SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
Golden Spectacles: A Closer Look at the Playcalling in Cal vs. UW
by Kodiak on Nov 30, 2010 1:48 AM PST
Email
PrintA quick look at the early playcalling. (No, I'm not doing the whole game. My physician said that wasn't healthy for me.)
1st Drive:
1st Play: 1st and 10, Cal 20 yardline. 2 TE, 1 RB. 7 in the box. Fake end-around to KA, hand-off to Vereen who goes over right guard for 10 yards.
Analysis: Nice misdirection. The outside LB gets frozen by the feint to KA and allows Vereen to cut upfield.
2nd Play: 1st and 10, Cal 30 yardline. 2 TE, 2 RB. 7 in the box. Inside zone run left, Vereen makes a nice cut back over right guard for another 10 yards.
Analysis: Good hat on hat blocking. Ladner gets away with a hold. (whew) Nice vision and power from Vereen
3rd Play: 1st and 10, Cal 40 yardline. WildBear formation, 7 in the box. (really UW? Really?) KA takes the snap, fakes to Vereen while reading the unblocked DE. The DE doesn't bite on the fake and drops KA for a short gain.
Analysis: Good play design forcing the DE to chose between our two best players on offense...He either guessed right, or was disciplined in his assignment to stay with the player receiving the initial snap. I didn't know you were allowed to not crash inside and hit the RB...
4th Play: 2nd and 9, Cal 41 yardline. 2 RB, 2TE, 1 WR. 8 in the box. Toss sweep to Vereen around right tackle. Good for 5 yards.
Analysis: Makes sense. Our lighter O-line is better at getting out on the edges than blowing people off the ball.
5th Play: 3rd and 4. New formation. Shotgun with Sofele and Vereen behind and to either side of the QB. 7 in the box. Both Vereen and Sofele peel off running swing routes. UW's 2 OLB's show blitz, but drop into coverage. They only rush 3...But their DT drives Guarnero five yards deep into the backfield and into Mansion's face. To make our hapless center feel better, Schwenke/Edwards are also unable to double-team their DE, and he twists inside for the sack. (after running Schwenke over)
Analysis: Interesting play design putting two playmakers in the backfield at the same time. If he weren't eating turf, Mansion would have had his choice of either RB for a safe, easy swing pass. Better than even chance that Vereen/Sofele would be able to juke one guy and make the 1st down. Even with the Oline's epic failure, Mansion hesitates and takes the sack instead of getting rid of the ball.
2nd Drive:
1st Play: 1st and 10, Cal 34 yardline. Shotgun formation. FB lined up as wing to the right. Vereen is lined up as a WR, then goes in motion. Takes the handoff on the flysweep. Fakes to Allen. Runs for 14 yards.
Analysis: Another cleverly designed play. Looks like the UW defenders have been told to key on Allen. Maybe this will slow them down.
2nd Play: 1st and 10, Cal 34, 2 TE's + 2 RB's, offset I, 9 in the box. When the sole WR motions inside, another defender jumps into the box because we all know this is going to be a run. It is. The Oline doesn't get any push, so Vereen has to cut back. He slips two tackles and breaks it for a 20 yard run.
Analysis: Not so fond of this particular formation unless you're setting up playaction We don't have the horses to consistently run against 9+ in the box. I'm okay with the result, of course. But, Vereen does this one mostly on his own.
3rd Play: 1st and 10, UW 46. Shotgun formation, FB lined up as a wing to the right. Same look that we used earlier this drive. 10 in the box. Sofele lines up as a WR and goes in motion. Takes the handoff on the flysweep. Gets forced out after a 2 yard gain.
Analysis: It worked the 1st time, but the defense is clearly overplaying the run now. Kapp does a good job cutting his guy, but Edwards misses his block - this allows the defender to force Sofele wide and run laterally instead of upfield. I thought this was going to be the counter set up by the 1st play out of the same look. Even with the stacked box, it might have been a decent gain with good blocking.
4th Play: 2nd and 8, UW 44. Shotgun, 3WR, 1RB. 6 in the box. Zone-read look, gives to Sofele. Sofele runs into his own blockers, but keeps his balance and bounces outside for eleven yards.
Analysis: Nice use of the spread formation to get guys out of the box. Good to see the zone-read early. Decent push from the Oline this time. Nice job by Miller downfield.
5th Play: 1st and 10, UW 34. 2TE, 2RB, offset I. 8 in the box with both safeties playing shallow. Handoff to Vereen who gets stopped for no gain.
Analysis: UW is keying on the run, and we cooperate with our "we always run" formation. Play is blown up because both Schwartz and Edwards miss their blocks and let the UW defenders get into the backfield. Looks like Edwards gets beat, and Schwartz is confused about who he's supposed to block.
6th Play: 2nd and 10, UW 34. 2 TE, 1 RB. 7 in the box with a safety cheating up at the snap. WR motions inside and we hand it to Vereen who is stopped for no gain.
Analysis: Not a bad job of blocking, but with a rare misstep, Vereen cuts inside instead of bouncing out. It was open to create a manageable 3rd down.
7th Play: 3rd and 10, UW 34. 3 WR, 1 RB. Shotgun. 7 in the box. Sofele lined as a WR, goes in motion and receives the handoff on the flysweep. Stopped for no gain.
Analysis: This play gets blown up because KA misses his block. It is somewhat doubtful that it would have gone for 10 yards.
8th Play: 4th and 10, UW 34. 3WR, 1 TE, 1 RB. Shotgun. UW has their nickel package in with only 3 down linemen. Even only rushing 3, their DE beats Edwards and forces Mansion to step up. He shows happy feet and overthrows an open KA at the 15. Edwards is also called for the hold.
Analysis: In a microcosm, these last two plays summed up the rest of the day for the Cal offense. (Plus some really bad interceptions.)
Okay, now I've got concerns. Calling 7 straight runs, including one on 3rd and 10 is telling everyone that you don't trust your QB to pass. Which then makes the decision to go for it on 4th and 10 a bit of a head-scratcher. The play call on 3rd down makes sense if you've already decided that you're going to go on 4th down...But to still go on 4th after being stopped for no gain...?
And here's the rub. I don't fault the individual playcalls themselves nor the concerted effort to pound the rock on the ground. But I see mixed signals. A lack of identity. Who are we? Are we a ball-control, conservative offense that plays field position, counts on our defense to set us up, and occasionally uses play-action to set up a deep ball? Are we aggressive? Are we spread? Balanced? Pro-style? Do we use misdirection, scheme, and formation to get the defense off balance, or do we impose our will and try to go straight through them even if they know what's coming? We are the jack of all trades, masters of none.
Let's look at the rest of the drives.(Yeah, I lied. But these are just quick summaries - no pics or detailed analysis.)
1st Drive: 4 Rushes for 27 yards. 6.2 ypc
2nd Drive: 7 Rushes for 45. 6.4 ypc
3rd Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 16. Run for 2. UW offsides.
