Re-Opening Old Wounds, Revisiting 2009 Cal @ Oregon Part VII: Gregory's Halftime Adjustments
In case you missed the previous posts in this series, you may find them here: Part I: The DL Zone Read. Part II: A Defensive Stop. Part III: Baited & Busted. Part IV: Passing to Dickson. Part V: Passing to Dickson, Again. Part VI: The Zone Read Playaction.
-----------------------------------------
Author note: I know everyone is tired of reading about Cal's the 2009 Cal @ Oregon game -- arguably one of Cal's worst losses in perhaps a decade. This is the final post in this series, and perhaps what some people might find the most interesting. Please bear with me through this final post. I will try to keep it short and simple.
-----------------------------------------
What's so interesting about this final post? I'm going to discuss whether Cal defensive coordinator Bob Gregory made half time adjustments or not.
It's common Cal fan folk lore that Bob Gregory never made half time adjustments. To prove that point, many Cal fans use the 2009 Cal @ Oregon game as the prime example. After all, Oregon scored 25 points in the first half alone, and put on another 17 points in the second half. Clearly, no adjustments were made right?
WRONG.
It's about time to put the un-researched, mindless statement that Gregory did not make any halftime adjustments to rest.
I'm not here to defend Gregory and proclaim him the greatest defensive coordinator ever. I'm just trying to put the truth out there. The truth which many people choose to ignore merely based on their disdain for Gregory.
So let's take a look at what adjustments Gregory made after half time.
Actually, before I get into what adjustments Gregory made after half time, I need to talk about what he was doing before half time.
So what was Gregory doing before half time?
In short, he was playing a lot of zone coverages. In my previous posts, I showed you the various zone coverages he was using. Such as the:
Tampa 2 defense (above).
A Tampa 2 variant with five underneath zones (instead of the usual four underneath zones).
A three-deep and three under zone defense (above).
A quarters defense with three underneath zones (above).
A two-deep four underneath zones (above).
And finally a quarters defense with underneath zones.
I'm sure you're probably all wondering: "WHY SO MANY ZONE DEFENSES???"
Answer: It keeps the play in front of the defense.
As I've learned from Gregory from my time with the team, and as Jonathan Okanes reiterated in this chat transcript:
From talking to some players, it seems Pendergast has simplified things and simply let them "go play football," as one player told me. Gregory admitted at times in the past that they might be scheming too much and needed to keep things simple. And he has a more aggresive philosophy than Gregory, who preferred the "keep the play in front of us" approach. As with Genyk, he seems to be more detail-oriented and has been more involved with the kickers (since he has a strong background coaching kickers).
Is zone defense a bad thing? No.
Do zone defenses have weaknesses? Yes.
Are man defenses superior to zone defenses? The answer is not clear. They both have their benefits and drawbacks.
Why might Gregory want to specifically play zone defenses against Oregon? Because Oregon is so frickin' good.
Why is Oregon so frickin' good? (1) Because they have really fast offensive players; (2) their QB can run; (3) their QB can pass too; (4) they have a really good TE; (5) their plays are really fast developing plays which can easily confuse a defense; (6) their QB sells the handoff really well; (7) their offense can attack anywhere on the field via either run or pass; (7) their offensive plays have multiple options built into them making them extremely hard to defend and making it so the defense can't solely focus on one area of the offense; (8) man coverages will turn defenders' backs to the ball and will lose sight of the play thus taking themselves out of the play; (9) zone coverages can limit the offense's gains to a minimum and force the offense to drive the length of the field.
Playing zone defenses can help negate these advantages by keeping all eyes of the 11 Cal defenders tuned into the ball and where the ball is going.
Is zone defense the correct defense to play against Oregon? I don't know. It's easy to say, in hindsight now that we know how this game went, to say "no."
What are the alternatives to playing zone coverage? Playing man coverage.
Why didn't Gregory play man coverage? (1) Because it turns defenders' backs to the ball, where they lose awareness of the play, and can take themselves out of the play; (2) it requires extreme athleticism by all 11 defenders on the field to play man-to-man football against their offensive counterparts; (3) Oregon runs passing plays with WR routes which cross each other and are designed to "pick" defenders who are playing man coverage against the Oregon receivers.
Should Gregory have played man coverage? I don't know. Sure. Maybe. Yes. All of the above. Again, there are no right or wrong answers. Football doesn't always have a clear cut answer. It's a complex game.
So what adjustments did Gregory make after halftime? Before we can answer this question, we have to discuss one more thing: what was Oregon doing in the first half of the game which made them so successful?
