SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
Analyzing Vereen and Cal's Running Game Vs UC Davis
by royrules22 on Sep 14, 2010 7:21 AM PDT
Email
PrintI know there's been a lot of hand-wringing regarding Cal's lack of (explosive) running game these past two weeks so I decided to rewatch the games and see exactly what went wrong. I'm going to only focus on Vereen's carries because he is our starter.
This post is dedicated to the UC Davis game. If I have time and if others want to, I'll try to do the Colorado game as well.
Note of caution: I'm new to football terminology so feel free to make your own conclusions and correct me.
This post mostly focuses on the Cal running game when Shane Vereen is in play. However due to the grumblings in our post game threads and in BearInsider regarding the choice of Isi Sofele as the 2nd string tailback, I had to show this:
(Click on all images in this post to see a higher res version)
This is Isi Sofele blocking a rushing LB who decided to just jump on Sofele, who managed to stand up straight and outright stuff him. This gave Riley enough time to throw a bomb to Keenan Allen. This just goes to show that Tedford and Gould care about more things than running ability from a running back.
Back to our scheduled programming…
I’m going to basically break down each of Vereen’s 30 carries with screenshot(s) and my observations. At the end I’ll try to show some stats and round it up by answering the question that we all want to know: what is happening to Cal’s running game?
Vereen's Carries
Carry 1
1yd gain, 7 in the box, 2TE, 0FB, 2WR
Davis here is clearly focused on stopping the run. They have 7 in the box with the safety almost in the box and as soon as Riley goes back for the handoff he (the safety) bites on it hard. The OL and the TE on the right handles their assignments well enough but TE #80 (Miller) isn’t able to get his assignment out of the way and allows the safety (strong?) get in behind him. Vereen tries to cut to the outside but is tripped up by the CB (#3 Calhoun) who surprisingly shows some speed in coming back to the scrimmage after Allen leaves him to run to the inside to try and block the safety (he misses… badly). Maybe if Vereen had kept running to the outside he could’ve outraced them or maybe he could’ve cut to the inside a little earlier before the safety got in there, but I think this is just one of those plays. If Allen had made the block it would’ve been a bigger gain, I think.
Carry 2
9yd gain, 8 in the box, 3TE, 1FB, 0WR
Well it’s pretty obvious from the formation that it’s most likely going to be a run, and Davis plays the run. The block is excellent here and as you can see in the 2nd image, Sparks, Miller, the Schwartz and Guarnero give Vereen a gaping hole to run through and the rest of the OL is up ahead blocking in the 2nd level. Vereen powers through the last 2 yards dragging #20 to get a 9yd gain. Everything is great here. Hell Schwartz has a great pancake block to break Vereen open.
Carry 3
2yd gain, 5 in the box, 1TE, 0FB, 3WR
First of all to note this run is from the shotgun. I’m no expert on zone read or whatever but it looks like a designed HB run. It looks like the WRs do a great job of blocking the LBs and the OL did a decent job. Schwartz almost lets his guy get a hand on Vereen but he smashes him to the turf and Vereen jumps out of the way. Edwards looks like he is getting pushed back to the pile by the DL but really I’m surprised as to why Vereen tried to keep following the line and putting his head down. In my naïve view, he could’ve bounced to his right and he’d have at least 4 or 5 yards easily.
Carry 4
11yd gain, 5 in the box, 2TE, 0FB, 2WR
This is a great true-Vereen run. It’s a counter and he follows the blocker in front of him (TE Ladner), makes a cut gains about 5 yards, makes another cut to get Allen’s block and gets even more yardage. He makes two defenders miss on just a great juke.
Carry 5
1yd gain, 7 in the box, 1TE, 1FB, 2WR
Looks like #54 Guarnero wiffs on a block here and the second DL comes in from the side (he looked unblocked because he was sort of staying in the spot until Vereen got there but Edwards was the closest even though he was focused on others). Vereen was blanketed here.
Carry 6
9yd gain, 5 in the box, 1TE, 1FB, 2WR
I unfortunately don’t have a pre-snap pic but I took the closest. The thing that jumps out here is seeing Edwards and Cheadle drive their defenders to the ground and Guarnero just drive his man back. This allows Vereen to burst forward for a nice 9yd gain.
