Trojan Horsed: How The Cal Defense Gave Up 42 To The USC Offense
Today, I begin taking a look back at the Xs and Os of the disappointing 2010 Cal football campaign. I'll start with the bottom of the barrel, the embarrassing 48-14 loss in the Coliseum against the USC Trojans.
We were all left seething after "42-0". A lot of just couldn't process it as it was happening, spouting out the usual pablum that follows a blowout like this one, such as "the players quit" and "our team is mentally soft" and "Tedford plays not to lose against USC". I knew most of those cliches were bogus, so I wanted to figure out exactly what happened in this game that led to such a calamitous first half result..
Note: I'll be publishing a full 30-40+ page review of the game (or maybe just the first half) very soon. Stay tuned for updates!
Here are some of the nitty-gritty details. Check it after the jump.
So what were some of the issues?
- As has been mentioned many times, the offense didn't help them out at all. Cal's offense ran 24 plays and picked up a grand total of three first downs (USC, by contrast, ran 45 plays and picked up 15 first downs while racking up a hundred thousand yards). Their first four drives went three-and-out, they punted on their first five drives, they turned the ball over on their subsequent two. They gave USC's offense great field position, as they only needed to march half the field to get to the end zone.
Still, this theme of offensive suckitude reared its head all of last season. The Cal defense still managed to be pretty game on most occasions, despite working long hours and garnering minimal benefits. So what were the specifics? - Matt Barkley had an efficient day. I still don't think he's an NFL-type quarterback (he throws a weird-looking ball that hangs up in the air a little too long), but he managed this game effectively. He made one ridiculous touchdown throw backpedaling in his stance. He looked off defenders surveying him with his eyes to one read, forcing them in one direction so he could throw to the now open receiver in the space vacated by the defender.
It was probably my eyes playing tricks with me, but Barkley seemed to take even wider steps in his drops on bootlegs and rollouts to avoid any potential blitzes. He was only sacked once in the first half, and never really felt any pressure on his big touchdown drives. - Cal's three down linemen got manhandled at the line of scrimmage. All of them, all the time, on almost every play. Safe to say that this doesn't happen often last season, but when our big three boys are having trouble getting to the running back, there's trouble brewing for the rest of our team. Full credit goes to the USC offensive line for the victory--they seemed to have all the answers for that incredible first half outburst.
- Derrick Hill is usually a force to be reckoned with, but USC's center Kristofer O'Dowd and Khaled Holmes did an excellent job handling him. His backups at the nose position (Kendrick Payne and Aaron Tipoti) didn't fare much better. Even when Hill got into the backfield, there was precious little support for him from his ends or his linebackers.
- Probably most shocking of all was how little Cameron Jordan was a factor in this one (only three tackles). I don't know much about how Tyron Smith performed against other defensive ends/linebackers, but I'm sold on him having an NFL future at right tackle after watching his performance against Jordan. He had quick feet, kept his body low, had great head leverage, locked his arms up, and generally nullified any effect Cal's best pass rusher could have on the game. Jordan's array of pass rush moves were generally defeated. He was not a huge factor in run defense, other than tailbacks fearing his presence on the field.
When Smith was spent, Holmes also did some nice work on Jordan too, and both of them teamed up on occasion to double team him to take him out of the play. Stanley Havili had some nice pin blocks on running plays to sandwich Jordan further into Smith's grasp. - USC used Cal's aggressiveness against them. Here's where I play defensive coordinator. USC seemed to know coming in that Cal's defensive linemen wanted to plug the gaps and make plays in the backfield, but they were confident enough they could handle their line one-on-one regardless. So when they couldn't get into the backfield on one-on-one blocks, the offensive linemen that weren't blocking defensive linemen (usually two or three guys depending on whether there was a tight end) filtered to the second level and took out the linebackers, and there wide open holes for the Trojan tailback on the play. The result was a wildly successful Trojan run attack that averaged nearly nine yards a carry in the first half thanks to wide gaping holes. I'll explain this a little bit more over the week.
- I'd have liked to see a more disciplined effort from our D-linemen in holding open gaps for linebackers to make plays, particularly for two excellent tacklers in D.J. Holt and Mike Mohamed up the gut and skilled guys like Chris Conte and Mychal Kendricks to make plays on the outside. Our aggressiveness up front, especially with our ILBs playing inside run on too many occasions, took them out of plays when the blocking was ready for those maneuvers, and made it much harder for our remaining unblocked defenders to handle the ball-carrier.
