Cal-furd Post-Game Thoughts: Andrew Luck and Stanford own Brock Mansion and the Bears in the 113th Big Game

Did we get within the 20 on our second drive of the game? I forget exactly where Mansion threw that interception, but it was right in front of me and I’m right around the 20 yard line there. Not that this really changes your point.

I don’t have a problem with them, and I’d have liked to see a little more trickeration earlier in games, too. But yeah, this explanation also makes sense.

Why do we have walk-ons at FB? Don’t we have a million backup RBs? How feasible could it be to at least rotate in a Yarnway (pre-injury) or say, a Langston Jackson to take some of the reps at FB? Wouldn’t that also potentially give the defense a little more to think about?

I think there was a play where Mansion showed off his wheels. The kid is big and decently fast. I don’t have a huge issue with the gameplan in general (aside from it .. . not working) but I really think that Mansion can run. Zone reads, QB keepers, options. I’m not asking for a re-design of the playbook, but I know those plays are in our playbook – dial them up 3-4 times.

No comprehensive play calling strategy exists that comprises super-awesome but really easy to execute plays that Ludwig could have dialed up for Mansion. You can only run a quick slant so many times before the opponent’s D gets clued in. What do you suggest that Ludwig should have called that he didn’t, and also suits Mansion’s skillset, and also is not defensible?

Well, the whole point of my long post last week was that our playcalling has been fine, it’s execution that has been an issue. I think you misunderstand my point here – I’m not naively calling for the ultra-secret-uber-play that we have somehow just not called yet. Take a look at the play diversity during our first couple of drives: pitches, counters, fly sweep, wild bear, double reverse, slants, hitches, outs. I have no problem with that. I think it’s a creative way to utilize a ground-based attack, but still keep the defense guessing. We used this to set up a play-action deep ball attempt. No problem with that either. It stretches the field, keeps the D honest, and it’s something Mansion throws well.

Motioning Vereen from the backfield to the slot (big hint defense, we’re throwing to him) to match him up on their slow LB, then trying to hit him on a fade…From a conceptual/strategic standpoint, it’s a cool play design and a good call. Tactically speaking, this is a throw that Mansion doesn’t make well.(int vs. Wazzu, incomplete 2pt conversion, incomplete vs. furd) This is a playcall where I think the x’s and o’s might be better served adjusting to personnel.

well said avi baby.

I didn’t think you had it in you. Well done.

We do have an offensive identity. It’s called pro style lite. That includes being soft on the O-line, an inconsistent running game, and a wildly inaccurate passing game. That’s probably what opposing DCs think when it’s their turn to play us.

I nominate: The Frankenstein.

This is the problem I have with Cal’s offense. Not that “Tedford sucks”, “Ludwig sucks”, “playbook is too thick”, “I’m carp and I think we are complex”. The playbook can be complex as long as we have an identity and stick with it. Think 04 and 06 (even though the spread creeped in a little bit but at least it was consistent).

We may run plays out of a crazy variety of formations, but those plays all look the same — short runs and short passes, usually incomplete. It’s like we’re trying to trick defenses into thinking something else is coming. But it’s always the same.

We have all sorts of different types of formations and blocking schemes that I have no idea what our identity on offense is anymore. We run power I… then go to the Wildcat. And then we go to the shotgun spread….with TE lined out wide and a RB going out in motion. We’ll do a designed handoff/draw here now and then. Then we go to some Furd power formation (anyone see the extra blockers we used?). And I’m sure there are some other curious formations I’ve missed.

And if our execution was better and we were beating teams with all these crappy formations, nobody would be complaining about our lack of offensive identity.

No.

On A Positive Note I didn’t see the game

Wish I could say that…..

Cal didn’t attempt any FGs.

One of those 90+ yard drives consisted of a series of Cal penalties and one really unbelievable Luck run

I’m OK giving them a pass. Playing without either of the starting corners was too tall an order — especially after the spirit-killing, physical grind they went through last week.

If our offense was able to sustain a few drives, the D would have been on the field less, and given up fewer points. And they might even have been fired up to play better than they should have been able to.

I’m interested to hear your opinion since you are one of the most level-headed and rational people who posts here. JT is obviously aware that our offense has serious problems, but do you think he actually possesses the ability to engineer a turnaround?

My belief is that although JT has the knowledge of how to run a good offense, he might lack the administrative skill needed as a head coach to properly supervise the overall staff. He has made too many poor hiring decisions on the offensive side since 2007 when he had the same mandate of replacing under-performing assistants. Now that we finally have an OC who has lasted more than one season, we can see that he is the least impressive member of the OC carousel.

For the last 2 years, the defense is landing their top recruiting targets, which is very exciting, but the same is not holding true on offense, particularly at OL and WR. Assuming the right coaches are found, will we have the talent on offense to make a serious run in 2012? We can basically write off next year as a lost cause, but an experienced coach like JT should not require more than 2 rebuilding years to put a competitive team together.

JT stepping away from the offense is the only reasonable explanation I can see for why a team would have an elite NCAA offense for 4/5 seasons and then suddenly struggle mightily for 3 years. There have been other changes (Michalczik why did you leave us!) but nothing that seems so outsized to cause such a sudden turnaround in results.

Well, I suppose that’s one of the million-dollar questions. Perhaps in this situation, “potential” is a more appropriate term than “talent.” Position for position, many of our players certainly aren’t playing better than theirs. I honestly don’t know if we simply lack the players, or if our guys just aren’t playing up to their potential. I’d like to say that I think we have the guys to be competitive – but maybe that’s just wishful thinking. I know that based on the notoriously unreliable recruit metrics, we should be better than we are. Again, I could be completely off-base here. Perhaps if we were consistently bad, I would be more inclined to think that we just don’t have the players.

The real issue is that as a team, their guys are playing much better than ours. I really would like to think that our guys are capable of playing better than the sum of their parts. Because the alternative is pretty scary, no?

Like you said, it’s likely a mix of recruiting, coaching, and development. I have no real answers.