carp’s crazy thoughts for MLK Day: Assessing playing time opportunities for the backup QB’s. Part II
Continuing on from Part I, let's look at the backup QB playing time opportunities for the rest of the season + conclusions after the yump.
Cal 49 – Washington St 17
At this time, Cal had two nice road wins, had two losses against apparently great teams, and had a nice win over an eventual 10-loss Maryland team.
1st Q: 28-7
Halftime: 35-17
3rd Q: 42-17
Unfortunately, Cal’s early burst was not sustained as they outscored Wazzu 14-10 over the 2nd and 3rd Quarters. The Bears don’t put this game away until 12:20 or so in the 4th Sweeney enters the game with 5:17 left in the 4th Q (49-17 Cal):
|
California at 5:17 |
WSU |
CAL |
|
|
1st and 10 at CAL 18 |
Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson rush for 9 yards to the Cal 27. |
17 |
49 |
|
2nd and 1 at CAL 27 |
Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson rush for a loss of 5 yards to the Cal 22. |
|
|
|
3rd and 6 at CAL 22 |
Beau Sweeney pass complete to Michael Calvin for 9 yards to the Cal 31 for a 1ST down. |
|
|
|
1st and 10 at CAL 31 |
Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson rush for 26 yards to the WshSt 43 for a 1ST down. |
|
|
|
1st and 10 at WSU 43 |
CALIFORNIA penalty 10 yard holding accepted. |
|
|
|
1st and 20 at CAL 47 |
Beau Sweeney pass complete to Will Kapp for 1 yard to the WshSt 36, WASHINGTON ST penalty 16 yard roughing passer accepted for a 1ST down. |
|
|
|
1st and 10 at WSU 36 |
Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson rush for 2 yards to the WshSt 34. |
|
|
|
2nd and 8 at WSU 34 |
Beau Sweeney pass complete to Isi Sofele for 2 yards to the WshSt 32. |
|
|
|
3rd and 6 at WSU 32 |
Beau Sweeney pass complete to Isi Sofele for 10 yards to the WshSt 22 for a 1ST down. |
|
|
|
1st and 10 at WSU 22 |
Team rush for a loss of 2 yards to the WshSt 24. |
|
|
|
|
End of 4th Quarter |
|
|
Discussion:
Sweeney was put in at the correct time, but it’s unfortunate nonetheless as this was another game where either he or Mansion could have received meaningful PT. Wazzu had 385 yards passing, 20 first downs, and had the ball 5 minutes more than Cal. Riley threw a pick, Tavecchio missed a field goal attempt, and Anger punted 4 times. In Sweeney’s PT, it was nice that The Management allowed him to throw.
Ore. St 31 – Cal 14
The Injury Game where Best got a concussion with ~5 min to go in the half.
1st Q: 7-0
Halftime: 21-7
3rd Q: 24-7
Discussion:
While the final score suggests this was a blow-out, Cal wasn’t technically out of it until very late when Oregon St when on a 12-play, 81-yard, 7 min drive in the 4th Quarter to put them up 31-7 with 2:08 to play. Nonetheless, The Management marched out Riley who went 7-8 and took the team to paydirt in 55 seconds against a prevent defense. Might have this been a good time to see what the #2 could do? If he had, Riley would have ended this terrible game going just 12-26 for 136 yards, 0 TD, and 1 INT.
Washington 42 – Cal 10
1st Q: 7-3 UDub
Halftime: 21-3
3rd Q: 35-10
The game was over with 6:20 to go in the 3rd quarter when Riley tried to run for it on 4th and 5 at the Washington 13, which wasted a 65 yard return by Sofele. That would have provided 1.5 quarters of football for one of the backups. Instead, we watched Riley go 3-8, while getting sacked and fumbling twice. He would finish 14-32 for 215 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, and two lost fumbles. The offense wasted 9 drives (5 punts, 1 missed FG, 1 turnover on downs, and 2 fumbles).
San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl
Utah 37 – Cal 27
1st Q: 14-7 Cal
Halftime: 24-14 Utah
3rd Q: 27-21 Utah
Discussion:
Tempting to say the game was over after Riley throws a Pick Six with 5:30 to play (37-21 Utah). Or when he threw another pick just 9 seconds later. To his credit (and hopefully this is a key building block for next year), he rallies the troops for a TD (even though it took two minutes). Unfortunately, the 2-point conversion pass was incomplete and that was that with less than 2 min in the game. This was the correct call by The Management.
Final numbers for the backup QB’s:
Summary and Conclusion:
- The backup QB’s could have played 25% of the minutes in Cal’s first two blowout wins vs. Maryland and E-Wash, ~40% of the minutes in Cal’s blowout losses to Oregon, USC, and UDub.