1st and 10, Cal 21. Pass for 20
1st and 10, Cal 41. Run for 1
2nd and 9, Cal 42. Screen pass loses 4
3rd and 13, Cal 38. Incomplete pass under pressure
Insta-analysis: Drive derailed by a TFL on 2nd, then an Oline miscue on 3rd.
2 Rushes for 3 yards. 1.5 ypc
4th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 29. Play action, deep ball picked off.
Insta-analysis: Got the match-up we wanted, but it's an underthrown ball.
5th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 20. WildBear - KA for 6
2nd and 4, Cal 26. Run for 3
3rd and 1, Cal 29. WildBear - KA for 45
1st and 10, UW 26. WildBear - Sofele to KA fumble loses 11.
2nd and 21, UW 37. Screen pass loses 2
3rd and 23, UW 39. Incomplete pass under pressure
Insta-analysis: Drive killed by the fumble.
4 Rushes 42 yards. 10.5 ypc
6th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 20. Rush for 1
2nd and 9, Cal 21. Rush for 1
3rd and 8, Cal 22. Mansion rushes for 19
1st and 10, Cal 41. Rush for 22 called back by holding
1st and 20, Cal 31. Rush for no gain.
2nd and 20, Cal 31. Incomplete pass.
3rd and 20, Cal 31. Pass for 12.
Insta-analysis: Drive killed by the hold.
3 Rushes 21 yards. 7 ypc
7th Drive: (Hurry up - 17s to play)
1st and 10, Cal 35. Incomplete pass
2nd and 10, Cal 35. Pass for 22 yards.
1st and 10, UW 43. Pass for 7 yards.
53 yard FG.
Cal 3, UW 0.
Halftime:
1st Half - 20 Rushes for 138. 6.9 ypc
8th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 13 (Due to PF penalty on the kickoff) Rush for 7.
2nd and 3, Cal 20. Rush for 9.
1st and 10, Cal 29. Incomplete pass.
2nd and 10, Cal 29. Wildbear rush for 3.
3rd and 7, C 32: Pass for 10.
1st and 10, C 42: Rush loses 3.
2nd and 13, C 39: Pass for 4.
3rd and 9, C 43: Pass for 6.
Punt.
Insta-analysis: Drive reverses field position. Looks like we're playing ball control. TFL kills this one.
4 Rushes for 16 yards. 4ypc.
*UW scores their 80-yd TD here* Cal 3 - UW 7.
9th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 13. Bubble screen pass for no gain.
2nd and 10, Cal 13. Rush for loss of 3.
3rd and 13, Cal 10. Rush for 9 yards.
Insta-analysis: Playing it safe due to lousy field position. TFL on 2nd down kills this one, too.
2 Rushes for 6 yards. 3ypc
10th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 35. Rush for 3.
2nd and 7, Cal 38. Rush for 4.
3rd and 3, Cal 42. Incomplete pass intended for Miller. (three defenders around him)
Insta-analysis: They get pressure with just 3 guys again. Mansion has to throw early because their DE beats both our LT and Vereen. Good thing it's high, or this is a pick 6.
2 Rushes for 7 yards. 3.5ypc
*MikeyMo and Cam Jordan force a fumble and score here! Cal 10 - UW 7.
11th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 44. Pass for 9.
2nd and 1, UW 47. Rush for 3.
1st and 10, UW 44. Incomplete pass.
2nd and 10, UW 44. Rush for 7.
3rd and 3, UW 37. WildBear rush for 5
1st and 10, UW 32. WildBear rush for 11.
1st and 10, UW 21. False-start on Schwenke
1st and 15, UW 26. Rush for no gain + Hold on Schwartz
1st and 25, UW 36. Rush loses 1.
2nd and 26, UW 37. Incomplete pass.
3rd and 26, UW 37. Incomplete pass.
Giorgio hits a 47 yd FG. Cal 13- UW 10.
Insta-analysis: Promising run-oriented drive killed by penalties.
6 Rushes for 25 yards. 4.1 ypc
12th Drive:
1st and 10, Cal 32. False start, MSG.
1st and 15, Cal 27. Rush for 2.
2nd and 13, Cal 29. Rush for 4.
3rd and 9, Cal 33. Incomplete pass.
Insta-analysis: Another penalty puts us behind the 8 ball.
2 Rushes for 6 yards. 3ypc
2nd Half - 16 Rushes for 60 yards. 3.75 ypc (1st Half - 20 Rushes for 138. 6.9 ypc)
Upon further review, we really did try to run, run, run the ball. Clearly, it became tough sledding once UW figured out that our passing offense was ineffective. It still might have worked, but mistakes and negative yardage plays just killed us.(3 drives killed by penalties, 1 by a fumble, 3 by TFL's)
Final thoughts on the offense and the play-calling:
1) You can go chicken and egg all day on this one. Either Mansion is simply not capable of being a competent Pac-10 QB at this point in time, so you call your plays a certain way...Or because you call your plays a certain way, Mansion(and the defense) knows you have no confidence in him and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of our failures over the past 4 starts have been from execution errors. Playcalls were acceptable, but there were execution failures with the pass protection or with the throws themselves. However at some point, you have to take a look at who is preparing the offense as a unit and the QB as a player. Mansion looks like he's regressing, not progressing with more time on the field.
2) There's no argument that Mansion performed very poorly. The Oline did him no favors, but a number of misfires were completely on him. I still believe he has talent we're just not seeing. It looks like he's thinking too much. Not playing instinctive. And this is causing him to be off on his timing...hold the ball a tick too long...pass when he should run...pull the string on throws...paralysis by analysis. It reminds me of how Riley looked when he was struggling. I wonder if this is a coincidence? Equally perplexing are the disappearance of the play-action rollouts that he seemed to run so comfortably during his first start as well as the lack of zone-read plays/QB keepers. Square peg + Round hole = Troubling. Dare we hope that Hinder, Bridgford, and Maynard are made of sterner stuff?
3) It's been the same song all year. Critical penalties on the Oline at inopportune times de-railed promising drives. Or, guys getting beat leading to sacks or loss of yardage plays. The sack and pressures when three rushers beat five blockers are particularly egregious. Are these blown assignments? Guys being beat one on one? Or is the Oline set up to fail because the D knows what's coming? The youth/inexperience card is out the window at this point. Is this a question of technique? Preparation? Attitude? Or do we simply lack the players? Looking back, how big a deal was MSG's camp injury? Before he got hurt, we had MSG at LT and Schwartz at his more natural RT position. I suppose we still would have struggled at the guard positions...but it might have been nice to not have the revolving door at RT. At least it might have been more like a turnstile...
4) It's hard to point the finger solely at execution when the defense is clearly keying on certain players or formations. But I suppose that if you are incapable of completing a pass greater than 10 yards down the field, the defense will eventually catch on. Similarly, if your offense can't execute the counter play set up by your formation or motion, the original play will no longer be effective. See: Screen pass to RB lined up in the slot. See: Running to the side where the FB motions, or where the WR motions down. See: Running the flysweep to the side where the FB is lined up as a wing.
Just like a big lead eliminates play-action as a viable feint, poor execution on Play A hamstrings the playcaller because now Play B and Play C which use Play A to set them up are ineffective.
