Cal Football: A Golden Spotlight on the Pistol vs. the UCLA Bruins
by Kodiak on Nov 1, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintThe writers at CGB realize that we have reputation to uphold. No matter how dismal or dark the hour grows, we somehow find a way to keep the sunshine pumps on overdrive. And so it was with a heavy heart and several adult beverages that I looked to the game film and tried to find a way to put lipstick on this pig. Sorry, folks. No manner of uber-make-over could make this swine any less hideous...so I punted barbecued.
UCLA goes 11 personnel, 1 back, 1 TE, and 3 WR. Cal counters with a Cover One zone look. Campo is lined up over their innermost slot receiver. Cattouse is playing zone behind Anthony/Campo and matches up with their middle receiver. Campbell is deep in centerfield. It's a bit of an odd choice schematically because you have your best corner (Williams) in run support, and you're leaving your LB/S lined up against two WRs.
It looks like a run out of the Pistol. Cal is rushing four. Campo rushes instead of dropping into coverage. The Cal middle linebackers maintain spacing and gap responsibility. The Cal secondary drops into zone coverage.
Campo comes crashing down inside on the running back. The rest of the line is locked up with the Bruin Oline. Prince reads Campo and decides to keep it.
Prince pulls it back and starts off running to the outside. Holt starts drifting laterally, but gets crack-blocked by a Bruin wide receiver. Cattouse has responsibility for the quarterback.
Cattouse reacts decisively, takes a good angle, and makes a sure tackle to stop Prince for no gain. Sadly enough, this play may have put us over our quota for stopping the opposing quarterback on Pistol keepers.
Pistol, part deux. UCLA is again with 11 personnel, 1 back, 1 TE, and 3WRs. Cal is still in a Cover One look with Cattouse matched up on their slot receiver.
Guyton is left unblocked and comes crashing in to tackle the running back. Prince reads Guyton and decides to keep it. Meanwhile, Cal's middle linebackers have drifted too far to the strong side...
Prince keeps the ball and takes off. McCain can't get off his block. Mullins is now out of position and is caught up in the wash.
Prince has a wide-open running lane. The safeties and corners are still caught up in coverage.
Ten yards down the field, Campbell and Cattouse converge on Prince.
Campbell is blocked out of the play. Cattouse misses the tackle.
Prince runs another 10 yards, then drops the ball before Williams can tackle him. For those of you scoring at home, this was the same scheme as the earlier stop, but less than ideal execution.
After cleverly lulling UCLA into a false sense of security by allowing their slow-footed quarterback to rumble twenty-yards. The Cal offense took advantage of Kevin Prince's fumble to set-up shop for the Best Offensive Sequence Of The Day.
1st and 10: 5 yard pistol run up the middle with Sofele
2nd and 5: Play-action fake, roll out left, Miller with the one-handed grab to set up 1st and goal
1st and goal: Pistol, play almost blown up from a missed MSG block. Maynard scrambles to the 1.
2nd and goal: CJ Anderson power blast for no gain. (Missed block by H-back, Ladner)
3rd and goal: Pistol give to Sofele off-tackle and he runs over the linebacker for the score. 7-0 Bears!
Let's take a closer look at how Cal Offense fared the rest of the day:
via osxbook.com
Final Thoughts:
1) The guys just weren't in the proper mindset for this one. We're not good enough to come out and expect to just sleep-walk over another Pac-12 team. There was almost a sense of "any second now, we're going to flip the switch." That's on the coaches and the team leaders. We know that Tedford's just not a rah-rah guy. Fine. We figured out the past two years that it's a poor fit when he tries to emote and headbutt players. It sounded like Coach Blasquez had done a great job of addressing team chemistry, mental toughness, and accountability during camp. Either it takes more than one year to turn things around, or perhaps there's still an inherent systemic issue.
2) Maynard's big mistakes were particularly noticeable and memorable. But, guys were making execution errors all over the field. UCLA wasn't doing anything fancy on offense or defense. We lost too many one on one battles. In particular, our tackles let their defensive ends run right by them, we got little push up the middle, and our TEs missed blocks on the edges. The inability to run the ball in short yardage situations was highly disappointing and may have influenced the playcalling. On defense, players took turns taking bad angles, blowing gap assignments, and struggled getting off of blocks. In stark contrast to last week, our Dline lost the battle of the trenches. And on the perimeter, their receiving corps and tight ends man-handled our guys all day.
3) The coaches didn't do the players any favors in terms of preparation or with putting them in a good position to succeed. Like he did against Nevada, Coach Pendergast seems to have made a number of fatal assumptions with regards to what our personnel can and cannot do. In some ways, he out-smarted himself by devising an aggressive scheme designed to get TFLs. By sending a defensive end or OLB crashing inside against their RB, it might give you a chance at a big play. But, this assumes that your MLBs and safeties will be able to make the right read and get to the edge in time. More often than not, this just wasn't the case.