- I know Pendergast's scheme dictates more run at the quarterback, but at some point you have to adjust and realize that the guys up front aren't going to let you get past them with the gameplan you've implemented. Adjust.
- After watching the gametape, I can see why Al Simmons was released. Most of the errors committed by our defense seemed to emerge from the secondary. Poor ball awareness, bad pattern reads, weak tackling angles, getting pump faked and falling for quarterback lookoffs, curious technique--defensive backs seemed to always be making mistakes. USC's wide receivers are exceptionally talented, and Matt Barkley did have some nice throws he fit into windows, but come on. Giving up five passing touchdowns in one half isn't acceptable at all, and many of those throws could have been defended with better coverage skills. Getting burned by a double move or a pump fake gets old after it happens four or five times.
- As HydroTech noted in his postgame thoughts, Pendergast didn't blitz an incredible amount, but he did blitz from a lot of different angles. Some of it worked. Some of it did not work (in one case, it backfired spectacularly, but more on that at a later time). We blitzed the inside linebacker, we overloaded with safeties, we sped rushed off the edge. We got one sack on the second drive and forced a three and out with one such blitz, but after that everything was gobbled up by superb USC pass protection.
- A Bob Gregory gameplan would've kept us in the game longer. Now let's be clear. Cal would not have won this game with either defensive coordinator because of how putrid the offense was. But Gregory never gave up that many points in one half. He made sure our defense was disciplined in its assignments, forced opponents to grind up the field, hit the soft zones consistently, not make mistakes, and if you did all those things, so be it. Most of the time it worked, sometimes it failed. But we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten cleaned up like we did that dreadful Saturday.
40 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"Matt Barkley had an efficient day"
I think that may be an understatement to describe his first half play. His accuracy was ridiculous on some throws and some mistakes made be the defense made his numbers go up.
Eh. His accuracy was ok, but I wasn’t quite as impressed as I was with, say, Luck. His receivers made great adjustments to the throws, and a lot of them were just wide open in the zones via receiver moves.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Apr 12, 2011 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
"Cal's three down linemen got manhandled at the line of scrimmage"
I agree with that. The DL got pushed around and turned like rag dolls more often than usual. SC came to play and if my memory serves me correctly, they were already pissed off from losing 2 close games in a row so they were really fired up to play Cal. Back to the original point, I think this game showed how talented the SC OL is when they actually come to play. Their execution and toughness were near flawless and ideal against Cal in 2010.
USC has pro talent at every position on offense so it doesn’t surprise me that Cal’s 3 dlinemen weren’t all that successful.
We didn’t lose the game because of coordinators. We lost the game for the same reasons we (almost) always lose against USC: we get handled in the trenches on both sides.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like everyone seems to get fired up to play Cal for some reason.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Apr 8, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
"Probably most shocking of all was how little Cameron Jordan was a factor in this one"
That wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t recall everything that happened in this game (I rewatched the first half only once, and quickly at that for reasons we all understand ;) but I recall Jordan struggling to hold the point of attack when he was double teamed has always been a problem for him. I think I covered a play or two from 2009 where he was blown out of the tv screen by a double and Oregon in 2009, I felt Oregon adjusted their running attack to his side. I’m not saying it’s easy to fight off doubles but I believe he still struggled at times with this in 2010. I am also not sure if SC gameplanned away from him this year since I have not watched the game closely. Lastly, your observation on Tyron Smith is money.
I wonder then – is Jordan really a good fit for the 3-4 at the next level if he struggles to hold his ground against double teams? I know not all 3-4 schemes are the same, for instance, Pittsburgh has their 3-4 DE’s take one gap and get up the field, while SD has their ends try to maintain gap control and hold their ground better (which means more double teams, I think)….but overall, I think 3-4 ends usually have to be able to hold their ground, right? Maybe he’d be a better fit as a strongside DE in a 4-3 that can also shift more inside on passing downs?
by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
From I’ve read he’s better as a 4-3 DE in the NFL. Combined with Hill liking 4-3 DT better than 3-4 NT, having no monstrous 3-4 NT, and no spectacular rush LB it is my opinion the 4-3 (with 4 real Dlinemen) would have been better for teams like USC.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
"I know Pendergast's scheme dictates more run at the quarterback,"
I think a better way to describe this is that his scheme concentrates on pressuring the quarterback and winning one on one matchups, which Cal struggled with mightily in the first half. I recall one play where Kendricks was defending the tight end and he cheated and peeked back at the play. What happened next? Pass completed over his head for huge yardage. Plays like this aren’t necessarily the scheme that’s the issue but more of defenders not handling their assignments and winning their one on ones.