5) The million dollar questions for our offense: a) Do we simply lack talent? b) Are we failing to coach up/develop our existing talent? c) Are we failing to put our talent in the best position to succeed? d) All or some of the above. I have no answers. It's not my job to have the answers. I hope Tedford can find them this off-season. Not to be a broken record...but I really hope he goes back to being hands on with the offense and especially with the QB's. Doing the CEO bit is all well and good if you have a dynamic subordinate who can capably fill in for you. If that's not the case, then maybe it's better to play to your strengths. Considering the stark contrast between pre-2007 and post-2007 QB play and offensive production, perhaps it's time to dance w/ the girl that brung you. Leave the head-butting to someone else and go back to what you do best.
I am still thankful that we have Tedford at Cal. He's a good man, genuinely cares about graduating our student-athletes, and represents our university with class. He resurrected our program when we were the doormat of the Pac-10 and is directly responsible for our upcoming facility upgrades. Even ignoring the financial near-impossibility of a contract buyout at this point, he has earned the right to see the benefits of the SAHPC, And yet, I would agree that he deserves serious scrutiny with regards to his decisions during this off-season. It simply cannot be business as usual.
6) A salute to all the readers and commenters. You are what makes this community so enjoyable to participate in. Yes, it's not easy being a Cal fan. But enduring that unique combination of tantalizing near-success and the uncanny ability to snatch failure from the jaws of victory is why wearing the Blue and Gold is a badge of honor. Despite the on-the-field struggles, it's been a lot of fun hanging out with you on game day or talking things over throughout the week. (I hope you all stick around during bball season, too.) Thanks for hanging in there and supporting CGB.
So, it's time to lick our wounds and crawl back into our caves for another off-season. I know Cal football is just waiting to break my heart again. And yet I'll be back. In the immortal words of Cal fans past, and present, "Maybe next year will be the year."
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.
81 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great work, as always
I’m glad to see that after two years we’ve decided to start mixing things up consistently out of the crazy formation. Other than that, I prefer not to remember anything from Saturday’s game.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
Re 3), I think Cal punts something like >90% of the time if a penalty,sack, or a big loss on a running play occurs on offense. I was so impressed with Oregon’s ability to convert first downs, even with the occasional 2nd/3rd and longs. I love their aggressiveness and tenacity. Everyone on offense knows they’re going to get to the first down marker and get to paydirt. Such an infusion of confidence would be welcomed.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
5) The million dollar questions for our offense: a) Do we simply lack talent? b) Are we failing to coach up/develop our existing talent? c) Are we failing to put our talent in the best position to succeed? d) All or some of the above. I have no answers.
I think there’s no way we can say it’s anything but d). From a very macro perspective, there are simply too many things wrong with our offense to pin the blame on one thing. I think an Andrew Luck type quarterback would have masked some of the symptoms (just like Jahvid Best might have done a bit last year…there were a few plays vs. UW where Vereen was just a half step from busting free for six, but got tackled by a shoelace. I don’t think Jahvid gets tackled there), but ultimately a combination of factors have conspired to bring down our offense.
I fully support Tedford as long as it’s clear that he is willing to change and adapt when things go bad, and runs a clean program. A coach that sticks to his (shitty) guns when it’s clear they aren’t working is a coach that will be unsuccessful in the long haul. For better and worse, Tedford has been innovative with incorporating the Wildbear and allowing new blocking schemes from our Oline. He removed elements of the downfield passing game when it was clear our QB’s simply could not handle it. Was this (or any of these) the right move? Maybe, maybe not, we’ll never really know, but the important thing is he tried new stuff. If he was trying to run the 2004 offense with our colander of an Oline and Mansion or Riley at QB…well I don’t even want to speculate what our record might be.
People often complain that they want the “old” Tedford back. I don’t know what this means. Tedford is the same; in 2007 he didn’t buy The College Football Coaching Textbook and immediately turn to Chapter Suck. So what happened? I think, first, of all, that not much happened. The margins for victory and loss are so razor thin in today’s Pac 10 that to say something like “our Oline is AWFUL” is probably not true. A statement like “our Oline is worse than it used to be” or “our Oline is worse than Furd’s” is more accurate.
With that in mind, and ignoring the recruiting rankings, I think we just recruited some slightly crummier players and swung and missed on some big time gets circa 2005-2008. These “misses” (and I’m sorry if any of you players are reading this) are today’s juniors and seniors. We love to tout how our two-star hero Alex Mack ended up way above his expectations, but it can happen in reverse too, and I think it’s happened a lot on the offensive side of the ball. People point to the fact that our recruiting classes during the Treetard years weren’t really that bad. Well, maybe they were, and the star rankings just don’t accurately reflect that in hindsight.
Coaching may also be an issue. While we don’t really know just how skilled our players are, it’s highly possible that our WRs and Oline just aren’t getting the development they need to improve year to year. I think you’d be hard pressed to find other positions similarly suffering compared to earlier times.
Additionally, we’ve had bigtime coach turnover. New TE coach. New Oline coach. Like nine offensive coordinators in three years. Look at how much trouble DickRod had in Michigan vs middling Big 10 defenses before quasi pulling it together this year (offensively). Mike Stoops has a successful airraid in Arizona but it took several long years of growing pains to implement. His patience has paid off. Even the Ducks, with their billion dollar practice facility in space with a personal testicle massager for each player didn’t become scary until last year. And USC, despite all its obvious talent, did way worse this year and last. The point is, it’s HARD to win a college football game in a Big 6 conference continuously. It’s the nature of the college game. There’s too much change year to year.
So let’s recap:
1. Unsuccessful recruiting classes 2005-2008.
2. Potential positional coaching issues
3. Scheme coaching turnover
4. New offensive schemes
5. Lack of superstars to carry some load (Jahvid? Desean?)
It is my belief that all these problems have conspired to render our offense awful, rather than some blanket statement like “Tedford’s over the hill” or “Ludwig sucks.” The good news, thankfully, is that all these problems are pretty easily fixable.
1. Focus focus focus on recruiting. I’m not saying to bust out the snake oil, but perhaps more salesmanship of Cal could be useful. Relying on an academic selling point may be noble but ultimately doom us to mediocrity. Our motto should be “Fucking Win Hard, Always.”
2. I would support relieving Marshall of his duties. A power run pro-style offense like Tedford’s NEEDS an Oline that brings hell every down. Our current guys don’t/haven’t done that, and no one really has since Mack left.
3. Keep Ludwig, keep Pendergrast. Let their plays sink in a little.
4. Thoreau said “simplify, simplify.” Maybe this need not apply to the playbook itself, but I’d echo the sentiment that an offensive identity needs to be established. Whether the identity comes from the players or the players adapt to this identity doesn’t matter.
5. This should come along with 1.
I’m confident that we will see a return to success in the near future, particularly once we get the SAHPC completed. There is simply too much positivity associated with Cal for this not to happen. I can’t wait!
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 1:16 AM PST reply actions 11 recs
Old Tedford - New Teford
While I agree that Tedford may be the same guy, there is a difference in his teams before 2007 and those since. That’s likely due to his removing himself from the hands-on elements of coaching and moving to the overseer role. Particularly with the QB play/development.