Carry 7
5yd gain, 5 in the box, 2TE, 0FB, 2WR
Cheadle has a nice block and literally moves his guy and blocks the 2nd guy for Ladner which allows Vereen to burst open. He dodges the 2nd guy and puts his head down and charges #26. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by Best but I kinda wanted to see him break #26’s ankles and go to the outside. Still a nice 5yd gain
Carry 8
3yd gain, 7 in the box, 2TE, 1FB, 1WR
A bit of shoddy O-line and FB play here. Guarnero basically lets his guy go to Vereen, the CB is left undefended and the FB doesn’t really get the block allowing the LB to come in and bottle up Vereen.
Carry 9
4yd gain, 7 in the box, 1TE, 1FB, 2WR
Two missed blocks by Guarnero and Cheadle where both the OL end up on the ground and DL jumping over them. Vereen had no chance.
Carry 10
9yd gain, 6 in the box, 1TE, 1FB, 2WR
Great blocking and running come together on this play. Schwenke (who pulled to the right) and Miller take out one each and Cheadle crushes his guy down field. Someone tries to leap over Cheadle and fails epically. Vereen has a nice cut and then spins away from a tackler to get a few more. Edwards does let his guy get by him but Vereen busts out his ankle-breaker and gets by the tackler who flails at air.
Carry 11
3yd loss, 8 in the box, 1TE, 1FB, 2WR
I’m going to say that the safety is the box even though I’m not sure. Vereen’s first loss of the day. Some fail blocking here. Galas (the backup center) completely screws up on his block and lets his defender get to the hole created by the FB, Schwenke just gets thrown off by the LB who joins up with the Safety (#20) and all three defenders swarm Vereen. I could be mistaken but I see a very tiny hint of hands to the face on Galas, but it could be accidental.
Carry 12
2yd gain, 4 in the box, 2TE, 0FB, 2WR
The blocking looks great. If Vereen takes the direction pointed at by the arrow (and in the screenshot it looks like he is about to) it would’ve been different but instead he decided to plough ahead into the pile for a modest 2yd gain. Maybe I’m naïve but holy crap that could’ve been big!
Carry 13
7yd gain for TD, 6 in the box, 2TE, 0FB, 2WR
Not much to say here other than solid all around blocking including one at the end by Ross to spring Vereen into the endzone for a TD. I see Schwartz, Lander, Cheadle, Miller, Guarnero, etc all overpowering their guys and driving them back and Vereen ends with a small leap over the hands of a UCD player. Nicely done
Carry 14
7yd gain for a TD, 7 in the box, 1TE, 1FB, 2WR
Vereen’s last carry of the day goes for 7yds and a TD. Vereen just squeezes by the gap left by Cheadle’s and FB Steven’s block and then keeps his balance as a UCD CB lunges at him. Allen does a nice job of blocking two guys.
Conclusion
Vereen carried 14 times for 67yds at 4.8yds a pop. Looking at the stats it sure doesn’t seem like a lot or explosive but when I tried to break it down I noticed that it really wasn’t too bad. I mean Davis had about 6 players in the box on average (median: 6.5) and their safeties and corners were playing the run first (at least until Keenan Allen burnt them). For the most part the O-line did well but when they didn’t it was apparent. Vereen didn’t seem to have regressed as much as many feared. Sure he could’ve done a little extra here and there for a few more yards (plus in his 12th carry I think he could’ve had a big gain). I seem to remember him trying his damndest vs Zona or Furd last year to keep going which I didn’t see much of this time around. Perhaps he was still bothered by his hamstring or maybe he took it easy because it was just UC Davis.
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.
51 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is really interesting.
Thanks for doing this. I’m sure this took a lot of time to get the screen-captures.
Ross’ block on Carry #13, as you noted, cannot be understated. I remember that play very well when I re-watched the game because of how critical Ross’ block was. Without Ross’ block on #42, Vereen would have been tackled before the goal line.