4) Round peg. Square hole. Throughout his tenure at Cal, Tedford has been enamored with the dual-threat quarterback. He's brought in athletes like Kyle Reed, Joe Ayoob, Brock Mansion, and now Zach Maynard. In theory, the ultimate college offense is one where the defense has to account for the quarterback instead of having an 11 on 10 advantage. But, not every running quarterback is going to be Tim Tebow, or Cam Newton. And, neither Tebow nor Newton were asked to run the Tedford offense. Is it possible to recruit and develop that type of player at Cal? Maybe. But the odds are apparently against us. If we're going to run a pro-style offense, let's use a pro-style quarterback. If we're going to commit to a spread-style pistol attack, then we need to go all in and run it more often instead of as a change-up. It feels like in trying to do both, we're not able to consistently execute with either style.
I don't think it's in Tedford's comfort zone to abandon his pro-style playbook - so let's stop kidding ourselves. We're a pro-style team. If that's our identity, let's recruit players who fit that style of play instead of trying to mold athletes into something that they're not. If this truly is the twilight of the Tedford era, we'll remember one of the key criticisms was the recruitment and development of the quarterback position.
5) Sometimes, words fail. This game epically stunk. It was perhaps one of the most disappointing efforts that we've seen in the past decade. I'm sure that the players and coaches are as upset and embarrassed as the rest of us. It's on them to decide whether this failure breaks them, or whether they use this as a rallying point to turn it around. As fans, we're at a similar type of crossroads. Some folks only follow the team when they're doing well. Others have a strange fixation on only discussing the team when it's doing poorly. And then there are the sorry Old Blues who may very well be the most confused souls on the planet. Even so, there's something to be said for laughing at Fate, damning the torpedoes, and embracing the unique agony of Cal fandom.
At this point, I simply do not know which way this team and program are headed. Either way, I'll still be proud to be a Cal Bear and I'll be watching every potentially horrifying moment. Go Bears! Please for the love of Oski, let's beat the Cougars.
108 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Do they still use still frames on the sideline to coach up the kids?
Kod, perhaps you could coach up the coaches. You know, how to adjust, adapt, improvise.
PAIN!
by Anchorsteam Bear on Nov 1, 2011 7:40 AM PDT reply actions
I'm sure this is a great post.....
But I can’t read it. I could go back to the Nevada post-game last year, but I just can’t read that either.
Fundamentals: every time you can hit the QB, do it and do it hard.
I’m making believe this game just didn’t happen; I’d rather have lost to Presby.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
It is a mystery to me why we wouldn’t direct our DE/OLB to crash on the QB and take our chances with their RB. Seems like inside contain would be easier than the edge, especially with inexperienced OLBs, but veteran ILBs.
If it were that easy, I suppose Nevada’s offense wouldn’t be so potent…Or Alabama. Perhaps it’s because the RB is usually considered the more dangerous threat.
Old Toothwrangler
Those were my thoughts as well…..not even being an x’s and o’s guy like you Kodiak, we usually do great stopping the run between tackles so why didn’t we sell out on the outside to stop Prince? Seemed to me if we couldn’t stop the run between tackles we are doomed anyway….so focus on the the outside runs and let the D’line and contain man stop the middle run.. I have to say, I always hold the coaches responsible for the mental conditioning of the team and tend to put more blame on them because I hate to be hard on the kids, since as Mike Gundy say, “they are men”….but why are these kids still taking bad angles, missing assignments and in poor position?…..Are they not listening or are they not being coached…. Sorry, Old Blue here that is confused like you wrote…
My worry is...
….that they are doing exactly what they are told to do, and that is the wrong thing to be doing. It’s simple math: if A (OLB crashes the RB) then B (QB keeps ball and runs it down your f@cking throat). So, make it look like you’re doing A and then do C (drop the QB like a sack of flour).
I don’t know……
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I'd go with stopping the RB
I can see crashing the RB – I don’t think anyone thought our DB’s would be blocked so well by their newer receivers, or that Prince would actually run well…gotta figure they thought we could stop the run AND keep Prince bottled to the outside with Cattouse and the corners.
I’d hit the QB every single time. Whoever is unblocked should hit the QB, and let the LBs in the box play the RB. Especially UCLA team. They had no passing game to speak of, so keep the DBs in man coverage and focus the LBs on run support.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 1, 2011 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought Gundy said that they players are kids, and it’s the coaches who are the men.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 1, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
It is a mystery to me why we wouldn’t direct our DE/OLB to crash on the QB and take our chances with their RB. Seems like inside contain would be easier than the edge, especially with inexperienced OLBs, but veteran ILBs.
