OC Discussion Part II: How do Oregon Fans Feel About Andy Ludwig?

As much as I’ve enjoyed these two posts, I also am inclined to discount them because I just don’t trust any fan’s assessment of the job being done by an assistant coach—the OC, especially.

I think thoughtful fans are, potentially, very well equipped to critique the play of individual players. We can observe them in action on the playing field. But we don’t spend any time in team meetings or at practice, nor do we have any opportunity to observe—or even have outlined for us—a team’s game plan. The best we can do is make inferences based on our often-selective memories of an accumulated body of work.

Now, over time, it might become rather easy to conclude that certain units of a football team consistently perform well, while others do not. Thus, it seems reasonable for most Cal fans to think Ron Gould is great and Pete Alamar, not so much. But when it comes to the OC, we tend to be tripped up by every armchair quarterback’s favorite activity: second-guessing play calling. Nine times out of ten, I believe, that “terrible play call” we believe we saw, was instead a problem of poor execution and/or one or more players simply getting beaten by their talented opponents. Likewise, we tend to be myopic in our assessment of play calling, not seeing the bigger picture of how it fits within the larger game plan to set up something later. The only person who I believe can give an honest assessment of the OC, then, is the head coach himself.

I understand why Oregon fans are so down on Ludwig; I’m a bit more bewildered by Utah fans, though, coming as they are off a perfect season. Nonetheless, I remain very excited about Ludwig’s prospects at Cal because, based on everything we’ve read so far, he and Tedford are on the same page in a way that hasn’t existed in Berkeley since the Cortez era. Finally, it seems JT has a guy he can trust.

I’m not trying to be a Ludwig apologist; I just am looking for more solid rationale why people are so down on him, and why, as a Cal fan, I should be more worried. I understand that, in terms of wins-and-losses, the Ludwig years were subpar in Eugene. But when I look at the game-by-game results—especially in ’02 and ’03—that appears to be more a product of crappy defense than ineffective offense.

Here’s what I get from looking at the teams’ offensive stats from 2000 through 2008.

Yards per play: The Ludwig years were lower than average at 5.3-5.4. This pales in comparison to 2001 and 2008 (both years well over 6), but is otherwise not much different from all the other years.

Yards per rush: Here’s where the Ludwig offense appears to be its worst, at less than 4 yards per carry. There were similar struggles pre- and post-Ludwig in 2000 and 2005, but most of this decade Oregon has had a very good run game averaging at least 5 yards a pop.

Yards per pass: Ludwig years no different that the rest. Not higher. Not lower.

Completion : 2002 was on the low side (52), but 2003 and 2004 were fine, and Tedford’s 2000 offense was actually the worst this decade.

Passes per interception: Ludwig years were middle of the road with one INT in roughly every three dozen passes. But they had the misfortune of following a very tough act— 2001’s ridiculously efficient 67 passes per interception.

Total Yards per game: Ludwig years were indeed the lowest—the only years this decade under 400 per game

Points per game: Not dramatically different from the rest of 2000 to 2006. But there was a declining trend—32 in 2002 to 27 in 2003 to 26 in 2004. In 2002 and 2003, inconsistency was the problem, as both seasons featured a lot of excellent offensive performances, but both were also flawed by a string of 3-4 games later in the season where the offense sputtered. In 2004, clearly the Ducks’ worst, this was more of a season-long problem, so no surprise Bellotti went in a different direction in 2005.

rushing % of total plays: Like the rest of the decade, very balanced at 52-53%, just like the Tedford years before. Only in the last four years have things changed, from the pass-heavy years of 2005 and 2006 to the rush-heavy years of 2007 and 2008.

My bottom line: It does appear that the Ludwig years were indeed Oregon’s worst this decade. I’m not sure the difference is quite as dramatic as some folks in Eugene seem to think, but I fully understand why Ludwig’s not a popular guy up there. The question then becomes, why? What caused Ludwig’s offenses to struggle.

My reading of the stats suggests that the primary problem with Ludwig’s offenses was the run game. The passing numbers are fine, no better or worse than his predecessors. But the Ducks simply couldn’t consistently run the ball during Ludwig’s three years. Was it poorly designed game planning? Offensive line problems? Running backs? I have no idea. Much, most, or even all of the blame maybe does deserve to be laid at Ludwig’s feet. But I’m not yet convinced that he isn’t being made a scapegoat for a bigger set of problems those teams may have had.

This does, however, raise a big question for us Bears fans. Can Cal run the ball consistently in 2009? We’ve been taking the run game for granted, focusing on worries more on Riley and his receivers. Maybe that shouldn’t be the case?