Discovering Clancy Pendergast: Q&A With Arrowhead Pride
With all the hoops action, we haven't had a lot of time to discuss the Pendergast hire. Now, I've always personally felt a change in DCs isn't going to significantly impact results on the field as long as we don't see a drastic alteration in scheme (not likely), personnel (maybe in a year or two, but not yet) or style (now looking quite possible). So there could be a bit of a change next year. With no real expectations going into next year, it should be fun to see what Pendergast does differently from his predecessor with similar players.
One of the positives that Thoroughbred picked up was that Pendergast is only two years removed from coaching a Super Bowl-worthy defense. Coaching a Cardinals defense that was on the verge of a Super Bowl does bring some big recruiting muscle and give people the idea that these guys will develop them to play in the pros (akin to Steve Marshall's hire last year). We won't know how good he can be on that side of the coin until next January.
Scheme-wise, who knows how Pendergast's approach will work out. The aggressive defense had its merits during Arizona's Super Bowl run (destroying Jake Delhomme's career, shutting down the Steelers offense for much of the game), but also seemed to backfire just as much (getting obliterated in huge road contests, blowing a second half lead to the Eagles in a matter of minutes, giving up the Super Bowl game-winning drive). Arizona fans complained about the inconsistency of this one track mind approach, but maybe it'll pay off a little bit better in college where O-lines aren't as strong and quarterbacks aren't as accurate. Nick Aliotti has done okay with this sort of approach up north, and he's only been at Oregon for hundreds of years.
Kansas City picked him up the year after and there was definitely more consistency. By consistency, I mean consistently bad. But then again, the Chiefs have been kind of a mess for awhile, so it's hard to figure out how much of this was Pendergast's fault, especially given only one year.
On National Signing Day in early February, Cal coach Jeff Tedford said he recruited linebackers with the 3-4 defense in mind. His goal, he said that day, was to create pressure on the quarterback.
Experience with the 3-4, a pressure oriented defense, was the main reason Clancy Pendergast was hired away from the Raiders as defensive coordinator, according to reports.
"Hopefully, I can bring the ability to be a very good teacher of the game, give our players direction and put them in position to use their strengths along with their talent to make plays," Pendergast said according to the other AP. "We want to play smart, tough and aggressive. Those will be the three keys."
Intrigued, we delved further and engaged in a spirited Q&A with Arrowhead Pride. Our questions and their answers come after the jump (an interview with Arizona's SBN blog is still in the works).
1. Cal runs one of the few 3-4 systems in the college level. Did Pendergast use the 3-4 well in his lone year with the Chiefs?
2. Our former DC Bob Gregory employed strategy dictated by the personnel that were available--if we had the talent we did more stuff with them; if we had less we were a little bit more conservative with our approach. Does Pendergast take a different approach?
He was a little handcuffed with his personnel (lack of a true, effective nose tackle, second year and first year defensive ends) but the Chiefs were 31st in rushing yards allowed. Time and time again it seemed they couldn't get a stop to put a team away or come up with a key stop to get the ball back late in the game. Stopping the run was a major problem that Pendergast couldn't do with sub par personnel so it's hard to place blame on that one.
He seemed to try a lot of quirky formations out of the 3-4. It was almost like he was trying to confuse the opposing quarterback into making a mistake instead of forcing him into a mistake with strategy or scheme. This has been something that more than a few folks have brought up with Pendergast.
He also inherited a couple of good corners with the Chiefs in Brandon Flowers and Brandon Carr who both had solid seasons. The Chiefs safety play, though, was very, very bad throughout the season.
For the most part, he wants to generate pressure on the quarterback and put his secondary in a position to make a play.
Very seldom he used a 4-3 under, which is similar to the 3-4 but for the most part he was a 3-4 only guy.
6. What led to him being "relieved of his duties" from your team?
Well, his story is kind of funny. He was officially hired early on in the Todd Haley era (February/March 2009) but wasn't initially assigned a title. Turns out, the Chiefs were waiting to hear on Romeo Crennel last year. Crennel ended up taking the year out of football, and when he told the Chiefs of his decision, Haley made Pendergast coordinator.
From the vibes I've gotten, it was clear that if/when the Chiefs could hire Crennel, Pendergast would be in a different role. So this wasn't a long-term marriage from the start.