Pendy grossly underestimated Prince’s running ability. This shows his troubling lack of preparation or judgment, because there is readily available tape of Prince destroying Texas last year with his feet much the same way he did again Saturday. If he employs the same scheme next year vs Prince (or vs Nevada for that matter), we’ll know he is as stubborn beyond all reason as JT.
by Nasal Mucus Goldenbear on Nov 3, 2011 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Here’s the worst part of this defensive debacle. We supposedly “learned” how to account for what is basically a QB run-read option offense after we were Kaepernicked. At least, it seemed so after we Kendrick’d ucla and managed to keep the duckers in check.
So, what the fuck happened this year? Was it Pendergast just having a case of amnesia about how to scheme a defense for a one-legged ucla offense? Is it that Cattouse is just not any damn good at actually defending, and him earning a spot on Sports Central highlight reel after getting Luck’d last year was exactly what he is good for? Was it that the entire defensive coaching staff neglected to inform our kids that tackling is part of the game?
Or was it that our guys honestly were surprised that the ucla boys had the sheer, unmitigated audacity to try and win the game?
Honestly, I really would like to know.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
Based on the post-game interviews
it seems like everyone knew exactly what to expect (including Pendergast and Cattouse).
It sounds like a failure of execution to me.
Bring Hill back! I think he’s an excellent fit for Pendergast’s defense, a sure tackler, and fast (remember Fresno State and Wylie?). Why he wasn’t on the field against UCLA is a mystery to me.
i thought it was campbell who chased wylie down
whose domicile? our domicile!
by hardtobecalfan on Nov 1, 2011 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, it was Campbell.
Hill did have a good game against FSU. Been a bit up/down since then, however. His best play was the pick-6 last week.
He played this past weekend when we tried to go more nickel. Didn’t have much of an impact.
He’s probably better suited for safety than corner. I wonder if they’ll move him back to safety next year since we’ll have three solid corners in Williams/Anthony/McClure.
Old Toothwrangler
Yeah, it was Campbell.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 1, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with this statement. All the post-game quotes suggested that the players knew their assignments — they just weren’t handling their assignments well. It was a failure of execution.
I have. It’s very possible that Clancy had a bad game plan. I don’t deny that. But bad results doesn’t always mean it was a bad game plan.
But do bad results also mean that the problem wasn’t execution?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
This is true too. And that’s why I’m always trying to break film down and figure out if it was execution or scheme. I’m very open to the possibility that losses are caused by bad game plans, just as much as I am open to the possibility that losses are caused by execution problems. But I think there are many ways to defend an offense, and given proper execution, one game plan could probably be just about equal to any other.
Of course, you still have to run some game plan within reason. For example, defending runs with defenses designed to lock down passes, is of course, not going to cut it. But alternatively, defending the zone read either using a scrape-exchange or not, is perfectly fine if you adjust the defense based on whether you’re using a scrape-exchange or not.
My thinking is that your outside players are probably best served defending the edge of the field
Taking your outside players and crashing them every play to the inside and then expecting the guys behind them to make the plays while the outside players essentially take themselves out of the play by running to the wrong spot does not sound to me like a sound plan.
I can’t disagree with your concern there. Having OLBs crash in on the RB and expecting the Ss further back to be able to quickly come down in run support to account for the QB is difficult.
We were able to do this successfully last year against Oregon thanks to Conte’s great play that game.
If a coach doesn’t want to have his outside players crashing down on that RB, then there are a few alternatives to defending the zone read. First, you have that outside defender (usually either that OLB or DE who gets read) just pause, and wait to see what the QB does with the ball, then pursue. This is what Gregory had our defense do. This keeps the outside defender defending that outside edge. Unfortunately, the down side to this strategy is that it makes the defenders reactive instead of proactive. It also makes the defense vulnerable to zone read playaction. If you refer back to my posts from the 2009 Oregon game, I demonstrate how Oregon’s playaction killed this defensive gameplan.
Another alternative is that you run a scrape-exchange. In this situation, you do have your outside defenders crash in on the RB (thus giving up the edge of the field), but you have a LB loop around into the alley to contain the QB should the QB keep the ball (which he probably will if you have your outside defenders crash in on the RB). This situation does have your outside defender giving up that outside edge, but you do have another defending coming around (from the inside) to the outside to defend that outside edge. Actually, this is essentially what Cal is doing but it just uses a safety instead of a linebacker. In other words, one could say that Cal is running a scrape-exchange — just with a S instead of a LB.
So bottom line, there are a couple of ways to defend the zone read. Each way has its own weakness. It’s sort of like a “pick your poison” type of deal.
Scheme: Have outside defenders pause and react to QB.
Weakness: Reactive defense; vulnerable to playaction; can sometimes pit a slow DE against a QB resulting in a mismatch.
