do with it besides using it as an excuse for higher standard metrics?
The use-as-excuse-for-higher-metrics thing actually doesn’t sound that bad.
I dunno, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that an outlier like Oregon calls for a little more in-depth stat analysis. Your ulcer measure is pretty good, though.
(In any case, I’m going to bow out of this conversation and let people who can actually execute said in-depth stat analysis talk.)
It sounds a lot like your version of “bend-don’t-break” is really just another way of saying “a really bad defense”.
“it’s okay for them to give up big chunks of yardage (higher YPP)”
“opponents are just as likely to score from outside the red zone as inside it”
“3rd down success as a measure is moot because if your bend-don’t-break D is working, you’re okay with giving up a bunch of 3rd downs”
So you give up a lot of yards, your opponent scores often from inside AND outside the red zone, and you’re ok with not stopping them on 3rd down….at what point does the defense actually try to prevent points from being scored here? Am I missing something?
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I feel like Alliotti wouldn’t describe his defense that way…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions
You’re missing the point that I was making. My point is you’re confusing a term, “Bend don’t break”, with the concept of playing defense poorly. Not stopping 3rd downs, not stopping teams in the red zone, and giving up a lot of yardage are signs of a bad defense, not a “bend don’t break” defense.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
But ultimately, if you can keep the other team from scoring as many or more points than your team’s offense, you have a successful defense. And when your offense is going to put up 35-40 points, you can do a lot of bending and breaking and still consider it a good day.
If you want to define successful as simply being not any worse than the offense is good, I guess. What happens when the offense goes out and scores 16 points, though (like say it’s Nov. 1, 2008 or something)? Or the offense scorse 10? Or even only scores 32? Now your defense has to be legitimately good (well, not in the 32 case), and not stopping their offense simply isn’t going to cut it. Every defensive coordinator tries to get the best defensive performance possible from their D, and I guarantee they don’t think of themselves as successful just because the offense won the game if their defense got dismantled in the process (but just slightly less so than the other team’s defense).
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s those situations where Aliotti starts getting the business from fans—the games where the offense isn’t clicking for whatever reason and the D has to step up. I don’t doubt NA’s desire or sense of quality, but let’s not discount the fact that a high-scoring offense can cover up a lot of defensive sins.
“a high-scoring offense can cover up a lot of defensive sins”
Obviously. Defense and offense are equally important. A good offense and an average defense makes for a pretty good team. Just because the offense is good, though, doesn’t mean the defense shouldn’t try to do its job. And as I’ve stated, the job of the defense is to obtain possession of the ball without giving up any points.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
But Aliotti doesn’t run a “Bend but Don’t Break” defense. That’s a phrase that fans have applied to games where there have been high yardage, low scoring allowed. It’s not philosophy he coordinates by.
Any defensive coordinator wants to see a 3-and-out. They want to see their defense on the field as little as possible. Teams like USC and TCU, whom had the best defenses last year, also had the highest time of possession. Their defenses got the 3-and-out, and their offenses chugged along with long and sustained drives. This is why 3rd down conversion rates are a telling statistic.
And I disagree with you on the red zone part. It’s more difficult for an offense to score in a red zone, because the defense has less field to defend. Offenses become unable to stretch the field vertically. In 2007, Oregon actually had a remarkable red zone defense. 2008, not as much.
Allotti doesn’t buy “Bend by Don’t Break” as an excuse, and neither do I. While I don’t care about giving up a lot of yards, as long as the opponent’s score is less than ours at the end of the game – I’d rather see our defense reliably force punting situations.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
The end of the quote wasn’t necessary to address your point—“Bend but don’t break” isn’t some concoction from fans.
No, but I guarantee that how fan’s define it is very different than how the players define it.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Really...
You really think the Oregon defense thinks like this?
"it’s okay for them to give up big chunks of yardage (higher YPP)"
"opponents are just as likely to score from outside the red zone as inside it"
"3rd down success as a measure is moot because if your bend-don’t-break D is working, you’re okay with giving up a bunch of 3rd downs"
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Cal’s DC Bob Gregory was once asked what he thought of his defense being described as “Bend but don’t break.” He said he understood why fans call it that, but he doesn’t think of it like that nor did he think it was an accurate statement of his philosophy. I’m pretty sure most coaches don’t like the name because it implies that it’s okay to give up yards when the defense clearly doesn’t want to and is trying not to.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
This whole bend-but-don’t-break BS really annoys me, as I don’t think there is such a thing.
The goal of any defense is to 1) not give up points, 2) get the ball back to the offense as fast as possible. You do this in whatever way you can given your talent.
As Shufelt pointed out, Oregon is not OK with giving up 3rd downs, etc.
But if you look at last season, Oregon was trying to stop underneath passes early in the season, and then BSU and USC happened. So then they backed off a bit, to allow the underneath patterns, but not allow any deep plays, and this was rather successful in the long run. There were definite downsides, but the overall result was much improved.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
“…We might bend, but we’re not going to break, and that’s the kind of defense that we have.” – Matthew Harper, 2007
What does that even mean?
