2011 Cal Football Off-Season Thoughts
(1) Marshall moves on to Colorado. Not a complete surprise here. I was thinking that he had at least one more year to turn things around, but I wasn't discounting the possibility of him moving on or getting fired this year. Remember when Marshall was first hired there was a lot of skepticism surrounding his hire? A lot of people pointed to the fact that despite coaching in the NFL (under the assumption that a coach has to be more accomplished to coach in the NFL rather than college), the teams that he coached for all had pretty weak offensive lines. Who were those teams? The Cleveland Browns (2007-2008), and the Houston Texans (2002-2005).
2008 Cleveland Browns
#26 in the NFL for yards per rush attempt
#8 in the NFL for least amount of sacks given up
2007 Cleveland Browns
#6 in the NFL for yards per rush attempt
#3 in the NFL for least amount of sacks given up
2005 Houston Texans
#9 in the NFL for yards per rush attempt
#32 in the NFL for least amount of sacks given up (68 sacks)
2004 Houston Texans
#22 in the NFL for yards per rush attempt
#25 in the NFL for least amount of sacks given up (49 sacks)
As you can see, it seemed as if Marshall's offensive lines got better as the years went on (sort of), but he did have a few years of really horrible offensive lines. I'm talking about those years with the Texans. In 2005, the Texans gave up the most sacks in the NFL. Things weren't much better in 2004 either. Of course, sacks given up is also dependent on how good your QB is, and how good your receivers are too. But without going back to look at the film of those teams, statistics are the next best way to gauge their effectiveness.
Anyways, I guess the skeptics were right. Marshall... not that good. Next.
(2) Daft is fired. I was actually pretty surprised by this move. Of course I knew Daft was on a fairly hot seat. I was no blind to the fact that Marvin Jones (Cal WR #1) was dropping so many balls, and our receivers never seemed to be getting that open against coverages. But I really thought Daft was going to get one more year of leeway.
Why?
First of all, I saw him as one of Tedford's original guys. Although Daft wasn't a coach for the team in 2002 when Tedford arrived at Cal, he was a graduate assistant in 2004. He's been here a long time, and I thought that Tedford wouldn't really get rid of him unless things go really bad.
Second, I didn't really think things were incredibly bad. Sure, Jones was dropping balls like hot potatoes, but Michael Calvin (Cal WR #11) was also having a nice turn-around and was catching everything thrown his way when the previous two years he couldn't catch a ball if he was wearing gloves with glue on them. Additionally, there were some stories in the media about how the WRs liked having Daft as a coach because of his QB experience. Being a QB, he was apparently doing a good job teaching the WRs what the QB is looking for in the defenses and thus the WRs had a better understanding of what the QB was reading, doing, and expecting them to do.
Third, Daft is a young coach with two young kids (When I worked with the team, his wife would come to practices with their daughter and watch things. After practices, Daft would always go over to them and play with his daughter.) I feel like Tedford has been a bit more cut-throat with the older coaches he's hired who are more stable and can more easily find work elsewhere if fired. But what are Daft's options now that he's been fired? He's not a big name guy. Cal's WRs haven't been great, and thus Daft probably can't rely on his resume that much other than his limited NFL experience. This could be the end of the road for Daft and his young coaching career. I'm sure Tedford knew that, and didn't want to put Daft on the streets. But I guess I'm taking a too compassionate view on things. As TwistNHook told me, being a college football head coach is a multi-million dollar business -- and most importantly a business. Personal feelings can't come in the way of making decisions which will benefit the team.
(3) Eric Kiseau returns as WR coach. Hooray. I mean, like, seriously. Hooray. It can't be denied that some of Cal's best WRs during the Tedford era have been produced under the tutelage of Kiseau.
Now, what's this about Kiseau also being a "passing game coordinator"? Sounds to me like he's somewhere in between "WR Coach" and "offensive coordinator." I mean, he's clearly not going to be calling plays -- Ludwig will still do that -- but it sounds like he's going to have the abilities to work on a game plan with Ludwig on how to attack defenses by passing the ball. The fact that Tedford is giving him these abilities seems to suggest that Tedford has respect for his abilities to put together a good passing plan. Let's hope we can see the results next year.