Another thread talked about how Boller and Rodgers would describe one-on-one sessions with Tedford such as the famous checkers tutorial that helped Aaron recognize and exploit various defenses. That hasn’t happened since, and it shows on the field.
Tedford seems like he’s most effective as an actual teacher rather than supervisor. Unfortunately, it may just be too much work for him to both run the program and spend time with players. But if he could do it again, I am willing to wager that we’d see some tangible results
Calmer than you are.
I think that's part of what Spazzy is saying
Tedford, by all accounts, became more of a manager/CEO-type coach after the 2007 “collapse”. This showed his willingness to adapt when things didn’t work out like any of us wanted. In this case, it may have not worked out well, but as long as he keeps adapting, that’s what we need.
Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200
There was an article (I sorta remember being in PDF form) written by Tedford (I think) describing the rebuilding effort he did the 2001 1-10 team describing what he did for team-building, discovering and finding leaders, and building confidence.
I think he needs to do that all over again with this team, because I don’t see the basic leadership and the discipline he instilled in that squad in the current players.
If someone knows where to find that article, I’d love to read it again and see if it really is applicable. Or maybe I’m just waxing nostalgic for “Baylor Right”.
by bluehenbear on Nov 30, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
How about conservative Tedford?
I agree about point number 3. Keep Ludwig. WHY? B/c I’m not sure he’s the issue. I think the issue is Tedford. And his play-not-to-lose style. It’s frustrating, and I think it affects the psychological makeup of the team, especially when your coach doesn’t believe in you enough to go for it on 4th and inches.
We’ve gone through several OCs over the past few years, and the results have been worse with what i think is comparable talent to the best years under Tedford (and even better talent, if you think about Tedford’s early seasons). We underachieve and I don’t think it has to do much with our coordinators. Even if the offensive woes are due to Ludwig, it’s still Tedford’s system, right?
I don’t think Tedford needs to be more “hands-on”. It could help, I guess, but maybe it is the time for Tedford to change offensive strategy? I don’t think bringing in an new OC will actually help, since he’ll just end up running the plays Tedford wants called anyway.
I would like my friends from home, who only watch Cal football b/c of me, and who know more about football than I do, to stop predicting correctly what Tedford will do in certain situations. It’s annoying, and frankly, I’d like to shut them the hell up.
loved the Thoreau line
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’ll have you know I learned that quote from Calvin and Hobbes
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
Nice post, agree with a lot (maybe all) of it.
I find these two points funny:
Relying on an academic selling point may be noble but ultimately doom us to mediocrity. Our motto should be "Fucking Win Hard, Always."
and
Thoreau said "simplify, simplify."
College football + Cal = quoting Thoreau when searching for direction for our football program
19th century poet quotes sound a lot better coming from former linemen.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
So.. you’re saying we should get some former Cal Olineman as our new Oline coach and have him quote Thoreau to all the top Oline recruits?
So.. you’re saying we should get some former Cal Olineman as our new Oline coach and have him quote Thoreau to all the top Oline recruits?P.S. After going through a few pages online of Thoreau quotes, I’m not finding where he talks about good lower leg drive or hand engagement. I must be looking at a crappy site.
So I’m saying Thoreau said you should hit the preview button.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Whoa, that’s weird. I’m thinking that Thoreau should have done a better job coding up this SBN blog. I definitely didn’t do that.
THOREAU!!!!!!!!!!
Blaming Thoreau…such a Furd thing to do!
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
I’m remembering that Thoreau said, “I have come to hoe beans.”
It’s brilliant! We need to get back to the down-to-earth fundamental values of hard work that made this country great! Either that, or he means we need our linemen need more fiber in their diets.
Old Toothwrangler
I think our players should be locked in pens with real bears for a week. This will make them more tough.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Ms. Mrjpark doesn’t like it nice and slow every now and then?
by atomsareenough on Dec 1, 2010 6:09 PM PST up reply actions
nice post as usual
or was disciplined in his assignment to stay with the player receiving the initial snap. I didn’t know you were allowed to not crash inside and hit the RB.
Back in the dark days of defending the option, it was not uncommon for the DE to have contain responsibility especially where (as it looks like in your pic) the linebacker on that side is blitzing inside. I’d imagine that’s how they approach these harry highschool fake option formations too.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
Kodiak was making a funny
Browner (and other OLB/DEs) were crashing on the RB on every single play against Nevada earlier this year. The QB was able to pull and break contain for big yardage repeatedly. I believe Kodiak was referencing this.
And Louis Rankin, and Keola Antolin, and Maurice Drew, and Stephen Jackson, and …. urrggghhhhh make it stop.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 11:51 AM PST up reply actions
The play calling has been conventional and predictable, and ultimately ineffective. And in the end, that’s what determines if it has been any good or not. If it works, it’s good play calling. If it repeatedly fails, it is unacceptable. In 2010, more often than not, it has failed.
The Golden Bears’ roster is loaded with talent. For several years in a row now, we’ve had one of the top two or three recruiting classes in the Pac-10, including multiple elite quarterback prospects. Meanwhile, we’ve watched as other conference teams have played well above their talent level and did what we have been unable to do — beat U$C, go to the Rose Bowl, etc. Why?
A couple years ago, it was easy to point to Bob Gregory’s bend-over and then break defensive scheme that guaranteed that, no matter how many points our offense put up, no opponent was ever out of the game. But then Gregory did something remarkable – he tried something new, setting aside the system he’d coached his entire career to install a 3-4 that seemed better suited to the players on the roster – and to stopping an Air Force team that ran a potent form of the option.
Since then, the Cal defense has been the strength of the team. Of course, last year saw a dip as inexperienced linebackers and linemen were forced into starting roles. Our secondary was repeatedly abused as a result. Even so, there’s no doubt the change in defensive approach made the team better. It took guts to admit that what we were doing wasn’t working, and try something new.
So what about the offense? Are there simply no other game plans, play designs, or approaches suited to the players on our roster? Is it really possible that all these blue chip recruits were actually poor players all along, and that they cannot execute any college football plays? They’re certainly not executing the ones in our play book, so if we’re not willing to implement different ones, that must mean we’ve judged them incapable of executing any offensive plays, and the ones we do run are simply the least bad options. We’re minimizing the potential damage our terrible athletes may do.
I can’t believe that.
When a player makes one or two mistakes, that’s just a player being human. When there are constant execution errors, either that player is terrible or the coaching staff has failed to prepare him, failed to put him in position to succeed.
Our offensive line has been struggling the past two seasons. At some point, the coaches (the O-line coach and the play caller) must be willing to reexamine their philosophy and tailor it to the talents of the players they have. That may mean a complete change in formation and blocking scheme, or just fine-tuning the specific assignments and play design. Maybe it means designing plays with an extra tackle, or using the fullback to double-team in pass blocking, or running a fake end-around where a wideout who isn’t central to the offense pretends to be coming for a handoff, but actually cuts inside to simply get in the way of a pass rusher. Maybe a tackle who keeps getting blown up can report as an eligible receiver and catch a pass in the flat. Or a second teamer from the D can play as a second fullback in a heavy T formation where the TE, TB and a single wideout all run receiving routes. These all go against conventional wisdom, but when your plan already isn’t working, you need to be flexible and, dare I say, creative.