Scheme: Scrape-exchange with a safety.
Weakness: Outside defenders nearest the LOS give up outside edge; safeties are required to quickly approach the LOS for their QB responsibilities which also takes them out of pass protection and makes the defense more vulnerable to pass.
Scheme: scrape-exchange with a linebacker.
Weakness: Outside defenders nearest the LOS give up outside edge, and LB must be able to match up against the QB for open field tackles.
Definite weaknesses but how then did all those other teams beat UCLA?….did they have better coaching or better talent than Cal, because UCLA barely beat SJSU at home and SJSU actually scored more points then we did.?…I’m seriously asking what made us more vulnerable
No, this is a good question. I think part of the problem is just pure execution. Guys not getting off of blocks fast enough. Guys letting themselves get blocked. Guys not making tackles. I’m not saying it’s 100% execution. A few schematic adjustments could probably be made in every situation here and there, but we just have to have all 11 guys winning their positional battle more often than not on every play.
Thanks for the breakdown on the defensive options.
Guys not getting off of blocks fast enough. Guys letting themselves get blocked.
I think this was one of the biggest issues I saw. I was curious why we didn’t play more man on their WRs since it seemed like our corners should have been able to hold their own.
I suppose the trade-off there is that the corners aren’t in as good a position for run support.
Old Toothwrangler
I love these breakdowns of plays of why things did, or did not work, but I think a large element of this game is related only to how motivated the players were. The UCLA players were motivated, they played with intensity and passion, the Cal players didn’t. It’s neither scheme or execution, but desire.
Don’t ask me how to fix this.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Evidence? Link?
Not that I don’t agree with what you just said, but that seems to be the pat response for people who express an opinion that people disagree with
YUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Actually agree with Yogi…I get blasted for speculation with no facts….but saying the Cal players had no desire is conjecture are best…..double standard again?…. Only a player can tell you if he has no desire unless you are a mind reader…ARGGGHH…
Slight correction
Scheme: Have outside defenders pause and react to QB.
Weakness: Reactive defense; vulnerable to playaction; can sometimes pit a slow DE against a QB resulting in a mismatch.
Having the outside defender pause and react to the QB doesn’t really make this scheme vulnerable to playaction. What I was thinking of was that Gregory did this, but he also played zone defense. Doing this scheme with zone defense makes the defense vulnerable to playaction. If you play man coverage and use this scheme then the defense will (hopefully) be less vulnerable to playaction because the CBs aren’t as worried about covering the QB should he run towards their zone (since those CBs will be in man coverage down the field).
Why can’t you have the outside player crash in on the QB instead of the RB?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 1, 2011 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, you can. It just comes with a consequence. That consequence is that you’re now giving up the cutback lane to the RB since the outside player has given up the edge/outside containment.
So then if you do want that outside player crashing in on the QB instead of the RB, then you need another defender to come take the place of that defender and account for the gap you just gave up.
Sure, but that’s what we were doing anyway the safety (Cattouse usually), right? It seems to me that the pistol handoff leaves the RB much closer to the line of scrimmage than the QB would be if he decided to keep it, which would make it harder for the RB to get to the edge than for the QB. I just feel like going after the QB is the better strategy.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 2, 2011 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
It seems to me that the pistol handoff leaves the RB much closer to the line of scrimmage than the QB would be if he decided to keep it, which would make it harder for the RB to get to the edge than for the QB.
You are correct.
An OLB should crash the QB, not the RB. With our better developing young talent in the DL, Pendy will probably (hopefully) in the future have more trust in his line and MLBs to stop RB runs up the middle.
by Nasal Mucus Goldenbear on Nov 3, 2011 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions
You’re thinking it was more legislation?
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Nov 1, 2011 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Have you considered that the plan was bad?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
it’s probably true that both the plan and the execution were bad
whose domicile? our domicile!
by hardtobecalfan on Nov 1, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
i wonder: if a plan is so difficult that we cannot execute it, doesn’t that make the plan bad?
For example, is this plan good or bad?:
The defensive tackle accounts for every player on the team—they are all his responsibility. If the QB takes it, it is the DT’s responsibility to hurdle the blockers, outsprint him to the edge, and tackle him. If the RB takes it, the DT picks up his blockers and throws them at the RB, knocking him down for a loss.
Thus, we can say after the fact, “we had all players accounted for, we just didn’t execute.” (tipoti sniffles—“but they were REALLY heavy!”)
This post is not meant in earnest, BTW.
The problem since 2007 has been discipline
I’m normally just an occasional reader of this site, but after last Saturday, I had to find a rational explanation, and I’m interested to hear everyone’s take on my conclusions. I’ll start with the adage that the four biggest metrics of coaching performance are – 1) turnovers, 2) penalties, 3) halftime adjustments, and 4) improvement over the course of a season.