[Author note: Since I wrote this, Okanes recently put up a blog post explaining what passing coordinator means -- it's basically just as I expected]
(4) DB Coach Simmons moves on to pursue other opportunities. A bit surprised here. There seems to be confusion as to whether he was fired, or if he truly left on his own terms. The timing suggests that this wasn't a firing. Tedford has (usually) been pretty fast to fire coaches after the season ends, usually within a few weeks max. So the timing suggests that Simmons really did leave on his own terms. But why? I didn't think he was really on a hot seat and perhaps left because he was feeling the pressure. DB play wasn't *that* bad last year. Obviously, there were some problems here and there, but Simmons has a long resume of producing good DBs and Cal's DBs were pretty good in 2008, which was a few years ago but wasn't ages ago. Overall, I would have been fairly content having Simmons around for another year.
(5) Ashley Ambrose is hired to coach the DBs. Pretty excited about this. He has NFL experience. I think this will be a good recruiting pitch. He's fairly young (40 years old). Okay, maybe not that young. He is from the south (born in New Orleans, and went to Mississippi Valley State for college), and might have connections in the south to open up recruiting efforts down there.
In the past few years, Tedford has really pushed hard to recruit nationally. Cal has made progress by signing recruits from the northwest (Washington), the Rockies (Colorado), the southwest (Arizona, and Texas), and North Carolina. But Cal has failed to successfully recruit from two of the other major recruiting areas in the United States: (i) Florida; and (ii) the rest of the south (Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana). Those two areas are RICH, I mean absolutely RICH, with top quality recruits. Cal hasn't touched those areas AT ALL. It's my suspicion that Ambrose will be able to help out with those areas.
On the down side, Ambrose coached at Colorado last year and their passing defense didn't seem to be that good at all. Colorado's passing defense was #112 in the nation (out of 120), for opponent passing efficiency. Yikes. Not good.
(6) Luck returns to the Farm. No surprise here. Kid sounds like a nerd. What's the price of turning down the opportunity of being the #1 draft pick in the 2011 NFL draft? Fifty million dollars. What's the price of staying in school, and obtaining a degree from Stanfurd? Quite literally, priceless.
(7) Harbaugh goes to the 49ers. Hallelujah. I'm not quite sold on him being a great coach, but he's done a good enough job down on the farm that I don't mind seeing him go. I was quite amused to hear that the Dolphins were going to offer him between seven to eight million dollars a year -- making him the second highest paid coach in the NFL -- despite having no NFL coaching experience. He certainly might be a great NFL head coach, but to offer him that much money right out of the gate, without even seeing his results first? Wow. I think it's a gamble.
(8) Rumors that Tedford is looking at other offenses to revamp the offense next year. I don't believe them at all. I don't see Tedford changing the offense at all. I wouldn't be surprised if it is substantially similar to what we've seen in the past few years. Tedford is a pro-style guy. He's not going to change his offense to be more like Oregon. I mention Oregon, because I feel like a lot of Cal fans have Oregon-envy right now, and are wondering why Tedford hasn't decided to copy Oregon's offense since it clearly works (sarcasm).
Why wouldn't Tedford change his offense to something like Oregon's? We don't have the personnel. It would take (potentially) years for the change to be implemented -- just look at what happened to Michigan. Having a pro-style offense is a good recruiting pitch. Tedford is a pro-style guy.
I've also heard some people wonder if Tedford will simplify the offense, completely dump the spread elements of the offense, and go back to his pure pro-style offense and smash-mouth running the ball offense of glory years. I presume people are pondering this due to their Stanfurd envy. I mean, I get it. The Furd runs the ball a ton, and even uses six offensive linemen sometimes. Why can't we do that? We used to do that (except for the sixth offensive linemen thing which we've only done about once). But what's sort of ironic about these grumblings, is that the Furd offense isn't exactly completely pro-style either. They do tons of other things. Their offense isn't always simple. Did you watch the Orange Bowl? They were doing everything that game. They used TONS of formations. The spread the field. They used tons of pre-snap shifts (something a lot of Cal fans hate). Stanfurd has so many plays they prepare for games that not only does Luck wear a playcall wristband, but the center wears a second one too with even more plays. Did you hear what they said on TV? There are 300 plays combined between the two wristbands (or was it 450? I can only remember it was a multiple of 150). Holy hell. Nothing simple about that offense between the number of plays, the number of formations, and the pre-snap shifting.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If Stanford could run 300 plays on offense, why are Cal players complaining about the complex the Tedford offense
If Stanford could run 300 plays on offense, why are Cal players complaining about the complexity of the Tedford offense
Btw, is there a edit function on this site?
For comments, no.
Yes for fanposts and fanshots.