What was Oregon doing in the first half of the game which made them so successful? Well, when it came to passing the ball, they were flooding Cal's zone defenses.
What does "flooding" mean? It means Oregon was sending multiple receivers to a small area of the field to out-number and overwhelm the Cal zone defenders in that area.
Above is an example of Oregon flooding the Cal zones. The outside WR would run a comeback route. The slot WR would run an out route. The TE would run a flat route.
So what halftime adjustments did Gregory make to defend against Oregon flooding the zones? Gregory shifted the Cal secondary defenders (safeties, and cornerbacks) towards the side of Oregon formation where the flooding was likely to occur. See below.
In this formation, it is likely that Oregon will flood the side of the field towards the top of the screen (offense's left side, and defense's right side). This is because the Oregon offense has two WRs, and a TE to that side of the field.
Please note that this is now the 3rd quarter (after halftime). What has Gregory done in the picture above? He has moved the secondary defenders (cornerbacks and safeties) towards the possible flooded zone. While the 3-4 defense is still on the field, now *BOTH* Cal cornerbacks (CBs) are to the side of the formation where the flooding will occur. Doing this puts Cal's best pass defenders (including cornerback #5 Thompson) towards the area of the field where Oregon will likely pass the ball.
On this particular play, Oregon ran the "pass to Dickson in the flat" play that I covered in Part IV and Part V of this series. Thus, the Oregon QB rolled out to his left, while the outside WR ran a comeback, the slot WR ran an out route, and the TE (Dickson) ran a flat route.
Gregory, however, continued to play zone defense out of this new alignment and formation. He did not switch to man coverage.
Above is a similar play offensive play where Gregory attempted to defend with his new halftime adjustments. Note that Oregon has shown a formation which threatens to flood the open side of the field (the offense's right side of the field). Oregon has two WRs to that side of the field, and is motioning a TE (Dickson) over to that side of the field too. Thus, Oregon threatens to flood the defense's left side with two WRs and a TE (Dickson).
Again, Gregory as the defense prepared for this look, and his shifted the secondary players (cornerbacks and safeties) towards the threatened-to-be-flooded side of the field (defense's left side). Note how both Cal CBs are now to the defense's left side of the field.
Gregory again sticks with zone defense out of this new defensive formation.
And one last time, again Oregon comes out in a formation that threatens to flood the Cal defense's right side. Note how Oregon has placed two WRs, and a TE (Dickson) to the offense's left (Cal's right side).
But Gregory does something completely different to defend on this down. He does something he hasn't done at all in the first half of the game. He places five defensive backs on the field (a nickel defense). He puts his best pass defender, Cal cornerback #5 Thompson, in the slot aligned where Oregon TE Dickson is likely to run to on his route. He places the Cal NT #44 Alualu on the prowl in the hook zones, and places four pass rushers (1 DE, 3 LBs) in an aggressive outside pass rush position on the line of scrimmage.
I'll be honest and say I have no idea what Gregory is doing here. On this play, Gregory blitzed the DE, and the three LBs on the line of scrimmage (four total pass rushers), and dropped the remaining defenders into zone coverage. Unfortunately, the play still resulted in an Oregon first down. Clearly, Gregory was getting a bit desperate and was throwing some very unusual and odd looks at Oregon.
Conclusion:
Did Gregory make half-time adjustments? Yes. I've shown them above.
Did they work? Not really.
Does Gregory suck? That's for you to decide.
Should Gregory have played man coverage in the second half? Perhaps.
Why didn't he play man coverage? He probably thought the benefits of playing zone defenses outweighed the benefits of playing man coverage.
One last time, what are the benefits of playing zone defenses rather than man coverage? Quickly, see the brief summary below.
Zone defense benefits:
*Requires less athleticism from your defenders.
*Keeps the play in front of you, and all 22 eyes of your defenders on the ball.
*Won't take defenders out of the play.
Zone defense drawbacks:
*Makes the defense "reactive" rather than "proactive."
*Makes defenders susceptible to pump fakes.
*Can be flooded by multiple offensive receivers.
Man coverage benefits:
*Tighter coverage on the receivers.
*Probably a safer option for aggressive blitzing rather than zone coverages.
*If the defenders jam the receivers, the jam can throw off the routes and the timing of the pass.
Man coverage drawbacks:
*Will turn defenders' backs to the ball, and take them out of the play.
*Requires a greater degree of athleticism and man coverage skills from your secondary defenders.
*Susceptible to offensive passing plays with "pick" routes (which Oregon runs).