The 2007 defense had a great red zone D, didn’t give up many points, and was much better at 3rd down than 2008 defense. You can say that type of stuff all you want, but it’s meaningless and cliche, and doesn’t say one bit about what actually happens on the field.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
And yet, actual Oregon players who make things happen on the field say it.
Look, I’m not interested in arguing over the efficacy of Aliotti’s scheme. It is what it is, and anybody who wants to figure out the best metrics to judge it by is going to have to understand the nature of it.
Let’s get back to the original question: What’s the best metric(s) to measure an Aliotti defense by? Is it even possible to choose one? I still say my ulcer is the best guide.
I don’t think that straight points or yards is a good metric due to the amount of plays that are played in Oregon games. Those numbers are artificially inflated.
I think that Success Rate and PPP are good ways to look at it, and using those metrics, and Oregon’s defense last year was very much a mixed bag. They took a huge statistical hit from USC and BSU, but in the rest of the games, and specifically in “close” situations, the passing D was actually above average, in both SR and PPP.
So I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with your ulcer….
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It’s very possible to choose one. Like I said earlier, I think Ragnarok (Ork! Ork! Ork!) is going to be doing something that relates the stats, so I won’t write the spoilers here. But look into Billy Connelly’s work. He does the Varsity Numbers for Football Outsiders, was a featured writer for SMQ, writes over at the Missouri SBN Blog, RockMNation, and has recently had articles on ESPN Insiders.
It’s sabermetrics for football, and they are very telling statistics.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
They Are Very Telling
Actually, feel free to expound on PPP and Success Rates…I think they’re the right way to have this conversation (though I’m less sure about their implementation; I really want to run the numbers myself, and I’ve been working for quite some time on a way to do that).
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Alrighty…
First, it’s important to know how these metrics are being calculated.
A good start is to read through <a href=“http:// ”http://www.footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2008/varsity-numbers-ncaa-analysis-101" target="_blank">http://www.footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2008/varsity-numbers-ncaa-analysis-101" >this article.
In summary there are the following baseline statistics:
EqPts = Equivalent Point Value.
This brings the value to the plays that set up the 1st and goal on the 1-yard line, than the actual TD from the 1 yard line. It makes it so that not every 5-yard gain is equal to the others. A 5-yard gain from your own 20 yard line isn’t as valuable as a 5-yard gain from your opponents 20 yard line.
PPP = EqPts (Points) Per Play
This is the actual value of each play. As you get closer to the end zone, your chance of scoring also increases (Either by TDs or a FG)
But this is also only relation to field position. So if you factor in that you are more likely to score more when you have more downs to work with, so the value of which down you are on is also a favor
.
Looking at things this way gives you a lot better indication of who accounted for a team’s points than yards or TDs or yards per carry. It measures not only how many yards you gain at any one time, but also how important those yards are toward points actually being scored.
- Source
PPP can be viewed as the “Slugging” of football.
Success Rate
Success Rate is a value given by setting a “goal” for each down. If you obtain that “goal”, you’re play was successful. If you didn’t – it wasn’t. These goals are defined by reaching a particular percentage of yards needed for a first down. You don’t need to get 10 yards on first down for a play to be successful.
1st Downs = 50 percent of necessary yardage
2nd Downs = 70 percent of necessary yardage
3rd/4th Downs = 100 percent of necessary yardage
So if it’s 1st and 10, and you get 5 yards, it was a successful play.
If it’s 2nd and 14, you need 10 yards.
If it’s 3rd or 4th down, you need to convert a first down for it to be successful.
By applying this to each play, you can create a metric of success. If PPP is the slugging if college football, Success Rate is the On-Base Percentage. Jacquizz Rodgers was a machine of the Success Rate, bulling and shifting his way to reliably getting 4-5 yards each run. But he never broke a long run in his young career.
That brings us to the magic metric of S&P.
S&P = Success Rate & Points Per Play
If PPP is slugging, and Success Rate is OBP, than S&P is OPS.
S&P doesn’t favor any style, method, explosiveness, or reliability.
Defensively, these metrics are exactly the same, only flipped. Example: Stopping a 3rd down conversion is a successful play. Getting a 3-and-out on their 20 yard line is both successful and valuable.
So instead of looking at overall numbers, and totals – these numbers look at the performance on each play – and they can even be applied to both teams and individuals.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
by JShufelt on Aug 20, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
This is a fucking amazing comment. I’d rec this a thousand times if I could.
Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Aug 20, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Also
This comment thread has been full of great great stuff. Great civil discussion fellas.
Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Aug 20, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
<a href="http:// "http://www.footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2008/varsity-numbers-ncaa-analysis-101" >Link Fail at the beginning.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
recd
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 20, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I mostly agree, though I think you could describe a defense as “bend don’t break” when it’s a conservative defense. That is, it tries to prevent long plays and is more willing to give up short ones and is overall less aggressive. The problem is fans take this and assume that means it’s ok to give up yards and not stop teams on 3rd down. The whole point of defense is to gain possession of the ball without the other team scoring points. You can go about that in different ways but that’s the ultimate goal, and the way some fans describe a “bend don’t break” defense basically makes it sound like the defense is just ok with the other team scoring…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I think we’re ahead 60-40 in the talent department. It will come down to execution. Whoever fucks up the least will win.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
What are you talking about Pac 10 officials are the most prepared, professional, sharp-eyed, attenti———oh god it HURTS just to pretend for even ten seconds!!!! gaaaahhh
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 19, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Poll needs an “I don’t know” option. I am confident in this Cal team, but this game (and, in particular, Masoli) terrifies me. It will be very very close, and should be a fun game, but I have a feeling it will be a heartbreaker.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
What about Masoli terrifies you, exactly…?