I usually just put my own comment in blockquotes, strikethrough what I want to eliminate, and use italicized text for my insertions if my first comment really doesn’t make sense.
My adopted son: Jose Casilla.
Man of the Crazy Sink. And owner of a 103 ZiPS ERA+ in 2011.
lol
The author, who has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
So Hydro...
….can correct the spelling of K-I-E-S-A-U up there, but we can’t correct our comments down here. Got it.
It could get really weird, really fast if we could edit comments. For instance, if you reply “I agree” to something I said, and I later change it to “Does anyone agree with the following statement: Barack Obama is not American and also a member of the Underpants Gnomes party”, you would come off quite odd. It might be funny the first time it happens, but it would get old and confusing quickly…
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
We dont make the rules. If you have any concerns regarding the SBN interface, youd have to email the SBN Tech guys. Im no computer whiz.
The author, who has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
No, don't get me wrong...
….I don’t care about our ability to edit comments. I just wanted you to correct the Kiesau spelling.
I have never heard players really complaining about the complexity of the offense, just fans.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Didn’t Brock say something about it? That’s really the only time I’ve heard about it.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 12, 2011 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah he is the only person I have ever heard mention it, and I’m not entirely sure he is complaining about it either.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
considering he didn’t (perhaps still doesn’t) get the playbook at that time and didn’t exactly have Aaron Rodgers-like games, I think one can infer that the comment is being said with a Negative Nancy slant to it.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I dunno. He’s saying it’s hard, and you have to work to master it, but it doesn’t seem like he’s criticizing the playbook per se.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jan 12, 2011 10:53 PM PST up reply actions
So this would be one current Bear (brock) and a bunch of highly talented ex-Bears (Jahvid? Desean? ARod? Any other ex-Bears come back for a game this year?)
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Wouldn’t that mean a one way ticket to the bench?
It’s a nice place for people to go watch your stupid [2010 World Series Champion San Francisco Giants].
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jan 12, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Was also quite surprised by the Simmons release/fire, but was happy about the Ambrose hire. It seems like DB’s under Simmons were good in maintaining coverage with opponent WRs, but what they failed to do was look back to defend the ball. It happened over and over again, particularly in the Stanfurd game. DB’s were not getting burned per se, but they simply refused to turn their head around and make a play on the ball.
Images of Andrew Luck throwing into double coverage and Doug Baldwin coming down with the ball as both DBs are looking in the opposite direction will forever be burned into my head.
Looking back for the ball
I think this is blown out of proportion by fans. I know it is good technique and will help avoid pass interference penalties, but I don’t think a lot of fans realize that looking back for the ball can be really detrimental to the defender too. The defender has to be in good position first of all to be looking back for the ball. If he is not, then it doesn’t make sense to and he’s better off just focusing on face guarding or making the tackle. Also it is easy to lose sight and awareness of the receiver by looking back for the ball. This sort of ties back in with the previous point, that the defender has to be in good position. If he isn’t and he looks back and loses sight of the receiver then he’s going to give up a big play or a touchdown.
Ideally, we want all of our defenders to be looking for the ball. But unfortunately it doesn’t always happen because players aren’t in positions to look back for the ball. So as fans, we shouldn’t be complaining so much when a defender doesn’t look back for the ball but when he doesn’t look back for the ball when he is in good position and could have looked back but didn’t.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Ashley Ambrose
He’s fairly young (40 years old). Okay, maybe not that young
Easy, Hydro. Easy.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
In addition to lack of success, I seem to remember people being concerend that all of Marshall’s various stints were short….
Great recap of staff turnover so far.
I think Ambrose is one to watch for, especially since his numbers at Colorado were affected negatively by injuries to his secondary iirc. Also, the offensive philosophy will look better if we execute better as a result of different coaches; I think complaining about gamecalling is as old as football.
Getting the band back together
Coach M? Tedford’s already reunited with Kiesau. And who knows, maybe if Ludwig’s offense struggles again in 2011, we can welcome the return of George Cortez.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jan 12, 2011 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
Coach M is a viable candidate if he wants to return.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 12, 2011 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Simmons
Anybody who watched the end of the Arizona and Washington games won’t be surprised by this firing.
It’s also not surprising Luck is staying as there will be a rookie cap next season; no more $50 mil contracts.