(Plus, Haley did Pendergast a pretty big favor by keeping his name alive in the NFL hiring cycle because he had some pretty bad defenses with the Cardinals)
After Crennel was finally hired last month, Haley gave Pendergast the option of sticking around in the organization in a different role. After a few days, he and Haley came to what was described as a mutual decision to leave the team. He soon signed on with the Raiders (and his salary was split with the Chiefs) before doing something we all love to hear -- leaving the Raiders in the dust -- and moving to Cal.
1 recs |
35 comments
|
Comments
He seemed to try a lot of quirky formations out of the 3-4. It was almost like he was trying to confuse the opposing quarterback into making a mistake instead of forcing him into a mistake with strategy or scheme.
My first thought when I read this:
This could work a lot more at the college level than in the NFL.
I am a Vereenian.
I’m excited to have him here and I feel like he fits the mold of a Jeff Tedford hire. The timing of the announcement suggests that Pendergast was at or near the top of Tedford’s list. Thanks for doing this Avi.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
You know, I think any time you can get a coach on a team with NFL on his resume it will be a help in recruiting and also preparing the kids for their potential pro career.
Now, as to whether Pendegrast will be a success or a bust — as I inferred from the opening paragraph, that’s something only time will tell.
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
Interesting to note that while Pendergast is a 40-something like much of the Cal coaching staff, he is a single guy who appears to be married to football. Based on the public reasons for Gregory’s departure, it seems like Tedford is looking for someone to be an 80-hour-per-week kind of guy to head up the defense.
And while his college experience is very limited—none as a player, just a few years early on as a grad assistant—he does have Pac-10 roots: an Arizona alum, plus a brief stint on the SC staff.
With Pendergast’s NFL career stalled, this might turn out to be a great move for him—and for the Bears as well. At least we can all hope.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Feb 24, 2010 7:59 AM PST reply actions
Avi, baby....
I take issue with this premise:
“Now, I’ve always personally felt a change in DCs isn’t going to significantly impact results on the field as long as we don’t see a drastic alteration in scheme (not likely).”
While we won’t be changing from a base 3-4, if we blitz more than 2x a game or ever send more than 3 guys after the quarterback we will see significantly different results.
different doesn't always equal good...
Though I remain cautiously optimistic.
Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team soon to be owned by a Russian oligarch.
by yellow fever on Feb 24, 2010 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Different means it can't be any worse.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 24, 2010 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
Might want to read TMQ's weekly "Stop me before I blitz again!"
Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team soon to be owned by a Russian oligarch.
by yellow fever on Feb 24, 2010 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
It could easily be much worse. You act as if Cal had a disastrously terrible defense always. At times, it did. No denying that. However, for the vast majority of Bob Gregory’s time at Cal, it did not.
We know that you are not a big fan of Bob Gregory. I respect that. However, you do not seem to be arguing from a reasonable position here. Bob Gregory’s defenses tended to be average to above average with frustrating bursts of below average in there. It could easily be worse.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
What are you talking about, reasonable position?
It could EASILY be much better.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 24, 2010 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, it could easily be much better. But it also could be much worse. You stated that it couldn’t be any worse. That is to say that Bob Gregory was the worst possible coach. I do not believe that to be the case and I believe that to be an unreasonable and extreme argument to make.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
CGB, striving to settle for the status quo....
Can tell you are a lawyer – extremely risk averse.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 24, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
So you’re saying the Saints winning the Super Bowl means big blitzing is the only way to win? Explain to me how the Eagles got shredded by the Cowboys when they’re the epitome of a big-blitzing team. Hey, believe me, I love how the Eagles blitz all the time to force turnovers and win a bunch of games. It’s just not a panacea. Like I said, I’m cautiously optimistic this will work out. But there’s a potential downside. Are you grasping that at all?
Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team soon to be owned by a Russian oligarch.
by yellow fever on Feb 24, 2010 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
No, I'm not saying that. I'm offering a counterpoint to you claiming that blitzing will kill us.
There is no right way to approach defensive scheming. I’m of the opinion that an occasional blitz or 10 is a good thing whereas BG seemed to like to rush 3. I like to make things happen as opposed to sitting back in coverage and waiting for the other team to mess up.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 24, 2010 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
I may or may not be risk adverse, but that is not relevant here. What I am saying is that Bob Gregory appeared to be a good DC, who, at times, had great Defenses and, at other times, had horrific Defenses. This new DC could be much better, but he also could be much worse. Your argument appears to be that there is no way he could be worse. As stated above, I do not believe that to be a reasonable argument.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
He could be worse, BUT it isn't likely. Calling any one of BG's defenses
GREAT is a stretch.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 24, 2010 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
I’m happy to see you are making your argument more reasonable. At this rate, by lunch on Friday, you’ll want to have Bob Gregory’s children (who he, apparently, will never see).
