Cal Football Defense Roundtable: The Gregory-Pendergast Transition

by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 4, 2011 3:00 AM PST in California Golden Bears Football

1. Do you prefer Clancy Pendergast's defensive scheming to Bob Gregory's more fundamental style? Why or why not?

HydroTech: I like seeing QB sacks, and QB pressure. However, I do recognize that pressuring the QB is risky and pressuring the QB cannot be done in a reckless manner. So it's hard for me to say whether I like Pendergast's (somewhat) more aggressive schemes, versus Gregory's sometimes aggressive schemes.

I think the fact that Pendergast was willing to put some of our CBs on islands with opposing receivers demonstrates faith in those CBs to hold their own. I think those CBs like that demonstration of trust, and it makes the game for fulfilling and rewarding for them.

Kodiak: It's a little early to tell. When we had a bunch of savvy, experienced players, Gregory's D tended to do okay. You could quibble about the inconsistencies of in-game adjustments or defending spread attacks. However, you also have to point to the fact that we rarely got blown out, did have a couple of years where we forced a lot of turnovers, and played some of our best ball against the toughest teams.

In fairness, we had a better offense throughout most of those years, so the defense wasn't put in the untenable position of trying to play a perfect game. On the other hand, whenever we needed our defense to get a big stop this year, it just didn't happen. I think either system can be run successfully with the proper players. Gregory's depends on developing players to where they know where they're supposed to be. Pendergast's seems to be a little easier for young guys to pick up, but might also be more dependent on having great athletes. With our recent influx of talent, it will be interesting to see what Pendergast does in year #2. I think that this past year was a learning experience for him with regards to what college-level personnel can and cannot do consistently.

Even if I suspect that a well-executed BG defense might be superior to an equivalent Pendergast defense, the real advantage of Pendergast's scheme is with regards to recruiting. Young guys like to run, hit, and attack. For right or wrong, if forging a defensive identity that features aggression allows us to attract blue-chip talent, then let's do it and take our chances.

LeonPowe: I don't think this decision can be made in a vacuum, meaning that with our offense currently in a rather inept state, an aggressive defense may be what we need. On the other hand, I think the negative memories of Gregory may be clouding people's minds - or even have influenced my opinion. It wasn't that long ago that Gregory's defense led the NCAA in turnovers - or we had that awesome secondary that picked off over 20(?) passes.

Now that I'm arguing with myself, I would say, when we have a kick ass offense - I prefer Gregory's scheme. A few of us older Bears have seen a really aggressive defense when paired with a sputtering offense - and the results weren't good. When we have a less-than-ideal offense, and have to rely on the defense to win games, I like the aggressive pursuit.

solarise: I'm a savage at heart. High-risk, high-reward D is really my jam. I enjoyed Coach P's willingness to take chances but that's not to say Coach Gregory did poorly.

With one year of Pac10 under his belt, I expect Coach P's D to improve even further w/ new blood such as Cecil Whiteside, Chris McCain, & Gabe King in the Pac12. Things didn't work out smoothly in Arizona [in the NFL] but there's a chance that in the college level there is not enough talent & prep time weekly to overcome Coach P's aggressive schemes.

2. Did the defense overachieve, underachieve, or perform to your expectations? Are you worried about the defense playing superbly well on some games, but getting carved up like pumpkins on other occasions?

HydroTech: I think the defense, overall, was above average. Obviously, there were some fantastic games. Then there were some complete duds. Taking all the games into consideration, I think our defense was a slight cut above the rest.

Kodiak: Considering how badly the defense played last year and the fact that our entire secondary was largely inexperienced, struggling, or unproven, they probably met my expectations. However, I am very worried about the total collapses we saw at times this year. Whether that was scheme, preparation, or execution, that has got to be an area of focus during the off-season.

LeonPowe: They hit all three categories- so I think that's wildly inconsistent. There were a few great games - Oregon, Arizona, UCLA and a few oh-my-god, are we in the 90s again? games. It's difficult to assign a performance grade to the entire season. Incomplete.

solarise: I am overall pleased w/ the development of our defense. Granted we were crushed at times but I always felt that our defense gave us a chance for 3 and outs.

3. What was the biggest strength of this defense? What was the biggest weakness?

HydroTech: I think the biggest strength of the 2010 defense was the defensive line. We seemed to have a lot of experience and playmakers at those positions. I think the biggest weakness of the defense were the linebackers. Aside from Mohamed and Kendricks, the rest of our linebackers were hit and miss.

Kodiak: Biggest strength was the D-line. Biggest weakness was the OLB opposite Kendricks, and a lack of depth at CB that got exposed when Hagan and Anthony were nicked late in the year. You could also point to a lack of a consistent pass-rush against better O-lines. We still haven't had a guy step up like Pain Train to where the offense has to account for him every play.

LeonPowe: Strength: Defensive line and QB pressure (especially from kendricks at the LB). Weakness: I'd say a real lack of caused turnovers.

solarise: Two words. Cameron Jordan. He commanded double teams and was relentless chasing QBs down or tackling RBs from behind. Recovering a fumble for TD against Washington was a great send-off for Cam.

4. What will be the part of the defense that needs to improve the most between this year and next?

HydroTech: Linebackers. We are going to have a lot of inexperienced players at linebacker. They'll need to show a lot of growth and discipline by 2011 so they are not a liability.