I dont believe so. The CBA has yet to be agreed to, so anything is possible, but it appears that going forward there wont be any HUGE rookie contracts like weve been seeing in the NFL
The author, who has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
But how does this really affect his decision to return? If he’s the presumptive # 1 pick, he’ll make the most money of anyone in the draft, regardless of whether there is a rookie cap/wage scale. By staying in school, he risks injury and risks NOT being the # 1 pick in the draft — therefore making less, regardless of whether there is a rookie cap.
Basically, I don’t think the rookie cap/wage scale affects a draft-eligible player’s decision to leave early. The reason I can understand better is the specter of a lockout and the possibility that you’d be drafted and end up sitting without pay instead of learning, playing, and getting paid. But even that is not an overwhelming consideration, IMO. If you can ride out the financial impact of not being paid until there’s a new CBA in place (and I have to think that there are more than enough agents who would make sure their first-round draft pick clients are okay until that time), you are still going to get the financial reward when that CBA gets done.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
There are a lot of ways to look at it. I’ll list some various concerns that I thought of:
- If he enters the draft and a lockout occurs, how will that impact his development?
- What will the pay scale be for the new CBA? This concern is more than just what the #1 pick will receive. A couple of other things I can think of include the difference in incentive between a $50M+ guaranteed/$100M+ potential contract compared to a $15M guaranteed/$40M+ potential contract would provide – maybe he’s in that threshhold where the first would have tempted him but the second makes him think going to school another year is worth it. Also, how does it change the overall allocation of draft money? Maybe in addition to lowering the money for everybody, it makes draft picks more equal, so that if he drops 20 spots by staying a year, the financial impact is minimal compared to now when it would be enormous.
- Risk of getting injured
- What kind of insurance policy he can take out to basically offset the risks involved in going back to school
There are a lot of considerations. I don’t think it’s ever a simple thing, especially when we start projecting our own utility curves (yeah I work in economics) on someone else….
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t think there’s an insurance policy that would really cover the full impact of getting hurt. Maybe for a few million dollars, but not for tens of millions.
Anyway, I think the big issue is the uncertainty. We don’t know how to properly value the changes due to the CBA yet, so the potential impact of waiting a year may be enormous, which makes it a questionable decision to stay.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jan 12, 2011 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe for a few million dollars, but not for tens of millions.
Well it depends on how much you’re willing to pay for the insurance policy….
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
I saw a sportswriter quote the cost for a $10M policy the other day. It was not huge — less than $25K, IIRC, which, as they pointed out, his well-off parents could presumably easily afford.
1. High quality NCAA student-athletes can take out insurance policies to protect them should they get injured prior to entering the NFL.
Coastal Advisors is one company that provides this type of insurance, and according to Sports Illustrated’s Jim Trotter, a $10 million tax free policy for Andrew Luck would cost around $100,000.
http://sweatingthebigstuff.com/did-andrew-luck-make-a-smart-financial-decision/
$100K is a lot of money to spend to go to school for a year, and that doesn’t even factor in opportunity cost.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jan 12, 2011 8:42 PM PST up reply actions
Pretty sure they only pay it once they make the NFL and start bringing in the type of income that makes $100K not a lot of money….
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 6:47 AM PST up reply actions
But what exactly is covered? In other words, what would have to happen to Luck to make him able to claim the $10 million. How does the policy, for example, define “career-ending injury”? Does the policy include any provision for a decline in draft status?
My guess is that any insurance policy a prospective pro athlete might be able to purchase—especially someone potentially slated as a high first-round draft pick—just isn’t worth the money. Either the policy’s coverage is extremely strict and limited or it’s premium is sky high.
With the uncertainty of the NFL labor agreement, nobody knows how much money Luck is truly risking by returning for his redshirt-junior year. It’s probably safe to say the risk is in the millions, and in the absolute worst-case scenario, it’s possibly in the multiple tens of millions. There’s more to life than money, and it’s more than reasonable for Luck to return so that he can enjoy at least one more year of college football with his teammates, perhaps even making a run at a national championship and/or the Heisman Trophy. But from a strictly financial point of view, it’s definitely a foolhardy decision, for he’s got nothing to gain and potentially a great deal to lose.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jan 12, 2011 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
My guess is that any insurance policy a prospective pro athlete might be able to purchase—especially someone potentially slated as a high first-round draft pick—just isn’t worth the money. Either the policy’s coverage is extremely strict and limited or it’s premium is sky high.