The Tedford era as we knew it began to fall in 2007, when lack of discpline crept into the program. Now what I found very surprising was the following:
From 2003-2007, Cal’s average national ranking in number of penalties per game was #32 (out of 120 teams).
From 2007-present, Cal’s average national ranking in number of penalties per game is #78!
Obviously, penalties alone aren’t the explanation for our recent demise; they are a metric for the recent lack of discipline. When you consider that lack of discipline manifests itself in other manners, particularly execution, the picture becomes much clearer.
The 2007 season crushed Tedford’s confidence in his ability to manage a team emotionally, and he has wandered through the wilderness in search of his old mojo ever since. In the process of trying to get the team team to sing “Kumbaya”, he has neglected the discipline he used to instill, and he must realize this ASAP.
I think you’re onto something with the discipline angle. You could also say “attention to detail,” or “the little things.”
I remember guys used to sit after putting the ball on the turf. No longer. I’m not certain if they used to sit after drops, repeated silly penalties, or missed assignments. But, perhaps doing so would get their attention.
It almost feels like we’re out-scheming the other team at the expense of out-executing.
What’s surprising to me is that I would guess the majority of our penalties are on the Oline. Coach M lines have been tough, nasty, and disciplined in the past. Maybe it was too much to ask for him to undo two years of Marshall overnight.
Old Toothwrangler
Agree with both of you....
…..there’s the type of team that fouls you because they want to put the hurt on you and steamroll you, like the 1991 team, and then there’s this team whose penalties are just of the f***ing stupid variety. And it never ends. it’s a miracle when a kickoff return goes without penalty these days.
Kodiak,
I like your take regarding the o-line, especially considering how long it took to fix Galas’s snap problems (can we really say they’re fixed now?). But I also think holistically we can tell the discipline issue runs far deeper than just the o-line. Any ideas on other metrics that could prove more convincing surrogates for overall team discipline?
I’m sorry, but I think I’d need better game film, football knowledge, and insider team knowledge to give a better analysis. Some type of breakdown by position looking at missed assignments might be more specific than just penalties/turnovers. For instance, rounding off a route, missing your gap, or blocking the wrong guy.
From a fan’s perspective, I think your original four metrics are not a bad place to start.
Old Toothwrangler
TORTURE
/Kruk
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
I think the big problem this year was losing our 4 senior defenders, 3 of whom were of course NFL draft picks. Without that leadership, especially with Mohamed in the middle, they all looked lost out there. Cattouse was invisible, Williams was missing tackles, and the linebackers seemed out of position EVERY play.
As great as Cam Jordan was, and as steady as MikeyMo was in the middle, it seems like Conte might be the biggest loss from last year’s team.
Next year will be interesting. We’ll have new starters at both safeties and both ILB spots. And we open the season with Nevada visiting Memorial.
Old Toothwrangler
In deference to grieving Cal fans everywhere, I canceled the 30 page series on the interceptions where I use pictures to explain my predetermined conclusion that they weren’t Maynard’s fault and that the playcalls were positively brilliant. ;)
Old Toothwrangler
Thank you.
You saved me a couple gray hairs and now I don’t need to replace the dry wall in my house.
Well, maybe, just maybe Maynard is nothing more and nothing less than he was at Buffalo….usually I don’t put much credence into other internet yahoos but some comments about Maynard are eerily similar to what we see today…. I think this kid is giving all he’s got but still shows the same problem areas he did in Buffalo…..decision making and interceptions are just part of the deal…
I’ll Give you a recap:
Horrible decision making, accuracy issues, immaturity and pouting on the field, terrible body languauge, suspended for part of a game, etc.
- He was facing the worst defenses in the country in the MAC and still had us nervous every play. His big games were the result of the best recrieving core weve ever had.
Maynard would have been a fine Mid Major QB, hell he might be able to swing it as a starter in the Big East. But he had trouble with the defensive schemes that Akron, WMU, and Kent threw at him!
He seems okay against man coverage because he has stud WRs like KA and Jones who can win their individual matchups.
Zone really seems to mess with his head. Especially if the defensive coordinator throws a wrinkle like disguising a man look with zone, or lining up an LB in blitz position before dropping them.
I guess the Cal staff thought they could coach him up. Maybe he has shown improvement in camp and in practice, but reverts back to bad habits when under stress.
Old Toothwrangler
From the famous MSU rant (9/25/2006)
“From the very top to John L Smith Jeff Teford to the very last player on this football team with an irrelevant number and no name – it was an out-and-out choke job. You will never sell me that Notre Dame UCLA won that football game. On the contrary, mon frere, Michigan State Cal handed it away like a nice three-button coat at the Salvation Army.”
I can't read this
Sorry Kod. I’m sure it’s a great post but this is not how I want my morning to be.