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Look it's more than just blitzing.
It’s lack of in game adjustments – see playing your DB’s 10 yards off the receiver in obvious “bubble-screen” situations.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 24, 2010 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
This
Is the one criticism I actually agree with; to me Gregory’s biggest weakness was a lack of quality half-time adjustments. At least last year, its fresher in my mind. And that really has nothing to do with how “risky” a game he called.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Agreed, it could have been much worse
As Cal fans, we have to honestly accept the fact that we have not had the overall talent level of $C and the other BCS mainstays. As such, our expectations should be measured accordingly. I think every Cal fan has equally mixed emotions of Rose Bowl hopes and Pointsettia paranoia at the beginning of each season, but PLEASE give some of it a rest.
I was thinking of some the unnecessarily critical Cal fans this morning after listing to an NFL draft scout talk about Tim Tebow. He criticized Tebow’s mechanics and other stuff we have already heard. After that I thought, some of the posters here would criticize Tedford for having Tebow for four years and not fixing those mechanics!
I'm not unecessarily critical. I saw a pattern of soft football, conservative playcalling, and complacency setting in at Cal. You do not make it to the elite status by playing it safe. Have to take risks.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 24, 2010 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
those risks, more often than not, work best with good personnel, and that we didn’t have too much of last season. At least consistently.
Would you have had Riley attempt a TD pass instead of taking the knee so late in the Stanford game? I don’t think I would’ve trusted him with that either
by EchoOfSilence on Feb 24, 2010 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I think the non-SQT CB spot hurt us, as well as ezeff taking that class which caused him to not be Thomas DeCoud 2.0. It was not clear why the LB’s were shuffling around mid-season, nor why Oregon was able to drop kick our defense when Cal’s done so well in containing them in the past. It would have been interesting to see the 2008 D vs. Oregon’s O in a non-monsoon game. D-linemen not named Alualu helped were either wildly sporadic or hurt. I could not comprehend why true- or redshirt-freshman QB’s weren’t plastered onto the turf on nearly everydown. Seems to this chemist that the risk more minimal than vs. guys like Locker or Canfield.
This, of course, doesn’t bode well for the 2010 campaign, as Cal will be asking Jordan, Hill, and Hagan to play like Alualu, Mebane, and Dante. Of course, Cal has the potential to surprise folks with guys like Martin, Whiteside, King, Williams, and Allen. Cameron Jordan “finding himself” wouldn’t be the first example in college football, although the odds are against him.
All that being said, either Gregory or Clancy would have Chris Martin rush the passer (thereby bringing at least 4 guys), just as Gregory did with Follett. Not having a Follett or a Martin in 2009, made the decision to bring a 4th rusher more challenging.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
- I didn’t like the LB shuffle either. I think it’s because they still were trying to find that Rush OLB. Wihch…we never found last year… (HELLO CHRIS MARTIN!)
- For Oregon, I remember Tedford saying that they were not simply not prepared for so much vertical rushing. He said on tape that they did a lot of horizontal rushing. In addition, our inability to cover the tight end (E Dickson) was an issue all season, which might be due to the shuffling at LB.
- I think our DBs will have to step up tremendously for our D to be very solid. Good thing Pend is a good DB coach. I’m hoping Moncrease can overtake Conte (ha) for that Safety spot. I’m also hoping that Hagan can get his act together and Steve Williams lives up to the hype. (That’s a lot of hoping).
by DavidsonBear on Feb 24, 2010 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
foto
let’s buy this man some Cal gear….red and white in a foto on a Cal discussion board is just so ugly.
Chiefs Fan and Cal Fan here
Don’t worry about Pendergast’s lone year with the Chiefs before being let go, he was never the long term plan from the start here as we were courting Romeo Crennel since Clancy was hired. Honestly, he didnt ever have any decent chance in KC because we were a defense, and an entire organization, in transition. Clancy will boost Cal’s recruiting prowess, find ways to pressure the QB, confuse collegiate QBs with multiple looks, and dramatically improve secondary play. All in all, I think Clancy will prove a solid hire, just give him a couple of years to really get everything into place.
For justice we must go to Don Pioli
I asked Question #5. I find it interesting that Pendergast used a 4-3 under. That’s something that Cal has not used in the entire Tedford era, so long as my memory serves me correctly. I was hoping the answer would also describe which formations he would use in passing situations too, but I guess I should have been more specific.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com



