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t mean to sound like an ass, but – did you watch him play outside of the Cal game?
I do agree, there is still some uncertainty, but there are explainable reasons why Masoli ended better than he started.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
Well I made this point earlier in the thread – basically, Masoli hasn’t really proven himself. He’s shown flashes of talent, yes, but so did Kevin Riley in 2007. Masoli is basically where Riley was going into last year. I’m not saying he’s the same talent level as Riley and is going to play poorly like Riley did last year, just that 2 games is hardly proof he’s going to play well. If Masoli doesn’t get the passing game going, frankly, I don’t think Oregon’s offense is worrisome at all against a good defense like Cal. If we can focus on the run without much of a passing threat, we can pretty much shut it down. Basically, as you acknowledged, I’m just making the point that there’s uncertainty around how Masoli will perform. I’ve been reading a lot of hype about him like he’s a sure thing to play well, and I’m just not seeing that.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that unfortunately for Cal fans, they are assuming that Masoli will regress from his end of season stats. I don’t really see that happening. Over the 3 1/2 games of the season, he performed at a very very high level. 3 very strong games in a row is not a fluke. While it’s no guarantee he’ll perform at that level, it does essentiall guarantee that he’ll be a competent passing threat, and we won’t see performances like the 2008 UCLA or Cal games.
As another note, last year, OSU had a similar strategy of trying to force the throw, and Masoli and Oregon came out throwing, and OSU was on their heels the rest of the game.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
“3 very strong games in a row is not a fluke”
3 very strong games in a row in college football is a very small sample size to work with, especially given the disparity among tems. I’m not assuming Masoli is going to regress, simply acknolwedging the possibility, and acknowledging that we don’t have a reasonable enough amount of evidence to really put any meaningful expectations on him at all yet. Also, keep in mind that while playing well against Oregon St is certainly a good sign, Arizona lost to New Mexico because they gave up 36 points, and Oklahoma St had a pretty bad defense themselves…
Also, how will a new line and new receivers affect the passing game? What if Masoli is a good enough passer to get by, but the line doesn’t pass block all that well and the receivers play like receivers without much experience tend to play?
All I’m saying is I can find 3 games in a row where Longshore played at a high level in 2006, too….
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, keep in mind that while playing well against Oregon St is certainly a good sign, Arizona lost to New Mexico because they gave up 36 points, and Oklahoma St had a pretty bad defense themselves…
Actually, this isn’t true. According to S&P+, OSU was the 10th best passing D in the country, with Arizona 21st, and Okie State 32nd.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Or the game they played before the Holiday Bowl where they gave up 61 points. Oklahoma was good and all…but 61 points to anyone? Texas Tech was good, but 56 points is a lot to give up to anyone. I guess they only held Texas to 28 and Missouri to 23. I don’t know about this S&P stuff, this isn’t baseball (and the earlier comparison to OPS made me cringe, I think I’ve spent way too much time reading and thinking about baseball stats). Are there even any “park adjustments” (translated to college football – competition adjustments) in this stat? Or could we be looking at the equivalent of a hitter playing in Coors Field in the late ’90’s?
Overall, I look at the results and I see 5 ranked teams that scored a total of 210 points against that defense (42 ppg, just like Oregon happened to score against them). Granted those teams are known for their offense, and Oklahoma State’s offense probably makes their D look worse than it is (similar to OU), but still….
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
The ‘+’ (plus) attached to these statistics is a competition adjustment. So yes, they’re not numbers in a vacuum.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Hmm…interesting, I need to read up about this. I’ll refrain from making anymore comments until I learn more.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s also a fairly exhausted point, but Masoli joined the team with roughly 2 weeks before kickoff. He didn’t have starter reps, he didn’t know the playbook, he didn’t learn the wide receiver’s tendencies. His first start was against Boise State – four games into the season, and he got jacked up early in that game.
His first full game was USC. You got Masoli in his 4th full game. He only showed flashes of what he could do at that point, but was very inconsistent. His best performance at that point was 170 yards rushing against UCLA. He was even being boo’d in Autzen stadium against Stanford – but from the 4th quarter of that game to holding up the Holiday Bowl trophy, he showed a high-level of consistency.
I think most Cal fans do underestimate Masoli, because they only saw him in his worst game, and most Oregon fans probably overestimate him too.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
I most certainly do not underestimate him. Anyone who watched the Holiday Bowl could not underestimate him. Not going to lie, I am jealous. I mean, come on! That is awesome! How can you not love him after doing that? Also, Craig James summed it up perfectly.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Aug 20, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
Related FanShots on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