In other words, Go Bears!
According to Ryan at BearTerritory
Looks like Scarlett is out for the season (too late for medical redshirt) and Maynard is still the starter (as of now).
why am i not surprised
whose domicile? our domicile!
by hardtobecalfan on Nov 1, 2011 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I thought if you played in 3 games or less that you are still eligible. Has he played in more than 3 games or am I wrong about that?
Well, if that's the truth, Tedford has finally lost me
I hung in with Braun until the next to last season, finally gave up my season tix. Looks like the same story now with JT.
by SanMateoBear on Nov 1, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Link?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
RGBearTerritory Ryan Gorcey
#cal LB Scarlett out for the season. Knee surgery acc2 tedford. 2 late for medical redshirt. 8 mos. Recovery time.
http://twitter.com/#!/RGBearTerritory
Thanks!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
CF2, we can’t keep giving Twist all these links. He needs to grow up someday and become a proficient internet user instead of a successful troll.
Then, I’ll make a big ruckus, because I am a hypocritical asshole.
-TwistNHook
BRING ME MORE LINKS! I DEMAND IT!!!!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
hot!
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 1, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I applaud your honesty
The BSOD picture was a nice touch at the end
One thing about UCLA’s pistol offense, which nobody has really mentioned and which makes it a little more tricky to defend, is that they line up their RB directly behind the QB. By doing this, they are not tipping their hand as to which way they are running the zone read. Compare that to Oregon who clearly tips their hand as to which they are running the zone read because they (usually) line up their RB to one side of the QB without any pre-snap motions to change this.
So since UCLA does this, it’s basically requiring the safety with the responsibility of covering the QB to quickly diagnose which play the zone read is being run. Furthermore, if Cal is playing both its safeties in zone coverage (such as a Cover 2, or two-deep) then UCLA’s tactic also ends up splitting the coverage responsibilities between Cattouse AND Campbell. They both have to be aware of which which way the zone read is being run, and if it is being run to their side, then they have run support duties (covering the QB).
That’s a good pick up, Hydro.
I’ve been poking around trying to figure out if there was anything written up on the best way to defend the pistol zone-read; ie. scrape exchange vs. non. I know that Cal switched up their scheme several times throughout the game. Unfortunately, everything I’ve read emphasizes discipline, covering your gaps/assignments, and having your safeties make the right reads.
Old Toothwrangler
If you make your OLB's reponsible for defending the edge, it doesn't matter
So long as they stay home and defend the edge until they are certain that the play isn’t coming to their side, they don’t have to anticipate which direction the play is being run.
This is true. And this is what Gregory did against the zone read in the past — albeit with DEs since Cal was using the 4-3 back then. Unfortunately, this strategy does come with its own weaknesses too.
There are different ways to defend the zone read. Each has its own strength and weakness. See my comment above for a more detailed breakdown of each.
I just don’t think it’s a clear cut black or white issue to say that one scheme is better than the other and Pendergast SHOULD have been having OLBs responsible for defending the outside edge.
omg this
4) Round peg. Square hole. Throughout his tenure at Cal, Tedford has been enamored with the dual-threat quarterback. He’s brought in athletes like Kyle Reed, Joe Ayoob, Brock Mansion, and now Zach Maynard. In theory, the ultimate college offense is one where the defense has to account for the quarterback instead of having an 11 on 10 advantage. But, not every running quarterback is going to be Tim Tebow, or Cam Newton. And, neither Tebow nor Newton were asked to run the Tedford offense. Is it possible to recruit and develop that type of player at Cal? Maybe. But the odds are apparently against us. If we’re going to run a pro-style offense, let’s use a pro-style quarterback. If we’re going to commit to a spread-style pistol attack, then we need to go all in and run it more often instead of as a change-up. It feels like in trying to do both, we’re not able to consistently execute with either style.
I don’t think it’s in Tedford’s comfort zone to abandon his pro-style playbook – so let’s stop kidding ourselves. We’re a pro-style team. If that’s our identity, let’s recruit players who fit that style of play instead of trying to mold athletes into something that they’re not. If this truly is the twilight of the Tedford era, we’ll remember one of the key criticisms was the recruitment and development of the quarterback position.
That whole section said a lot of things that were sort of bouncing around in my head but I wasn’t able to put into words really.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
Throughout his tenure at Cal, Tedford has been enamored with the dual-threat quarterback. He’s brought in athletes like Kyle Reed, Joe Ayoob, Brock Mansion, and now Zach Maynard.
I actually disagree with this. I don’t think Tedford has been enamored with dual-threat QBs. I think Reed’s athleticism was overblown, and mostly due to racial stereotyping (Reed being black and coinciding with the Vick era in the NFL). Ayoob was fairly fast, but I didn’t really see him as a true dual-threat guy. Mansion’s athleticism is overrated; he’s got a monster arm but alas no accuracy. But I do think that ZM is a truest “dual-threat” QB that JT has brought in.