- If the UCLA games and Washington St games featured better 3rd and 2nd/3rd Quarter efforts, respectively, than the backups could have played in 25% of the minutes combined. Since they didn’t, Tedford and I agree on not playing the backups in these games.
- The backup QB’s could have attempted 8 passes or so in Cal’s last possession in the Oregon St game, which would have nearly doubled Sweeney’s season total.
- Tedford and I agree that the backups should not have played vs. Utah.
In six games, Mansion and/or Sweeney could have received significantly more playing time and passing attempts without impacting the outcome. In two games Cal could have put their opponent away sooner than they did, which would have resulted in significantly more minutes for the backups without impacting the outcome. In the Bowl game, had the Bears not scored an early defensive touchdown, Mansion or Sweeney could have seen playing time in the last couple of series without impacting the outcome. If Cal had taken care of business, that would have bumped it up to 8 games and if Eddie Young did go out like a baller, it could have 9 games or 69% of the total number of games.
It is this author’s opinion that in-game reps in the situations described herein would have benefited the program without any negative consequences. What’s your opinion? What’s your deal?
Fun things to blog about:
What if Sweeney entered the USC game earlier and lead three touchdown drives? How would he have been received by the tempestuous home crowd? Would this have generated an instant QB controversy?
Taking this a step further, does Tedford a) sense that such a controversy would have been possible, b) realizes that this would be a major distraction for his program as it was in 2008, and c) avoid it altogether by not giving the backup an opportunity?
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A few thoughts
-My opinion on the whole issue is basically this: If you played the backup QB for the entire time possible in games that were effectively over, and threw the ball consistently in the process, the total time would almost certainly be an insignificant sample size. Does that mean that Tedford should or shouldn’t do it? I don’t know. I just don’t care or think it matters enough to worry about. Your conclusion is this:
in-game reps in the situations described herein would have benefited the program without any negative consequences.
I don’t really disagree with that line. I just think that the benefits to Cal’s program are so small as to be not worth worrying about.
-As far as I can tell, Tedford has never made a QB starting decision I’ve disagreed with, at least in retrospect. Consider the following:
1 – He handled Aaron Rodger’s transition to starter out of community college perfectly, balancing his playing time with Reggie Robertson’s, even pulling an injured/ineffective Rodgers for Robertson in the triple OT USC upset.
2 – He correctly picked Longshore as the opening game starter over more heralded Joe Ayoob, and after Nate’s ankle break he wasn’t afraid to sit Ayoob for converted fullback Steve Levy – a pretty courageous move if you ask me
3 – In retrospect, it’s pretty obvious that Riley was no better than Longshore in 2008, and that fan anger was based on two good Riley performances with superior WR talent against one good team and one mediocre team.
I know Carp’s not questioning the starter. I just wanted to put that out there. Tedford has a pretty good record.
a) sense that such a controversy would have been possible, b) realizes that this would be a major distraction for his program as it was in 2008, and c) avoid it altogether by not giving the backup an opportunity?
Nah. Tedford has always done what he thinks will help this team win. Reasonable people may disagree with what will most help Cal win, but I wouldn’t question Tedford’s goal.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jan 18, 2010 12:35 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd
Yeah, I agree regarding the statistical significance especially when drawing big conclusions. However, I’m not trying to say that if Sweeney goes 22-28 on the season then that necessarily means he’s more accurate than Riley and thus should start the 2010 season. I think the impact is subtle that may only be noticeable by the player and coaches but it is significant.
Your point on the last issue is a good one and I don’t necessarily disagree.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I agree with your premise: the back-up quarterbacks should have had more in-game full offense playing time, specifically, the Maryland and Eastern Washington games. Entering earlier would have allowed the quarterbacks to run the full offense, before Ludwig moved into kill the clock mode (side note: in both games, I am fully content with running the clock out after the 4:00 – 5:00 minute mark). I would speculate that, Tedford left Riley in these games to help build continuity among the players, continuity which would be needed later on.
Secondly, I don’t know if we would want Mansion or Sweeney taking their first snaps against the likes Oregon and Washington, as those two teams were tearing our offensive line apart. The idea of playing Mansion and Sweeney is to allow them to be comfortable running the offense, and begin to read a defense. I speculate that them playing in the Oregon and Washington games would have been far too overwhelming and potentially damaging to them as players. I realize they will eventually be a starter, and they will find themselves in these situations, but having no offensive line would not allow them to grow more comfortable, and hinder their ability to read a defense.
by chowder on Jan 18, 2010 12:57 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Cal vs. WSU
1st and 10 at CAL 31
Covaughn DeBoskie-Johnson rush for 26 yards to the WshSt 43 for a 1ST down
I could live the rest of my life without seeing another Cal player hurdling a defender.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
THIS
Besides, after Russell White did it in ’90, that move has been played out. So played.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jan 18, 2010 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
Russell White's hurdle
Russell White vs. Purdue, Sept. 14, 1991.