I also think you are being quite generous in not counting some of the UC Davis defenders as being in the box. I’m no expert, but usually most safeties play something like 11-13 yards off the LOS or so. In most of the pictures above, it seems as if UC Davis clearly has at least seven defenders in the box on almost every play. On some plays it looks like they have eight defenders in the box. On Carry #14, I’d say that UC Davis has nine players in the box. Looks to me like UC Davis was pretty concerned about the Cal run game.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
And I think norcalnick had made this point before. Vereen is a known quantity and establishing the run is the first option on a Tedford team. If Riley and Jones and Allen are at least – unknowns or known to be slightly shaky, you (as a defensive coordinator) take your chances with Riley beating you over the top and sell-out to stop the run.
I think as Riley/Allen/Jones/Miller/Ladner/Loggy/Ross etc. get more catches, those lanes will loosen up for Vereen, Sofele and CDJ to run through.
Yea I wasn’t really sure about how to count players in the box so I took a very conservative approach of everyone in between the tackles and 5yds back. I had lots of help from Avinash in trying to figure out the number in the box, but you are right the safeties were more likely to bite on the run.
In fact that’s what I noticed the most. The safeties and corners bit hard on each and every run. I skipped a lot of the passing plays so I didn’t notice a lot but play action passes were really effective.
In other words, Go Bears!
Great work
This looks like it took a lot of time.
The run blocking looks ok in these screenshots and even when it breaks down Vereen can usually fall forward for a small gain. Then again, it’s Davis, and the obvious follow-up would be a better opponent. The real contrast won’t necessarily be with Colorado as much as it will be with our first loss, whenever that may be, or in the first game that Vereen rushes for eg over 5 ypc.
by sec119 on Sep 14, 2010 4:28 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
same sentiment here. thx dude
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 16, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Really nice job, Roy.
My inexpert eye also says that they had at least 7 in the box on each play, frequently 8+, and the safeties were playing closer than usual to the line of scrimmage.
However, this really opened things up for our passing game – like the TD throw to Jones.(no safety help)
Old Toothwrangler
Bien Hecho
That play where you have the red line drawn is just excruciating. It might just be that I am still used to Jahvid, but I thought that Shane had better field vision last year than he’s shown this year. He seems very apt to just “plow into the pile” for some reason. Hopefully he’s still just getting used to the speed of play after his injury.
That was my feeling too. However Shane had some nice cuts and seemed to have a knack for hitting small holes all throughout the game, but missed the one big one. My gut says Jahvid would’ve taken that big one to the house but missed out on the smaller ones (for example the last one for the TD).
In other words, Go Bears!
Yes, some of the replays do confirm that Vereen missed some lanes that could have gone for big gains, had he tried cutting back or bouncing out. Carry #12 was particularly befuddling as to why he didn’t cut to the right and head for wide open space. Getting a couple of big gains would have helped the per-carry averages, and we probably wouldn’t be worrying so much about the running game. Granted that Best spoiled us in this regard, but I do think Vereen was better at finding the open space before this season; perhaps the injury is still affecting him?
Based on my limited observation, Shane seems a bit rusty in terms of his field vision and bursting into the open space. He’s still able to hit the initial hole quickly and get at least a modest gain if he has any chance to, and his play in the passing game (blocking and receiving) has been very good. But when he really hits some long gainers on the ground, we’ll know he’s back 100%.
interesting evaluation! great job!
Carry 3 was the zone-read play. the way we run it, we typically err on giving the ball to the back (more than Oregon does). and typically do the traditional ‘read the DE’ for the give.
Go Bears Go
Freakin AWESOME fanpost. Wish I could rec it twice.
Just one suggestion – if you ever do a post like this again, could you include the yards to go number for each carry? It would help in evaluating the plays.
Baseball stats for football
One of things I hate about football stats is the over-reliance on simple sums and means (e.g., total yards and yards per carry), which can be easily distorted by one or a few extreme values. That’s not really the case here, as Vereen never busted a really long run, but I still think a baseball mentality would help the analysis.
What if we evaluated running backs using a hitter’s metric such as batting average and slugging percentage? After all, when it’s 3rd and 1, a one-yard run isn’t a failure. Thus, I’ve calculated some baseball-like numbers for Vereen’s day, based on the following assumptions:
- a run of 40+ yards is a Home Run
- a run of 20-39 yards is a triple
- a run of 10+ yards is a double
- a run of <10 yards is a single, if on first down it gains at least one-third of the yards needed for another first down (usually 4+), if on second down it gains at least half the yards still needed for a first down (e.g., 3+ on 2nd and 5), or if on third or fourth down it results in a first down.