While Tedford does always look for athleticism in a QB who can bring that escape dimension to the game, he’s always looking first and foremost for a guy who can pass. QBs are passers first in Tedford’s offense, not runners.
While Tedford does always look for athleticism in a QB who can bring that escape dimension to the game, he’s always looking first and foremost for a guy who can pass. QBs are passers first in Tedford’s offense, not runners.
It is not accurate to say Tedford is “ALWAYS” looking “FIRST AND FOREMOST” for a guy who can pass. JT has signed several athletic QBs who are better runners than passers—extremely unimpressive accuracy percentages at the prep level. E.g. Brock Mansion, Beau Sweeney, Austin Hinder, Zach Maynard. Also, Kyle Boehm ended up in his senior year with ~60% accuracy (big improvement but still not good enough by Pac-12 standards where the top half of active QBs pass in the mid-60s or higher against much better Ds), but when JT offered a scholie to him Boehm had a junior year accuracy mark of only ~51%. There is a definite and real problem in how JT has scouted many of his QBs (the factors he has deemed more important than accuracy); with Maynard, that scouting error has worsened to an error in choosing his starter.
by Nasal Mucus Goldenbear on Nov 3, 2011 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Defending the Zone Read Option via Scrape Exchange
Kodiak/Hydro -
I think you’re right that the pistol does present a unique challenge as far as defending the zone read, but think your best bet is still the scrape exchange. Unfortunately, at that point is absolutely comes down to execution which I think we saw a failure of on the part of our safeties (someone above referenced our shutting down Oregon successfully using the scrape exchange, which you recall was dependent on Conte playing out of his mind). I’m not entirely certain why they wouldn’t utilize our MLBs for the scrape, other than the fact that with the 3-4 they have greater gap responsibility to protect against the run.
A point I think also bears mentioning (no pub intended) is that the likely reason we had the DE or edge defender crashing down so hard was that, in general, our larger 3-4 DE do not have the speed to slow play the zone read.
If you read Chris Brown’s break down over at Smart Football, he quotes Gary Patterson at length discussing how they defend it. Since the QB should always be able to make the defender wrong (hence the whole point of the option), if you can develop or recruit edge defenders who can run, they can in effect slow play the read, force the QB to delay his decision and/or track down the ball carrier. Cal doesn’t have that option due to the larger DEs required by the 3-4.
Marshawn Lynch would drive a cart around the field after the game to celebrate your mode and its beastliness, sir.
Very cool article. Thanks for posting the link! I knew I had seen it somewhere, but was having trouble finding it in between work today.
I’m also not sure why we didn’t use our MLBs more effectively for the scrape. I could see an issue when Mullins was in that he might have made the wrong reads and scraped to the wrong side. Perhaps knowing that Kendricks would be out to start the game, we gave the responsibility instead to the safeties.
It’s also possible that we tried switching things up and alternated between the S/MLBs for the scrape to avoid having UCLA key on blocking the DE or OLB and reading the MLB instead. (Sorry, I’m not going to re-watch the film)
I did think that we tried switching to our big nickel look which subbed in OLBs as DEs along two linemen as a way of putting more speed on the edges. Unfortunately, I think that’s when UCLA countered with their power running game and power back (Coleman) with some effective off-tackle runs against our lighter line.
My suspicion is that we tried a variety of different schemes, and may have had a better shot and figuring out a more effective fix if not for the turnover/field position issues that kept occurring. Even so, key breakdowns happened far too often, no matter what we tried. As you said, it absolutely came down to execution and we whiffed there.
Old Toothwrangler
Good article
I think if you go into this game thinking about downside risks of doing things, you come to the following conclusions.
1. You assume that their passing game is not going to gash you and that you let your corners have one on one responsibilities with their receivers until they prove they can beat it consistently. This allows you to get two defender up on the line of scrimmage that will help with your outside contain (assuming that the receivers don’t consistently defeat your corners in run defense).
2. While you always have to worry to a certain extent about the RB plunging through the middle of your defense for a large gain (especially down one of your starting LB’s), I still think you need to worry about the edge of your defense more. Assume that your three interior linemen are going at least fight their four offensive linemen (depending on where the play is going) to a standoff most of the time and let your ILB’s and deep safety clean up on the times when the RB gets through the first line of defense. They may break off the occasional big play, but not enough that you should overcommit resources here.
3. Do commit your OLB’s to beating the ever-loving crap out of the QB regardless of whether he hands the ball to the RB or not. To me, this is the key factor in any run-heavy spread offense. You want to make the defense account for that 11th player? Well prepare to watch him get pummeled. This was the flaw in our plan against Nevada and it looks as though we liked how that worked out so well that we repeated the plan vs. UCLA. On the off-chance that the QB fakes the handoff and goes back to pass, well that gives you another shot at repeating the “beat the every loving crap out of the QB” portion of the plan.