No, I didn’t remember the date off the top of my head. I just dug out an old aircheck tape of that game from my KALX days. I had the play by play call of that Russell White play. It was kind of comical. I couldn’t find the word “hurdle” to describe what was going on. I went with an enthusiastic exclamation, “LEAPS…AND GETS TO THE FIVE YARD LINE!” There was an instant of pause before I exclaimed “LEAPS,” like I couldn’t really process what I was seeing. And I guess, in a way, I couldn’t. It really was an incredibly athletic play. And the crowd went berzerk.
To continue my moment of ineptitude: I didn’t even realize that White was penalized for the play. Hurdling was illegal at that time, which I didn’t know (and neither did my broadcast partner). I didn’t hear the referee’s call and only saw his personal foul indication, so I assumed (wrongly) that the foul was away from the White play.
One more thing I didn’t remember until I listened to my old tape: at the time of that play, which happened in the last minute of the half, AD Bob Bockrath was standing right behind me. He started fist pumping when he saw the play. At the time, Bockrath had been on the job all of 11 days and had agreed (graciously, I’ll say) to be our halftime guest. Would I have punched him in the face if I knew then what I know now?!? Hmmmmmmmm…..
even though it was called back...
I loved the Mike Tepper hurdle over a SC defender…
That was nice.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
by Hey Bowles Hall! on Jan 19, 2010 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
If you are trying to avoid looking like you’re running up the score then having a backup pass isn’t going to help you. No matter how early you put him in.
Also it’s best to play for THAT year. And to play for that year (in this case 2009) you want your starter to have the most experience and practice. Riley was and is our starter. He should get most of the snaps even when we’re losing. I’d say during the EWU game Sweeney could’ve come in earlier but that’s it.
In other words, Go Bears!
I agree to disagree with the first paragraph and there’s really no sense in going back/forth on it.
starter to have the most experience and practice
True. But when the starter has been getting his ass handed to him for the entire game, the teaching points were abundant and emphasized ad nauseum.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
My take – I am in favor of subs in blowout wins but not so much in blowout losses. Unless you really think that the sub might actually be better than the starter, it sends the wrong message- “We give up. We can’t win.” I don’t think that was the case. I think it was more like “We suck today, but we don’t give up”, which I think is a better message.
I think in those early season blowout wins, we were still trying to iron out the wrinkles in the passing game, hence more reps for Riley. Question/criticism is then why did we essentially shut down training camp early? I remember reading that and thinking, we are either in for a big season or we are in deep shit. We clearly needed work on both O and D, so wtf?
GOLD OUT MOZAMBIQUE!
"We give up. We can’t win."
I felt like the team exhibited the opposite of this in all blowout losses. I should note that they did, for perhaps the only time all season, play inspired football after they gave up 2 TDs to Stanfurd. Perhaps the backup can be a fresh attitude and raise morale? I do see what you’re saying, however I just think the “never say die attitude” evaporated frequently. The situations that I pointed out in this fanpost were often times when the game was over…and even if you had nits to pick with my analysis there were still several opportunities to put the backup in between the time that I mention and the time that Tedford put them in (if he did).
why did we essentially shut down training camp early
I hadn’t heard of this, but I should disclose that I don’t really read the work of Okanes.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Here’s what he wrote FWIW:
This is my third season covering Cal and this is the most content and confident I can remember Jeff Tedford at this juncture of training camp.
Tedford has used the past couple of practices to go heavy on game situations, almost putting his players through a dress rehearsal for the season. And he’s decided to forgo Monday’s final scrimmage for another dress rehearsal in helmets only…
In essence, tomorrow will be the end of training camp, even though the calendar officially says it ends Saturday. The team will have the day off Tuesday.
GOLD OUT MOZAMBIQUE!
Backups Should Have More Game Time
The backups should be given as many game snaps as possible. It can only help them and the team in the future. It’s valuable in both winning and losing situations, which involve different conditions. On the QB subject, based on results, a change to Sweeney as starter should be made. Riley has had substantial time to settle in and hasn’t done the job consistently enough.
Well, Sweeney hasn’t had the opportunity to provide enough in-game results to either say he’s better or worse than Riley. We’ve seen plenty of Riley, but one can’t say that Sweeney would necessarily be better or worse. It’s tough to watch the passing game play and wonder, “Is this really the best everybody can do?” While I presume there are more accurate QBs on the roster, I don’t necessarily think we’d see more victories (more on this coming soon). I do think more PT in the 2009 would have allowed Sweeney to grow and, potentially but certainly not definitely, unseat Riley this offseason/Training Camp. As it stands now, he’ll have a small chance but I don’t think Sweeney will be starting in 2010.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by 




















