By those criteria, Vereen got a “hit” in 9 of his 14 “at bats” for an average of .643. Because only one of those hits went for “extra bases” (by the criteria above), his slugging percentage was only marginally higher at .714. (Orange County!)
I’m no SABRmetrician, so I’m not entirely sure what to make of these numbers. Is .643 good? I don’t know. I’m pretty sure it’s not bad to gain successful yardage on two-thirds of any set of plays, but maybe batting .600 is not very remarkable in college football. The more striking observation is that the slugging percentage is pretty unimpressive. Through both games so far, Cal’s runners (not just Vereen) have been singles hitters, which is a big change from the bombs regularly hit by Jahvid Best.
One final note: 8 of the 14 runs were on first down. The other 6 were short-yardage second and third downs. Is that typical for Tedford offense?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 14, 2010 4:02 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
I think the thing that has people worried is that Shane used to hit more doubles, triples, and home runs, and now he’s mostly hitting singles.
I hope you are not implying
that he has been affected by baseball’s crackdown on PEDs.
does that make jahvid more of an adam dunn type?
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 16, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
What would his Three True Outcomes be? TD, large gain, taken down in the backfield?
by atomsareenough on Sep 16, 2010 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a very interesting approach, and I’d love to see someone take the ball and run with it.
by atomsareenough on Sep 14, 2010 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I used a somewhat similar approach in my fanpost, adapted from FO’s success rate formula. I think that it makes more sense to scale the system based on down and distance rather than absolute yardage, because there isn’t really much distinction functionally between, say, a 38 yard run and a 41 yard run.
If I have the time, I’ll try and do this for all of Vereen’s carries this year.
I’d love to see it! As far as the extra-base hits, I pulled numbers out of thin air. I wholeheartedly agree, though, that a “succesful” play—or a “hit” to use the baseball metaphor—is very much dependent on down and distance.
What’s a success on 1st and 10? I went with 4+ yards, on the assumption that you’ve got three plays to make ten and 4 is more than one-third of what you need. Now that I see your Fanpost—excellent, by the way—I see that the Football Outsiders criteria you used are slightly different on second down (60% rather than my 50%). Do they explain their rationale?
Despite the slight variation in criteria, it looks like Vereen’s “batting average” of .643 stacks up quite favorably to Best and Vereen’s performances last year.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Sep 14, 2010 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I totally understood nothing from this post, sorry. If you do plan on making this fanpost I’d really appreciate if a section explaining what those baseball numbers mean. I’m not a baseball guy at all. Otherwise sounds like a good idea!
In other words, Go Bears!
What baseball numbers are you not familiar with? Do you not know what singles/doubles/triples/home runs are? I can explain whatever you need.
by atomsareenough on Sep 17, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay… Let’s explain some baseball…
So you know that the two teams each have 9 guys in the lineup who take turns hitting against the opposing team’s pitchers and fielders, right? And there are 4 bases: 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, and home plate, which is where the batter starts and ends when he hits a home run and jogs around the bases.
When a batter comes to the plate, there are generally three possible outcomes; he could get a “hit”, he could make an “out”, or he could draw a “walk”(or get hit on the body by a pitch, which has the same result as a walk). When the pitcher pitches the ball, and the batter does not swing at it, then if the pitch is judged by the umpire to be in the “strike zone” (over the plate and generally between the knees and the chest of the batter), it’s a “strike”. If the umpire believes the pitch did not cross that zone, it’s a “ball”. If a batter gets 4 balls, he gets a “walk”, 3 strikes = an out (called a strikeout). If the batter swings and misses, that’s a strike. If the batter swings, makes contact, but it goes wide left or wide right of the field of play, then it’s called a foul ball. A foul ball can count as one of the first two strikes, but the 3rd strike, the one that makes the batter out, generally (except in some special cases) has to either be a swing-and-miss, or not swung at but in the strike zone. So, if a batter has 2 strikes and keeps hitting foul balls, the at-bat can keep going until he makes an out, draws a walk, or gets a hit. He can make an out by hitting a foul ball that gets caught before it hits the ground, or by hitting a ball in play that gets caught before it hits the ground, or by hitting a ball in play that results at an out either at one of the bases, or by tagging a runner. If he hits a ball that doesn’t make an out, and allows him to run all the way to third base, that’s a “triple”. If he hits a ball that allows him to run to 2nd base, that’s a “double”, and if he hits a ball that only allows him to run to first base safely, that’s a “single”.