*Allows for easy QB scrambles.
Parting thoughts:
(1) I hope you enjoyed this series.
(2) Thank you for slogging through my long posts.
(3) I hope you learned something. I definitely learned more about the Cal defense and Oregon offense from doing this series.
(4) If you'd like to see what playing man coverage against Oregon is like, here are a few examples:
(a) youtube video play 1 (USC plays man coverage against Oregon; this play demonstrates the extreme athleticism that is required by all 11 defenders to match up against Oregon's personnel).
(b) youtube video play 2 (USC plays man coverage against Oregon; this play play demonstrates the need for your secondary defenders to be very strong in man coverage)
(c) youtube video play 3 (USC plays man coverage against Oregon; this play demonstrates how man coverage can allow for an easy QB scramble)
(d) youtube video play 4 (USC plays man coverage against Oregon; this play demonstrates how all 11 defenders on the field must win their individual battle otherwise the offense will gain an advantage where that individual battle is lost.
(e) youtube video play 5 (USC plays man coverage against Oregon; this play demonstrates how your secondary defenders need to be very good in man coverage)
(5) If you'd like to see two examples of Oregon's passing "pick" plays, click on this link to a youtube video and watch the following two plays until 9:11 on the video (click the link will open a youtube video in another window which I have set to start at the appropriate time). For those of you who play NCAA football (for XBox or PS3), you might recognize this passing play as "double crosses" out of the shotgun 4 WR set (I think that's the name of the play, if I recall correctly) -- it's basically a drag/dig combo on one side of the formation and a drag/fade combo on the other side of the formation.
29 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wonder when the Re-Opening Old Wounds, Revisiting 2010 Cal @ Nevada series will begin?
Hey, Ucla -
1. Get your own colors
2. Get your own fight song
3. GET A REAL BEAR!
I think it’ll depend on the outcome of our subsequent games.
Plus, we happened to score 31 points in that game…not 3.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 21, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for this
A lot of work went into this clearly, and is appreciated. I would say that from this and the recent Nevada game, it seems like perhaps man coverage and assignment defense might be a better solution to the option.
I think a lot of it has to do with the “reactive defense” part. When the defense is reacting to the option rather than dictating the option then they will get burned: That is, because the offense is reading the defense first, they will always have a slight advantage. By the time the offense has made its decision, the play is already five yards downfield.
Here is how it seems to me:
Offense: Hey, what’s the defense doing?
Defense: We’re waiting to see what you’re going to do.
Offense: Okay, how about . . . this!
Defense: Oh, man, that was just what I was hoping you wouldn’t do, how did you know what to do?
Offense: I looked at you. And you stood there.
This was all fantastic, Hydro.
It’s so interesting to see the strategy and tactical maneuvering that goes into playing defense. Clearly your posts took a lot of effort, and it was much appreciated — THANKS.
I think your ambivalence towards the best defense also highlights that breaking down game film is a lot more straightforward than coming up with a scheme for a successful defense against this type of offense. I hope Pendergast figures this out, b/c I’m really not looking forward to another 42-3 or 52-31.
Yeah, there may not be a truly “best way” to defend this kind of offense. You can probably have a few different tactics that would work equally as well.
I think what’s most important though is execution. Regardless of your scheme, if your players execute that scheme to perfection, you’ll probably do fine. Were our players executing well? Sometimes, and sometimes not. Definitely not enough though.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Thanks Hydro! I, too, am looking forward to the Nevada series. Nice to see Gregory use 2 CB’s on 2 WR’s, especially when one of them is a shutdown corner.
I think the answer to the man/zone is this: play both so you’re unpredictable. Put CB’s on WR’s and then play zone. MIX IT UP! Same goes for the 3-4/4-3. I’m not sure the 3-4 is the defense to play against teams with option-style offenses. Seems like our best unit might be:
Jordan, Hill, Payne, Your favorite LDE
Mohamed, Holt, Kendricks
Basically, you sub an OLB (Price or Browner) for a 2nd (and supposedly) stud DT. I know, I get the whole committment to the 3-4 and would love to see the new talent and LB actually take the field someday. However, I’m not sure stud option QB’s (Kaeppernick, 2009 Masoli) and their stud OLines are beatable with a 3-4.
I haven’t watched any Oregon football this year. How’s Thomas doing? Sure they have track stars in the backfield, but what about the trigger man?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Thomas has been a decent manager.
If I were to give him a grade, it would be about a B-.
In the first drive of each game, he appears to misread an option. He needs to work a bit on accuracy when throwing on the run, but he makes good reads in the passing game.