Everything about our offense the past two years reeks of conservative conventionality. Oh, but we run the Wildcat you say? The most conservative play in our play book. We’re essentially inviting the defense to stack the line to stop the nearly 100-percent-certain-to-happen-next run play that’s coming. When Keenan Allen threw his late (and meaningless) touchdown out of the formation in the Big Game, that was the lone moment of creativity we’ve witnessed from Andy Ludwig since he arrived. Which makes me suspect it wasn’t his idea.
The rest of the season has been a clinic on how to play it close to the vest, to minimize disasters. How’s this for a philosophy? Do exactly what your opponent expects you to do, and when he expects you to do it. Faithfully adhere to your plan no matter what the outcome. Avoid risk. "Hey kids, I believe in you. Now don’t mess up!"
Even if my ideas are totally nuts, it’s gotta be troubling that in the play list above, there are no passes for 15-30 yards. We’re trying to play offense with one arm tied behind our backs.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 11:50 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
The Golden Bears’ roster is loaded with talent.
What, exactly (and I do mean exactly) makes you say this?
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
I mean that I can’t believe that all the three-star and four-star recruits we’ve gotten year after year were all overrated by Rivals, Scout and ESPN. That we’ve simply lucked into a couple lowly rated players while all the higher rated ones were actually overrated.
At QB, Riley, Mansion, Sweeney, Bridgeford and Hinder were all elite quarterbacks coming out of high school. It’s hard for me to believe that, since coming to Cal, they’ve all been unmasked as terrible players.
At running back, we played this year with a starter who is definitely going to be playing on Sundays and back-ups who were high school All-Americans. Covaughn Deboskie-Johnson and Dasarte Yarnway would both be starters at most FBS schools. Isi Sofele has been the under-the-radar surprise, and he’s played well. In fact, the backfield has been so deep that studs like Tracy Slocum and James Montgomery have had to transfer to have any hope of seeing the field.
At wideout, we had Keenan Allen was on our roster this year, yet we got less than 500 yards receiving out of him despite his making almost every play that targeted him. Marvin Jones has underperformed and probably doesn’t have the hands a true No. 1 needs, but he’s certainly talented enough to start and to stretch the field even on incomplete passes. And people forget that even Alex Lagemann was a four-star recruit with freakishly soft hands and excellent route running when he arrived on campus.
We had stud receiving tight end Anthony Miller and Spencer Ladner, who was an excellent receiver in high school, as well as Jarrett Sparks, who caught several big passes last season.
Our O-line includes a ton (literally) of players who were among the best in the country coming out of high school, including arguably the best center, Mark Brazinski. MSG, Brian Schwenke, Tyler Rigsbee, Dominic Galas, Sam DeMartinis, Justin Cheadle, and Mitchell Schwartz were all highly rated. And then there are like Charles Ragland and Charles Siddoway who should become beasts on our line – if we can coach them effectively and put them in position to win.
Again, it’s certainly possible that all the scouts at all the rating bureaus and at such elite college football programs as USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida and the other schools that were recruiting these kids were wrong. Sure. It’s possible. But really?
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
At QB, Riley, Mansion, Sweeney, Bridgeford and Hinder were all elite quarterbacks coming out of high school. It’s hard for me to believe that, since coming to Cal, they’ve all been unmasked as terrible players.
I’m pretty sure only Mansion and possibly Sweeney fit this paradigm. Riley was always at least an average quarterback, who got better over time. Bridgford has been injured and Tedford never likes burning the redshirts of quarterbacks like Hinder. One hidden problem about the 2007 team was that Reed transferred , leaving Tedford with only two viable options at QB. He wants a healthy stable to rely on.
Covaughn Deboskie-Johnson and Dasarte Yarnway would both be starters at most FBS schools
Yarnway? Maybe, I still think it’s a confidence issue with holding onto the ball (if he didn’t fumble he’d be seeing the field more). CDJ? No. Safe to say that Deboskie-Johnson will have a productive career thanks to his academic pursuits. He’s a true Golden Bear.
At wideout, we had Keenan Allen was on our roster this year, yet we got less than 500 yards receiving out of him despite his making almost every play that targeted him. Marvin Jones has underperformed and probably doesn’t have the hands a true No. 1 needs, but he’s certainly talented enough to start and to stretch the field even on incomplete passes. And people forget that even Alex Lagemann was a four-star recruit with freakishly soft hands and excellent route running when he arrived on campus.
We did put the ball in Allen’s hands a lot the final game. I wish we’d done that every snap.
Jones is starting to look like Hawk—very talented but has a case of the dropsies. Loggy simply doesn’t accrue YAC, and the few times he’s seen the field this season I’ve hardly been impressed. Plus he’s got his rap career or whatever—it’s all part of the Cal experience, some guys just lose their passion for the game and find other things to latch onto.
We had stud receiving tight end Anthony Miller and Spencer Ladner, who was an excellent receiver in high school, as well as Jarrett Sparks, who caught several big passes last season.
Agreed. Something’s not right there.
Our O-line includes a ton (literally) of players who were among the best in the country coming out of high school, including arguably the best center, Mark Brazinski. MSG, Brian Schwenke, Tyler Rigsbee, Dominic Galas, Sam DeMartinis, Justin Cheadle, and Mitchell Schwartz were all highly rated. And then there are like Charles Ragland and Charles Siddoway who should become beasts on our line – if we can coach them effectively and put them in position to win.
They haven’t learned Marshall’s schemes well-enough yet. Or they can’t execute them. Plus they haven’t bulked up either—this is the smallest O-line we’ve had in the Tedford era, and they’re not particularly athletic either. They get pushed around and mauled a lot. Sometimes genetics just doesn’t work our way, although there can be some pinning of the lack of energy and fight at the LoS on coaching.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 30, 2010 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
Kevin Riley was also a four-star recruit coming out of high school and was noted for his arm strength, accuracy and quick release. And he’s certainly shown flashes of brilliance. If the talent isn’t there to begin with, that doesn’t happen. See every UCLA quarterback of the last decade.
CDJ was a U.S. Army All-American coming out of high school and also a four-star recruit.
Maybe all the scouts were wrong on these guys, but it’s hard for me to believe that somehow they’ve been wrong over and over on the highly rated players, and the Tedford staff has just been lucky enough to uncover players who’ve gone on to superstardom in the NFL.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 1:05 PM PST up reply actions
Oh yeah…
YAC is overrated. You can’t get YAC if you never catch the ball in the first place. So focusing on Jones or Ross has been futile. But if every sixth or seventh pass was an 8- or 12-yard completion (even without YAC) to Lagemann, things would open up for everyone else.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
Have to chime in...
I agree with this post. Cal has had many years of top 20 classes (maybe not every year, but 4 out of 5?), yet they finish under .500? I’ve been following the team since the early 80’s and this is the best sustained recruiting since I’ve been following them. I guess you could argue that the recruiting will only get that much better with the improvement of the facilites, but to sit and say that part of the issue is the recruiting “misses” and “lack of talent” seems off the mark.