Kodiak: Consistent execution and learning to play fast, but also remain disciplined. Our younger LB's and safeties were especially vulnerable to mis-direction all year.

LeonPowe: Catch the ostrich!

solarise: Discipline. I am eager to see Coach P's defense in year two to contain the big plays and keep the Bears competitive in the Pac12.

Poll

I was ____________ our defensive performances in 2010.

very satisfied by

47 votes

satisfied by

189 votes

indifferent to

25 votes

dissatisfied by

15 votes

very dissatisfied by

3 votes

279 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Linebackers. We are going to have a lot of inexperienced players at linebacker. They’ll need to show a lot of growth and discipline by 2011 so they are not a liability.

This x100
A major key part in a 3-4 defense is having experienced linebackers that are good at both coverage and run-stopping (a.k.a. another reason why losing Chris Martin really hurt us in the long run). The main reason the last time we had a defense that was considered outstanding was 2008 when we had Zack Follett, amongst other seasoned linebackers.

Hopefully our incoming recruits and fresh meat are really looking forward to getting their hands dirty.

"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3

by Swamphunter on Jan 4, 2011 3:31 AM PST reply actions

We are going to have a lot of inexperienced players at linebacker.

Isn’t this the same thing we were worrying about at this time last year? Either this is going to become a perennial issue, or our younger LBs didn’t do a lot of growing in 2010. And, if that’s the case, there is little hope of a magical switch going off and them suddenly becoming dominant.

My gut says that our LBs will be solid, if underwhelming, next season. My hope is that Kendricks and Holt play steady (okay, that Kendricks is a monster and Holt is steady), and that the younger boys progress and play within themselves.

Well, you're not hardcore unless you live hardcore.

by SoCal Oski on Jan 4, 2011 8:44 AM PST reply actions

Mixed feeling about the defense

…they played hard every game, but came up short at crunch time in games that were winnable (AZ, OR, and UW). Yes they got beat by flukey or outstanding plays by the opposition, but that’s the difference between winning and losing. On the other hand, it is a team effort and, frankly, the offense went missing in many games, including the blowout losses.

by bluehenbear on Jan 4, 2011 8:49 AM PST reply actions

I’ve also pointed to the AZ, Oregon, & UW losses as instances in which the defense fell just one series short. It is hard to criticize the D for any of those losses – particularly considering how incredible they played the entire rest of the game. But in each of those, if they just had gas in the tank for one more stop, things would be really different.

Of course, if the offense was at all capable, this would be moot.

Well, you're not hardcore unless you live hardcore.

by SoCal Oski on Jan 4, 2011 9:44 AM PST up reply actions

yes, but......

Don’t those amazingly gifted coaches somehow pull out a scheme, alignment, personnel grouping to stop those 4th qtr drives? Taking away the OR game (just because they were running out the clock), we should have found a way to make stops to win the AZ & UW games. 7-5 is world’s different than 5-7. Given the fact that we didn’t show up for the $C & Snod games, we really needed those wins.

I also remember when Clancy was hired, folks on this board were bemoaning the way the Cardinals lost to the Steelers in the Super Bowl on the last drive. All great defensive performances, but with all the same result.

by cal85 on Jan 4, 2011 12:13 PM PST up reply actions

I’m willing to accept that 2011 may likely be a 4-7 win season, but I just want appropriate rebuilding measures taken so that 2012 and beyond doesn’t suck. By that I mean:

- start an underclassmen at RB and/or QB if the talent difference isn’t that substantial compared to the upperclassmen if the underclassmen has a higher ceiling.
- stop desperate flip-flop moves like trying out MSG at LT/RT when he should have stuck at LG and leave Wilkerson at OLB and not ILB. For an example of positions mismanaged, see: Hill, Conte, and Kendricks. Let dudes grow and become a master at their craft, not relearn the playbook and assignments every 1/2 season.
- Let the people that you’ll be leaning on in 2012 see the field a lot, even if it costs them a game.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Jan 4, 2011 10:33 AM PST reply actions

I agree about starting underclassmen. The worst part about Riley’s injury was the lack of hope shown by Mansion. Sweeny hasn’t been much better in his limited action. If those two are just going to be serviceable and there’s a hot shot amongst the young guns, let them take take their learning lumps next year.

by cal85 on Jan 4, 2011 12:07 PM PST up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Golden Bears Football Schedule

Fresno St.	Sat 09/03	W 36 - 21
@ Colorado The Ralphie Report	Sat 09/10	W 36 - 33
Presbyterian	Sat 09/17	W 63 - 12
@ Washington UW Dawg Pound	Sat 09/24	L 23 - 31
@ Oregon Addicted To Quack	Thu 10/06	L 15 - 43
USC Conquest Chronicles	Thu 10/13	L 9 - 30
Utah Block U	Sat 10/22	W 34 - 10
@ UCLA Bruins Nation	Sat 10/29	L 14 - 31
Washington St. CougCenter	Sat 11/05	W 30 - 7
Oregon St. Building The Dam	Sat 11/12	W 23 - 6
@ Stanford Rule Of Tree	Sat 11/19	L 28 - 31
@ Arizona St. House Of Sparky	Fri 11/25	W 47 - 38
@ Texas Burnt Orange Nation	Wed 12/28	L 10 - 21