4. Use your safeties to account for extra WR’s as necessary and one to protect deep (matching the QB). Given the passing prowess of the QB in this game, be willing to cheat him forward and dare them to do something about that.
Given all that, we’re going to struggle for consistency in any game where the playmaking abilities of our safeties and LB’s need to be depended on because in the case of our LB’s, they’re either young (McCain and Whiteside), slow (Holt), or not that good (anybody above the level of a redshirt freshman excepting Kendricks who wasn’t completely healthy and not in the game the whole time. Such is life. Given our situation, perhaps a 4-2-5 was a better plan, but maybe we’re just not capable of specializing our defensive plan from week to week given our personnel. I think that anything that emphasize simple sensible decisions for our LB’s is always the best course of action. At best, I’d say the gameplan we used gave them simple non-sensical decisions.
4.
yep. I’ve always liked the “destroy the QB” option-buster. This is what the SEC ran against Tebow (and why he was always bloody by the end of the game). If Prince could take that kind of beating, then he deserves to win the game. I don’t, by the way, think that Prince could take that kind of beating.
There are lots of different ways to beat the option. The way we’ve been trying (safety spies QB) worked once, but clearly has been schemed against by every successive option team.
To my way of thinking, our linemen were the key component vs. Oregon
It’s nice that the safety gets to clean up at the end, but if your DL are winning the battle consistently against the OL, regardless of what system they’re playing, you’re in pretty good shape. That said, the downgrade from Conte to the next best player obviously isn’t helping that strategy any.
In fact, Cal actually does use the scrape exchange. I break it down in an above comment, but Cal is basically running a scrape exchange using the safety, instead of a linebacker.
As for your other comments regarding our DEs and slow playing the zone read, I do agree.
Absolutely agree and though it was a great breakdown- sorry if that was confusing from how I wrote it earlier, but was questioning why you think we’re utilizing the safety, especially one fairly far back from the LOS rather than a MLB swinging to the outside?
I can see the upside/downside to both – with the safety you should have greater speed to close on an athletic QB (see: Conte v. Thomas), but feel like unless you’re reading and reacting quickly (first play outlined above) you’re going to give up at least some positive yardage once the QB makes the decision to run. By using the MLB, you have someone closer to the LOS who may be a bit slower, but who also has the possibility of forcing a loss. Without watching the game tape, I was hazard a guess that the safety responsible was also simply getting caught up in the wash with receivers man blocking to the outside, which resulted in more gains for Prince.
To me, this is certainly one of the advantages of running the zone read out of the pistol vs. more traditional shotgun, since the QB is closer to the LOS to begin with and gives the defense a tougher read on the exchange as the run can go to either side of the field.
Marshawn Lynch would drive a cart around the field after the game to celebrate your mode and its beastliness, sir.
by thebusinessbear on Nov 2, 2011 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I’m not sure why Cal is using a safety instead of a linebacker.
As you said, there is upside and downside to either.
Safeties:
Positives: faster; keeps linebackers defending their gaps which they are used to doing.
Negatives: further away from the QB, can result in the defense being a bit more vulnerable to pass.
Linebackers:
Positives: closer to LOS to stop for a loss or minimal gain
Negatives: slower defender who has to make open field defenders; would require the safety to play gap control in place of the linebacker (who is doing the scrape-exchange) and safeties may not be as comfortable with that than a linebacker.
To me, I would think one of the most significant determining factors is the speed of the QB. If he’s a burner, put a safety on him for the scrape-exchange. If he’s a slower guy that you feel your LBs can cover, then use a LB for the scrape exchange. Why Pendergast chose a safety this game despite the fact that UCLA’s QB isn’t an extremely fast guy? I don’t know. Maybe he wanted to keep things simpler for the guys and stick to something that they had already done before. I don’t know.
Just another thought...
Of several game plans that could have been enacted, each of which gave us a statistical chance of dominating, the ones that were selected required a level of execution that, however possible, was simply not attained that day. The coaches looked at UCLA’s tendencies and made some guesses as to what would transpire, and they were wrong. Prince actually ran his ass off.
Oops. Schucks. Next game. Will probably win decisively, since that’s what we’ve been doing for a while – up one week, down the next, up a little week 3, flight to hell the next, kick-balls-ass the next, ect.
Trying to figure us out is like getting 90% success at roulette.
Over the years since I’ve left Cal, I’ve tried to do less thinking, since in the big picture, no one gives a rat’s hairy ass what I think anyway, and my state generally always goes Democrat.
Soon, I’ll enjoy watching Nascar. Bliss…..
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 |