Regardless, if there are recruiting misses, what does that say about the coaching staffs talent evaluation? Say what you will about recruiting services, but no one is holding a gun to the coaches heads to take 3 or 4 or 5 star players. If they really thought a 2-star recruit was better, and was misevaluated by the service, what’s stopping them from offering a scholly? It seems to miss the mark to say “well, we thought they were 4 stars when we recruited them, but they ended up being no good”. Well, whose fault is that? The ratings services or the coaches in charge of making those determinations?
Bottom line, I’m not saying recruiting better players can’t help…I just think to say the talent level on the team is low because of recruiting misses is not accurate. And, even if it is, what gives you the faith that the coaches who made the decisions on those misses won’t miss similarly in the future?
Side note: the post above which lists these issues:
1. Unsuccessful recruiting classes 2005-2008.
2. Potential positional coaching issues
3. Scheme coaching turnover
4. New offensive schemes
5. Lack of superstars to carry some load (Jahvid? Desean?)
…and then proceeds to say, “…all these problems are pretty easily fixable.” Yes, they may be fixable, but easily? If it was that easy, what faith do you have in the coaches for making such “easy” mistakes? Finding good coaches is easy? Evauating talent (to avoid unsuccessful recruiting classes) is easy? New offensive schemes?? You make it sound like nothing. This type of analysis reminds me of those people who say…“well, if we make a field goal here and there, and our defense for that one key stop, we’d be 10-1!!!”
The point is: it’s not that easy. That’s why Tedford has struggled with assistant coaches (the O Coord carousel?), offensive schemes (lets go to the Spread (aka—the Ted-Spread)! No, let’s go back!), recruiting, etc. It’s difficult to get all of that right. And that is why, after years of trying, some people are questioning whether Tedford is the coach to get it right. Not to say he can’t, but let’s not pretend he’s going to snap his fingers and get everything right.
The big difference between 2 star and 3+ star recruits is athletic ability. People that may not be as football-smart as others will be rated higher because their bodies are ready for D1 football, whereas 2 star recruits aren’t always physically capable of immediately stepping in and contributing. Thus, it is very rare a 2 star recruit will come in and make an immediate impact. “Hitting” with a 2 star recruit usually means years of development and then hopefully he’s a star for his last 1-2 years. People point at Alex Mack, but really he’s one of a kind. It’s not often you find a gem like him that’s been overlooked by everyone else.
While I’m sure there are “misses” in our recruiting, blaming everything entirely on that would be incorrect. These guys were rated highly because they are physically able to compete on a D1 level. Some of them won’t have the mental capacity/tenacity to back it up and will be misses. The rest falls on the coaches IMHO.
I think we had one, maybe two, top 20 classes. Not year after year.
I think you’re right about recruiting evaluation. The coaches are the ones who have had some bad years in a row. But didn’t Tedford say that they would be reviewing their recruiting strategy as the first order of business after the season? Would you rather he sit back and say “nah, everything’s fine” in that department? Also, did you read my post? The entire point was to say that it isn’t just one aspect of the offense, it’s several which combined to make us much worse (and I just remembered that I forgot one: injuries).
And that is why, after years of trying, some people are questioning whether Tedford is the coach to get it right.
Do you not remember 2003-2006? He got it right… He took a 1-10 program and in three years had it at 10-1. It IS that easy. Michigan State got spanked by us two years ago on opening night, and now they’re almost in the Rose Bowl. Furd got spanked by us last year and the year before and now they are in the BCS money. It can be turned around that quickly.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What people tend to forget is that Tedford also had it easier during that time span. The rest of the Pac-10 was absolutely horrid. Washington and WSU were just in the pits, even more so than WSU is now. Furd didn’t know which side of the field they were supposed to score on. It was before we started losing to Oregon State, I believe Riley had just joined and started the turnover. UCLA was crap. Arizona wasn’t HORRID IIRC, but they were far from a good team. A bowl team only because they were in the Pac-10. You get the point. It was 3 team conference. USC, because they were cheating. Cal, because we had just turned around. And Oregon, because they’re Oregon. It was much easier to go through a 10 win season that it is now because losing to USC was guaranteed and all we had to do was beat Oregon.
No, Arizona sucked too. UCLA was good though, I think they saw rankings from 2002-2005.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
I do remember
Only 2-3 top 20 classes? I’m lazy and don;t have the time to research, but I challenge that. Last year was a top 10, no (although admittedly it prob ended up below that after Martin transferred)? And, by that logic, compare apples to apples over the past 5 years even—-where would we fall on avg star rating within the Pac-10? Is your argument 5th or worse? 4th or worse? I’d be interested, because we finished 7th this year. So, if our recruiting has been on par with the 5th best recruiting team (I’d argue it’s more on par with 3-4th highest in the Pac-10, but the point remains even if it were 5th), why are the results so bad comparatively? Is it coaching, or have we had massive recruiting busts?
Side note: all teams have injuries. That’s why you recruit depth. Tedford is not new—all the players in the program are HIS. All QBs in the pipeline (save Werterbeger and maybe Sweeney—I actually don’t recall his rating) were highly recruited/regarded…yet, our starting QB goes down and we don;t have anyone serviceable? So, again…recruiting busts, or coaching?
And that’s why I didn’t say “Fire Tedford!”, or even imply he should be fired. I simply said, “People are questioning”…and I think that’s a legit point. I agree. I think he has earned the right to fix things, but only to a certain point. Part of that is his early success (I also subscribe to the logic employed above that he didn’t just become a horrible coach all fo the sudden), but it is also the fact that he runs a pretty clean program, graduates players, etc.
Look, so much has changed not only within the conference, but within our own program since 2006 that pointing to past success only gets you so far. We are trending down the last 2-3 years, and it’s going to a lot to tunr that around imo.
Is your argument 5th or worse? 4th or worse? I’d be interested, because we finished 7th this year.
Is recruiting a “4th place” team and finishing 7th really THAT bad?
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
..Considering the drop between 4-7th place in the conference. It’s the difference between 8-4 and 5-7. That’s not totally better to you? I think most people would not be bitching and moaning if this team went 8-4. Given Riley going down, I think I’d be ecstatic with that.
I’d guess that USC and Oregon are on average 1/2 over the past few years recruiting-wise. Their on-field results bear this out, correct? Now, look at the teams around Cal in the standings—Washington, ASU, and UCLA. You’re telling me we haven’t recruited better talent over the last 5 years than them? Maybe UCLA had a good year or two, but I’d argue they’ve underachieved relative to their recruiting as well.
It’s the difference between 8-4 and 5-7.
Right, so, with our current “5th or so” ranked class, if
Tavecchio makes the FG vs. Arizona (W)
Tavecchio makes the FG vs. Oregon (W)
The offense scores one TD vs. UW (W)
….are you seeing my point about razor thin margins?