Now! To get at the underlying idea behind California Pete’s post, I’ll briefly explain batting average and slugging percentage. Batting average is a very simple statistic; it’s the percentage of times a batter gets a hit. So, if someone is a “.300 hitter”, then that means he gets a hit 30% of the time. Someone batting .263 would be getting a hit 26.3% of the time. That’s of some usefulness, but a major shortcoming of that statistic is that it treats all hits equally; a single has the same value as a home run. Well, it should be intuitively clear that a single does NOT have the same value as a home run. A home run gives you at least 1 run automatically, and scoring runs is how you win. So, “slugging percentage” is a stat that takes into account some of the value of hits that go for extra bases (doubles, triples, homers). It’s like batting average, but doubles are worth 2, triples are worth 3, and home runs are worth 4. So, if you have 2 at bats and you hit a triple and make an out, your batting average would be .500, but your slugging percentage would be 1.500. If you are 2 for 10 with a home run and a single, then your batting average would be .200, and your slugging percentage would be .500.
Anyway, so what California Pete is doing is trying to analogize the distance of football runs to the concept of slugging percentage, as a way to assign more value for more lengthy rushes.
by atomsareenough on Sep 19, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Ooh nice. Thanks for the explanation! That’s actually a genius idea and I’m very curious to see how it would be when compared to the Cal backs (JB, Vereen, ML, JForce, etc).
Also a little OT but what is RPI?
In other words, Go Bears!
Do you mean RPI or RBI? I’ll assume you’re still talking about baseball, so you must mean RBI. It stands for Run(s) Batted In. Basically, it’s a counting stat (as opposed to a rate stat), that just counts how many runs were brought in to score by a batter. So, for example, if there are runners on first base and third base, and I hit a home run, that’s 3 RBI, because 3 runs scored due to my hit (the two runners, and myself). However, you don’t need to get a hit to get an RBI. For example, if there’s a runner at third base and hit a ground ball to first that results in me being out, but the runner scoring, I’d get an RBI for that.
If a player gets a lot of RBIs, it might be a good indicator that he’s good at knocking other runners in, but mostly it doesn’t tell you a whole lot by itself, because it’s very much dependent on often there are runners are on base when a batter comes to bat over the course of the season, and that’s mostly a function of how good the other hitters are who bat before him in the lineup.
by atomsareenough on Sep 19, 2010 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions
edits
*if there’s a runner at third base and I hit a ground ball….
and
*it’s very much dependent on how often there are runners on base…
by atomsareenough on Sep 19, 2010 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions
No problem. There’s a relatively big learning curve for baseball, which can be an impediment to enjoying the game, but the more you understand, the more beautiful the game seems. I’m happy to explain whatever you want to know about it.
by atomsareenough on Sep 20, 2010 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions
So don’t take this the wrong way or anything (not meant to be offensive), but I’m very curious how you know so little about baseball?
by Missing Barry on Sep 21, 2010 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, and I think that helps explain it, in part. I think baseball’s a sport people tend to like if they grow up with it.
by atomsareenough on Sep 22, 2010 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I think playing it as a kid is a big part of it (especially understanding the basics). I’m guessing you didn’t do that then?
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I think we should just go straight to linear weights. They’re better, and conceptually I think they’re simpler and make more sense. ;)
by Missing Barry on Sep 21, 2010 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Great Post...And A Suggestion
Thank you so much, royrules, for this awesome post. I’ve never really paid that much attention to run blocking, so this definitely helps my understanding of that facet of the game.
One suggestion I have for helping to better educate blocking neophytes such as myself would be to put arrows (kinda like Hydro does) in the pre-snap picture to show who is going where on the play. I lost track of where people were once the action started.
If this takes an insane amount of time to do, then no worries.
Again, thank you and keep up the great work!
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 |