It’s definitely worth the money – they’re popular, lots of players do them. And why wouldn’t it be worth the money? It’s not like the insurance company has to make some outrageous return for it to be worth it to them – they just need to make the premium you make on other insurance policies, since that’s the opportunity cost for them, so really, it doesn’t need to be an outrageous premium. Plus look at it this way – one situation you make the NFL and you have to pay a premium – but when you’re in the NFL you have enough money where it doesn’t affect you in any meaningful way. The other situation is something prevents you from making the NFL, and so you collect on your insurance policy, and you’re set for life. Either way you have enough money to live a very comfortable life, as long as you don’t blow it all stupidly.
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 6:51 AM PST up reply actions
I can see how such a policy makes sense for marginal players who may or may not make an NFL roster. There are lots of them to pay into a pool of premiums, and the insurance companies must have some really good actuarial data with which to work.
But it seems to me a player like Luck faces a much less common situation. He’s going to make the NFL, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, even if he gets seriously injured next year and/or struggles on the field. So the risk for him is the huge loss of money, at least on his rookie contract, from being (potentially) the #1 pick to someone taken in the lower rounds.
Do insurers write policies for this? I mean, when a $10 million figure for a hypothetical policy is mentioned, does that mean the insurance company is guaranteeing that his rookie contract will be worth at least $10 million? Or will they only pay that $10 million if Luck fails to make the NFL at all?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jan 13, 2011 7:26 AM PST up reply actions
Dunno the details. Hypothetically, the insurance companies could really insure whatever situation you want. Andrew Luck could go to them, and ask them for a $10M policy if the guaranteed part of his contract is worth less than $20M (or he doesn’t ge a contract at all for some reason). They would then figure out how much of a premium they want to make that worth it. I don’t know whether the premium would end up being something Luck would pay, but the point is there’s no reason they can’t provide a policy for anything.
Anytime I’ve heard about guys taking out insurance policies, it really has been the top tier guys, by the way….
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 8:08 AM PST up reply actions
Assuming he doesn’t have a career-ending injury, and I doubt he will, I think he knows he’ll do very well in the NFL draft this year or next (with a degree). The other point I’d make is that perhaps playing for the lowly Carolina Panthers is not where he sees himself and the wait is worth it to him. Besides, Rivera coaching Luck just doesn’t sit right with me personally. ;)
But any team who has the first pick is pretty much by definition, lowly.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jan 12, 2011 10:51 PM PST up reply actions
Ambrose could go either way in my book
He’s not proven yet and, despite his years in the NFL, could be a bust. We’ll see how our DBs perform on the field. I’m hoping he was a good hire.
No matter what additions we have made to the staff in any regard
I maintain that the biggest concern for this team is, and has been for a couple seasons now, the quarterback position. Can Tedford, the proclaimed QB guru, rediscover the magic which created that mantle in the first place? I feel confident about the running game continually having success no matter the featured tailback. I like the makings of our defense with the plethora of defensive lineman, incoming linebackers, and returning db’s with experience we will see next year. It’s just the QB spot that will really determine what we’ll do next year imo.
What did i tell you...didn't I say they would win? Yeah that's right I did didn't ? Wait.. what? They LOST?!?!?
this
To be honest, if any of our QBs excel next year it will be a big surprise to me.
by The Red Mamba on Jan 12, 2011 6:17 PM PST up reply actions
I’m feeling bullish on Maynard at this point.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jan 12, 2011 10:51 PM PST up reply actions
No, not because he’s black.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jan 13, 2011 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
Love the points on Ambrose having ties to The South. Great recap Hydro, thanks.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Thanks. I’d be nice to tap into the Southern recruiting. I think it’s hard though since it’s all about the SEC down there.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
This is something that’s interested me a lot. I don’t really buy that the South has that much more talent than California – just from a sheer numbers perspective. Yes, there are talented athletes in the South, especially in Florida and Texas, but I can’t believe that guys like Marshawn and Jahvid were 4* recruits and a state like Mississippi can produce like four 5* recruits in the same year. The population statistics are not in their favor.
I think the answer is starflation. LSU, Bama, and Arkansas offering a promising tailback from Jackson, MI looks a lot better to Rivals (and their subscribers!) than Boise St, Oregon, and Cal offering the same tailback from Richmond, CA.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’d bet the SEC population of subscribers is also far, far greater than any of the other conferences, so just from that alone they’ll give SEC recruits more attention and higher grades…
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

by 
























