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
For coaches, especially when looking at such small samples (like a single season), I think W-L is not a great stat
for exactly this reason. Is Tedford’s performance that much amazingly better or worse because of the results of those games? Obviously, we want to win them and we’ll need to win them to reach the promised land, but I think we should be careful to not overvalue results in close games to judge coaches.
I think it makes more sense to judge coaches on a more [strong win] – [close game] – [bad loss] scale. By my count, this puts our record this year at 5-3-4. Not good by any means, and probably Tedford’s worse since his first year (or possibly ever). Compare this to last year where had 3 bad losses (4 if you count the bowl game too) and won a couple of close games (Big Game, ASU, etc), it’s really not that different.
Now, if you think a year or two of results like this are acceptable or not, is up to you. Personally, I think that because college football is so cyclical, a few years like this is unavoidable. Look at everyone’s flavor of month Pac-10 coaches, OSU and Zona were not that good a few years ago. Shit happens, in my opinion, Tedford should be given the chance to turn this back around.
I realize that I chose my words poorly when I said
Is recruiting a "4th place" team and finishing 7th really THAT bad?
I don’t mean to imply that I think finishing 7th is good or what we should strive to, more that a 7th place finish is not wholly unheard of or unreasonable when viewed in the context of a 5th ranked recruiting class. I definitely don’t think a 7th place finish is okay for our school.
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
No
Not to be contrarian, because I do think you have many valid points, but a team with 5th place talent (which I used loosely to prove a point—in reality, it’s probably 3rd or 4th best talent over the last few years) shouldn’t have all these close calls for W’s. Yes, teams may have one to two games where you skate by, but great teams leave no doubt.
And for your three examples, I could probably think of three of Cal’s games where they could arguably have lost has things broken for the other team. The woulda-coulda-shoulda game works both ways.
Bottom line. Nevada. Cal. Who has had better recruting the last 5 years. How about Cal versus OSU? What have the results been? If you agree Cal has had better recruting in either or both cases then:
a) the recruits have been busts, which is on the coaches for their evaluation of these players
b) the coaches have failed to develop or properly coch the team.
I’m not talking aabout one game where s happens. or a bad break or injury. That stuff happens, I get it. I’m talking the last 3-5 years collectively.
I think we’re arguing vastly different things. We both agree there are problems with our offense/team. I’m more saying that it’s not as far from success as you think. I reiterate, I think it is many small problems that are eminently solvable.
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
I’d guess that USC and Oregon are on average 1/2 over the past few years recruiting-wise.
If you trust pundits at ESPN, Rivals, Scout, USC/UCLA are typically 1/2 in Pac10 recruiting. Both programs have significant advantages signing SoCal recruits to play in front of their friends and families.
http://twitter.com/solariseCGB
I think you vastly, vastly overrate how good a player is coming out of HS. If you can point to successful three and four-star recruit starters who are RS or true freshman around NCAA I would love to see them.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
A kid doesn’t have to have an immediate impact – we’ve been winning these recruiting battles for several years now, so the kids we recruiting two years ago ought to be paying dividends now.
But to answer your question about big-time recruits who did play exceptionally well as true or redshirt freshmen, here are some recent kids who did with their Scout.com star ratings (not all started, but many of them did)…
Matt Barkley (5), USC
Devon Kennard, (5), USC
Joe McKnight (5), USC
Everson Griffen (5), USC
Chris Galippo (5), USC
Marc Tyler (5), USC
Taylor Mays (5), USC
Stanley Havili (5), USC
Darron Thomas (4), Oregon
LaGarrette Blount (4), Oregon
LaMichael James (3), Oregon
Kenjon Barner (3), Oregon
Casey Matthews (3), Oregon
Jake Locker (4), Washington
Kavario Middleton (4), Washington
Chris Polk (4), Washington
Quinton Richardson, (3), Washington
Rahim Moore (5), UCLA
Akeem Ayers (4), UCLA
Terrence Austin (4), UCLA
Alterraun Verner (3), UCLA
Andrew Luck (5), Stanford
Shane Skov (5), Stanford
Chris Owusu (3), Stanford
Jacquizz Rodgers (4), Oregon State
Ryan Katz (3), Oregon State
Jahvid Best (4), Cal
Shane Vereen (4), Cal
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
This list points to pretty obvious philosophical tendency differences between the various schools. If you look at all the highly rated Cal and Stanford recruits over the past several years, only a few have hit the field as freshman. Those few have been exceptional.
At places like USC and Oregon, freshmen are in the mix from Day 1. I think that’s one of the big recruiting pitches those schools make. You come in and compete from Day 1, and you have every opportunity to see the field early and often. At Cal and Stanford, the coaching staff is going to want to season you a bit first.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
Both Longshore and Riley started their RS freshman years….
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
I was referencing QB’s.
On your list I see two QB’s that did serviceably well in their true or RS freshman years: Luck and Barkley. Both 5-stars.
Katz and Locker did not remotely do well in their freshman years.
Ravenous Ute may post on CGB, but please don’t mistake him for a Cal fan….
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
Gotta disagree. Katz was very good as a redshirt freshman last year. He just had one of the best QBs in the conference playing in front of him.
Locker threw for over 2,000 yards and ran for nearly 1,000 as a freshman, making him one of the most exciting players in the country back in 2007. He threw too many interceptions, and has never impressed me as a pocket passer — I wouldn’t draft him onto my NFL team. But as a college player (even as a freshman), dude was money.
And the Luck and Barkley examples can’t just be ignored. These were quarterbacks right here in our own conference who made an immediate impact.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
Locker had like a 45% completion rate and his team went 4-9. Are you saying this is the type of season you want?
And Katz passed for 232 yards TOTAL. Tiny sample size, and way lower than Riley’s total from 2007.
And I’m not ignoring Luck and Barkley. Those guys were 5-star recruits. Cal has landed two, ever! So yes, I agree, if we get an amazing 5-star out of HS I think there is a good chance he’d compete for playing time. But can we count on that? No. Therefore I’m happy with Tedford’s decision to play who he has. I trust that Bridgford et al will come into their own in good time.
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
Locker — I’m not a fan. But I had to answer your question as to who were some quarterbacks who started and were successful as freshmen. We can nitpick specific elements of a player’s game (and I do with Locker), but his other numbers were massively huge, and gained him nationwide attention — as a freshman.
The whole point is that either we’ve been good at evaluating talent, or we’ve sucked at it and missed on a bunch of guys. But if we’ve sucked at talent evaluation, we were not alone because all the rating bureaus and big-time college programs evaluated our players highly, too. We had to fight it out with big name schools to land a lot of these players who had lots of offers.
Also, if we’ve made a bunch of misses in our evaluations, then that must mean that when we’ve found a gem, it’s been pure luck. When we discovered Aaron Rodgers, it was just dumb luck that he became a super college QB and now one of the best passers in the NFL. When we got Forsett and Lynch and Mebane and Bishop and Follett and all the other studs who’ve worn the blue and gold, it had nothing to do with how well we evaluated their talent. It was just luck.
That’s really hard for me to believe.
There certainly have been a few misses — every year with every program. But on the whole, this Cal team really is loaded with talent.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
I have no idea what you’re trying to say anymore.