“So when they couldn’t get into the backfield on one-on-one blocks, the offensive linemen that weren’t blocking defensive linemen (usually two or three guys depending on whether there was a tight end) filtered to the second level and took out the linebackers, and there wide open holes for the Trojan tailback on the play. "
That was part of the run defense issues but aside from the man blocking, I also have to add that SC’s zone blocking in the 1st half was phenomenal. Their zone runs took advantage of the D’s aggressiveness and provided huge cutback lanes.
Pretty Good write-up, Avinash
Looking forward to reading more of it
Think positive
I think the analysis is solid, but why not spend your energy on other pursuits rather than on a 42-0 loss? I guess if I don’t want to read about that game, I don’t have to.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
I think the blowouts are actually the most interesting. I definitely want to know what went wrong with the defense in those few games.
by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Its because you’re a contrarian. If we say ‘blue’, you’ll probably say ‘red’.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
There’s more to be learned from a bad loss than a win! I just like to learn.
by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
(USC, by contrast, ran 45 plays and picked up 15 first downs while racking up a hundred thousand yards
Is that mathematically accurate?
The internet's most successful troll!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I know some people like Gregory better and some like Pendy better….I think you’re more on the mark with the fact that neither made some in-game adjustments when needed…..also I think our personnel was hit and miss the last couple of year….in 2009, Gregory’s defense gave up 42 to both Oregon and Washington…..That Oregon game was almost as bad as the USC game…..All those times are offense was putrid so I"m tend to put more blame in that area more and more….if simply from an exhaustion standpoint…
Thanks for posting this
Several arguments had been made that the offense’s poor play contributed to the blowout. While the offense certainly didn’t help, I was never comfortable minimizing any of the blame on the defense—-they were just as bad. I’m glad you were able to confirm this so I didn’t have to watch that awful game again.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
Cal’s three down linemen got manhandled at the line of scrimmage. All of them, all the time, on almost every play.
I would think this would be the most important aspect of the analysis. If the line is being manhandled, what can the defense really do? RB’s are going to have nice holes to run through, so the running game is effective, QB is going to have all day to pass, and the defense doesn’t know what’s coming because everything is working against them. Sounds to me like there were a lot of contributing factors, but this factor in particular was important. If you’re getting manhandled up front, your defense is going to have a rough time regardless. At least with some of the other things there are ways to overcome it (like poor secondary play can be mostly negated by stuffing the run and getting to the QB)….
by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 9:02 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
The manhandling
is why I’m happy we also switched strength coaches this year. There has always been a big discrepancy in our line play between bad teams and good teams. From the numbers I remember in other threads, the size of our D line is commensurate with other large D lines. When we play small teams we blow them up. When we play teams of equal size, we lose. It isn’t the talent, as we have 2 D linemen in subsequent years that will go in the first round of the draft.
It leads me to believe that our strength and conditioning is inferior to top level programs. We’ll see if that improves this year.
Could also be technique, but really, I’m just throwing things out there now, as I know nothing about football line technique….
by Missing Barry on Apr 9, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I haven't read this yet...
…but I’m already dreading it (and looking forward to it in an ever-so-Berkeley masochistics way)
We don't do so well against pro style offenses? What does all this mean?

by Redonkulous Bear on Apr 8, 2011 9:14 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Rather than pro vs spread, II think the common theme is d-line play. Washington, Arizona, and Oregon all featured good to excellent D-line play. All the other losses, including Nevada, the D-line play was mediocore to poor.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
They are quite amusing
Far less amusing is knowing that my Beavs lost to that LOL offense :(
LOL can be tough to figure out sometimes…
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Apr 9, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Did we play 3-4 defense the entire game?
If so, would we have done better with the 4-3? Thanks in advance.
We did, from what I recall. The issue is that we didn’t have enough healthy tackles to play a 4-3. Hill, Payne, and Tipoti were nicked up all year.(both Payne and Tipoti required offseason shoulder surgery). Kaufusi was still rehanging his shoulder, and Costanzo was only used when everyone else couldn’t go. With the new DTs coming in, we might be able to switch between 4-3 and 3-4 in a year or so.
Old Toothwrangler
How does one re-hang a shoulder? :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Apr 9, 2011 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions

by 




























