His first INT has been because of a bad block on a bubble screen. (The TE missed the block, and left him open for the pick), and the other one was a result of three things.
1. Our RB didn’t hold a blitzed LB, causing the pass to be hurried.
2. Thomas’ pass was a bit off target
3. Our WR didn’t run towards the ball, but waited for the ball to come to him to make the big play.
His first few steps on the option look slow, but when he finds his second gear, he is comparable to Masoli in speed. But his acceleration may prevent a few big runs. Oddly enough, he has great lateral movement.
So far, he’s looked more consistent passing the ball than Masoli, but he looks like a 3-start sophomore on the field.
As suspected, our passing game has opened up, and we look to have a better intermediate/deep passing game.
Any questions on some specifics?
it’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-L-W-A-R-M-A-N-D-F-U-Z-Z-Y"
No, that sounds good. Thank you! I think the only way to beat Oregon is to make Thomas’ day miserable. Dude needs to be on the turf every play.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
If I had to scheme against Oregon w/ Thomas, here is what I would do for the option…
It might not be a good plan, as there are weaknesses… BUT…
3-3/3-4 base, Cover 2 Press defense; Tell the D-Line that when you are left unblocked, ALWAYS go after the RB. (This forces Thomas to keep the ball. It is better to have the ball in Thomas’ hands than LaMichael James’) Send two LBs the opposite direction. The inside LB’s job is to pursue Thomas, the OLB’s job is to cut off any pitchman, if any.
Do not run the Tampa-2. Aside from that, always mix up the blitz packages. He’s a young QB, and Cal has the most unique defensive package.
We haven’t seen a lot of scrambling from Thomas, but he is capable. However, I would almost scheme to dare him to beat you with his legs.
it’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-L-W-A-R-M-A-N-D-F-U-Z-Z-Y"
We haven’t seen a lot of scrambling from Thomas, but he is capable. However, I would almost scheme to dare him to beat you with his legs.
I agree, and that’s why I think the Oregon-Cal game isn’t just a replay of the Nevada game. Different dynamic at QB
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 21, 2010 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, we’ll score MUCH fewer points.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 21, 2010 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I like your enthusiasm.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 21, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
My cursory view is that Thomas is a better passer than Masoli, but Masoli is the better runner. I think Ted Miller kinda confirmed this when he let everyone know that Thomas is kinda slow.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 21, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Masoli was a fantastic runner, except for how he handled the ball. That boy needed to learn to tuck it in when he took off running. But he had RB speed and a FB strength.
Thomas has some wheels, but his acceleration appears to be lackluster. When he hits top speed, he’ll show comparable speed as a WR (Which was one of his positions in high school).
it’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-L-W-A-R-M-A-N-D-F-U-Z-Z-Y"
Nice analysis Hydro! What defensive schemes did Boise State, Furd, and Ohio state play against Oregon, were they using zone or man coverage?
by Redonkulous Bear on Sep 21, 2010 9:15 AM PDT reply actions
Eh, Furd didn’t stop them for shit. They just outgunned ’em
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 21, 2010 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I learned more football in this series than in my previous years of watching combined.
Thank you very much for putting this all together for us.
Old Toothwrangler
Man, am I the only one, after watching the Oregon highlights and the Nevada game, that feels like we’re still playing old school football, while the rest of CFB is moving on to much more dynamic and disruptive schemes?
by atomsareenough on Sep 21, 2010 12:03 PM PDT reply actions
Yeah, it’s easy get that feeling, although aesthetically I prefer pro-style downfield passing attacks. I like Oregon’s O more than Nevada’s in that regard.
Then again, Alabama’s schemes are about as pro-style as you can on both sides of the ball. Boise’s scheme isn’t ‘gimmicky’ at all; they’ve just run some very tricky highlight reel plays.
Cal Football: Embrace the Horror
by Thoroughbred on Sep 21, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Basically, if we can get our recruiting classes back to snuff (and it’s looking very much like we will this year, to add on from last year), we’ll have the necessary players to run an efficient pro-style look again.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 21, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
The annoying part has always been losing to teams with perpetually lower recruiting classes than us (Zona, OSU, UW), not so much losing to the Oregons and SCs…
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 21, 2010 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Masochists
Apparently, we’re all masochists. Posts analyzing both the Oregon loss and the Nevada loss in one day. Funtimes.
Great post.

by 




































