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
Well, your original question up above was what I meant, specifically, about our team being loaded with talent.
I then listed players on our roster who have been widely recognized as being talented. Some folks think those players must actually have been overrated by all the scouts, and were obviously just recruiting misses. But I disagree. I think the scouts have been right much more often than they’ve been wrong — that we do have excellent talent on our team, but that our coaching staff has failed to get the most out of that talent, and to put that talent to good use — most of all on offense.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that our offensive line has not performed up to expectations. I think it is part of the problem.
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 2:22 PM PST up reply actions
Patience
Changes in strategy get implemented over a couple of seasons, not a couple of games. This is due to increasing the comfort level of current players and recruiting for the new strategy. You’re complaining that changes didn’t happen within a single season. I think that’s unrealistic. Tedford makes changes all the time, and it takes a season or two to evaluate.
Actually, I’m more concerned about play calling. I mentioned a lot of things up there, but the biggest thing for me is that our OC refuses to take more than one or two shots past 15 yards per game. There’s no variety — everything is close to the line of scrimmage, so even when an opposing D puts seven, eight, nine or even 10 defenders in the box, they’re not any more vulnerable to play-action or other passes. They’re already in position to play the run AND our timid passing game.
If we’re really convinced that we don’t have a quarterback capable of throwing the ball down the field without causing disaster, then we’d better get creative and design something that will change things up. And if our line is constantly being beat, we need to make in-game adjustments — not merely in-season adjustments.
by Monica's Dad on Nov 30, 2010 5:40 PM PST up reply actions
If we’re really convinced that we don’t have a quarterback capable of throwing the ball down the field without causing disaster, then we’d better get creative and design something that will change things up.
Hmm. We’ll have to disagree then, since I thought Tedford/Ludwig tried a whole lot of different plays and formations to work around a quarterback incapable of throwing the ball downfield. Not many other teams incorporate as many screens, reverses, wildbear/crazy formations, etc., into their offense, and these were all intended to mitigate our lack of deep passing threat. I don’t know how much more creative a play can get than having a (freshman) wide receiver taking a direct snap on a run-pass option.
And if our line is constantly being beat, we need to make in-game adjustments — not merely in-season adjustments.
I don’t think there is an in-game or even in-season adjustment for lack of talent and execution. You can certainly pin personnel issues on the coaching staff for its recruitment as well as development during training camp, but there’s no magical blocking scheme that will fundamentally alter that in a week.
And if our line is constantly being beat, we need to make in-game adjustments — not merely in-season adjustments.I don’t think there is an in-game or even in-season adjustment for lack of talent and execution. You can certainly pin personnel issues on the coaching staff for its recruitment as well as development during training camp, but there’s no magical blocking scheme that will fundamentally alter that in a week.
This.
by Cali49a on Nov 30, 2010 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If we’re really convinced that we don’t have a quarterback capable of throwing the ball down the field without causing disaster, then we’d better get creative and design something that will change things up.
I feel like we watched totally different games on Saturday
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
If we’re really convinced that we don’t have a quarterback capable of throwing the ball down the field without causing disaster, then we’d better get creative and design something that will change things up
Did you not notice the the KA throw from the Wildcat and all the other end-arounds, handoffs, and wildcat plays Cal had?
but the biggest thing for me is that our OC refuses to take more than one or two shots past 15 yards per game. There’s no variety — everything is close to the line of scrimmage, so even when an opposing D puts seven, eight, nine or even 10 defenders in the box, they’re not any more vulnerable to play-action or other passes. They’re already in position to play the run AND our timid passing game.
You’re right. It frustrated me, too, seeing this but you have to take into account the demands of the passing game.
Between each play, there is about 40-45 seconds when teh ball is placed and before the playclock expires. The playcall usually comes in around 15-20 seconds into the playclock which leaves about 20-25 seconds to call the play out, break the huddle, get to the line of scrimmage, make sure everybody is lined up correctly, read the defense, make any audibles, signal a player to start motion if any, and call out the snap count all while tracking the playclock. It’s no easy task to be doing all of that in 20-25 seconds. If you throw in a pass play that requires reading coverages, it’s an added difficulty in addition to the responsiblities I mentioned above.
I have not rewatched the game closely yet but in person, the gameplan seemed to have dramatically cut down on the QB’s need to read the coverage. My own observation of Brock is that over the course of 4.5 games he played, he became more hesitant in his throws. After the INT against UW, even when Brock had open guys and could have had an easy completion, he held the ball because imo he was afraid of it getting picked again. I don’t know if anybody caught this on here since I did not read any of the game threads but Brock also went the wrong way on a handoff. Screwing up the direction of the handoff on a running play happens but with the simplification of the passing game, I could tell why Ludwig was callling the game the way he was.
Against Stanfurd, there was an illegal formation procedure that stalled a drive. Against OSU and UO, there were timeouts called because of the playclock expiring and misread signals. Those are all things that kill the team and put them in tougher positions. The staff designed a gameplan against UW that would cut down on how much thinking Brock needed to do and would minimize the chances of turning the ball over and getting put into unfavorable down and distances. This is why we saw a heavier dose of running and it almost worked.
at the end of the day, I don’t remember too many pac10 teams that have been successful without a decent passing offense. this year we were #9 out of 10. right now between the issues at O-Line and QB I don’t have very much confidence that we will even be in the middle of the conference next year. that, of course, allows everyone to stack the box and all the ensuing O and D issues to help us beat ourselves.
it just seems that our many of our QBs have not been ready to step in and play. no one was ready when Rogers left in 2005, no one was ready to step in for an injured Longshore in 2007, Riley needed lots of playing time in 2008 to get ready for a ho-hum 2009 and of course the back half of this year was the worst in the tedford era.
Year QD TD Int Rating Record Pac-10 Passing Rank (ESPN)
2002 Boller 28 10 126.8 7-5 N/A
2003 Rodgers 19 5 146.58 8-6 N/A
2004 Rodgers 24 8 154.35 10-2 # 4
2005 Ayoob 15 14 114.13 8-4 #10
2006 Longshore 24 13 141.64 10-3 #3
2007 Longshore 16 13 123.31 7-6 #4
2008 Longshore 10 4 125.78 9-4 #6
Riley 14 6 117.8
2009 Riley 18 8 128.74 8-5 #4
2010 Riley 13 6 140.68 5-7 #9
Masion 2 5 86.03
Longshore was ready in 2005 but he broke his leg halfway through the 1st quarter of the 1st game he played…
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
(a lot of ppl forget that)
I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 30, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Gotta disagree. Katz was very good as a redshirt freshman last year. He just had one of the best QBs in the conference playing in front of him.
Locker threw for over 2,000 yards and ran for nearly 1,000 as a freshman, making him one of the most exciting players in the country back in 2007. He threw too many interceptions, and has never impressed me as a pocket passer — I wouldn’t draft him onto my NFL team. But as a college player (even as a freshman), dude was money.
And the Luck and Barkley examples can’t just be ignored. These were quarterbacks right here in our own conference who made an immediate impact.
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
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
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 |
